tugela

7 hours ago, Jimmy said:

Yea...... I'm sure you'll switch it off when you are on legit apps?!

As someone who makes their primary income from app ad revenue . ... I find it baffling that you are on here crying about people who reupload others work, yet are fine to steal content from app publishers.

Umm...I don't think he is stealing anything. The misappropriation is by the people posting the content (which is not an app btw) on Youtube.

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 11:09 AM, Cary Knoop said:

May I suggest you donate it to someone who would appreciate it? 

Perhaps a film student who can't afford to buy a new camera?

 

I have tried giving it away to people I know a number of times, but no one wants it.

My T3i is gathering dust because it is junk for video, unless you are shooting SD.

Yes. That is the reason they left the industry. Because a clip you shot one time was green. That's it.

Toshiba PDR-M70 please.

That is basically the same issue I had with my G30. It was OK when shooting close up, or at distance in telephoto, such the target object filled the screen, but zooming out beyond a certain point and the lack of resolution turns everything to mush. The G30 uses the same encoder used in the M5 (also 35 mbps), which is why I knew it was probably going to be inadequate by todays standards.

The G30 had a touch screen, focus magnification, zebras and peaking as well, so it is not like any of those things are new for Canon (in fact, most of that, other than the LCD, was on my older 10S as well). Them being on a stills camera now, especially one hyped for its video focusing, all I can say is about frikken time!!

1 hour ago, Inazuma said:

On paper I like this camera a lot because of the DPAF and ability to use EF lenses but it uses the same sensor as the 80d with a slightly upgraded engine, so your best bet on image quality is to look at 80d stuff. The video is too soft for me.

The bit rate is 35 mbps, the same as in consumer point and shoots, so don't be too optimistic.

Just a point of safety, pointed wooden sticks can pierce and kill just as well as steel. If the young one stabbed at the older girl, there would be tears for sure. Be careful with the little ones if they play like that.

21 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

To compensate from the resolution loss from debayering you would need to oversample from 8K to 4K perfectly like the F65.

Anyone got a spare $300,000?

6K will get you pretty close. No oversampling will be perfect, but there will be diminishing returns after a certain point. 50% in both dimensions should be sufficient to get pretty close (I would guess something like 95%)

Based on what we see from non-oversampled sensors, resolution still has a way to go for many manufacturers.

In modern cameras oversampling in a debeyered sensor is pretty much a must to maximise the information the camera is capable of gathering. Saying "it doesn't matter" is dumb IMO.

The problem with smaller sensors is not resolution so much, but rather light scattering on the sensor surface, which results in "unfortunate" effects such as purple fringing with certain lighting conditions. You can usually see right away when footage has been shot with a small sensor because of highlights blooming when the light comes in from particular directions. So, in general to maximise the quality of your footage you really want a bigger sensor. Personally I would not choose anything smaller than an APS-C sensor for footage that I considered important.

Coin flip.

No, they are not in the business of processor design. Samsung is. That is why it was realistic for Samsung to do it, but not other camera companies.

Them not being in the processor design business is what holds a lot of them back as well, such as Canon and Nikon in particular for example. People go on about "marketing segmentation" and "holding features back", but the reality is that manufacturers are limited by the capabilities of the processors available to them. Samsung makes processors, so they had state of the art tech available to them. That is why the NX1 was ahead of its time. Other manufacturers to a greater or lessor extent do not have that luxury and have to use what they have.

How much do you get paid to push products?

The reason other manufacturers don't offer H.265 is not because it is better/worse than other codecs, but simply because they don't have the resources to design the hardware encoders in their processors. They already have H.264 encoder logic designs so they just use that instead. Samsung was different because they DID have the resources, having designed the necessary logic in processors for other devices they make.

They are not worried about the screen itself overheating, more likely it is the increased draw on the battery (which will generate more heat in the body) which is the reason for dimming the LCD.

All of these things relate to heat management within the thermal envelope of the body. That is unfortunately the price you pay for high performance in a compact body.

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

Unlikely AF system contributes to heat

New sensor and more DRAM on the back, maybe.

 

In this case it may well do that. The main change in the camera is the new AF system. It uses many more AF points, which means that the processor has to do an order of magnitude more work (if you are using all of them - however, I don't think that is the problem). More importantly, faster focusing physically means that the motors have to respond faster and the rate at which power is drawn from the battery is faster. If you are using CAF it is entirely possible that may be contributing to heat buildup. If he has it in movie mode and is using CAF, the waving the camera around while not actually shooting is going to cause the motors inside to go into overdrive to keep up, which has to be generating significant heat. Power does not come for free.

Based on my experience with the RX100M3, you get more flexibility shooting footage in photo mode rather than movie mode anyway (you don't need to be in movie mode to record video), so I would suggest that the OP do that instead. That way the camera is only focussing when you are shooting.

7 hours ago, Lintelfilm said:

 

 

Resolution in C-Log on all Canon cameras (C100, XC10, whatever) is EXACTLY the same as it is in the other profiles.

Sharpening is turned off in C-Log by default, so that can be one explanation for the perceived difference in detail.

However - and much more crucially here and on the other XC10 thread I think - higher contrast is read by the human eye as "more detail". This is just a fact. It's an optical illusion if you like.

That's what this is about - perceived detail - not resolution. The resolution is the same.

If you want a "punchy" image with well defined lines/detail, you may be better capturing it in camera than trying to get it back in post from footage shot with a log profile on an 8-bit camera. 

Log footage is low contrast by nature, and therefore perceived resolution will always be lower unless you put all the contrast back in (and probably in the process sacrifice some dynamic range). You can't have it both ways  - particularly not with an 8-bit codec.

I always used to marvel at how much "punchier" graded HD images from my BMPCC were compared to my 4K GH4. This was because I would be able to put loads of contrast back into the 13-stop prores image without dropping down to an 8-stop result. Whereas I'd always try and coax as much dynamic range as I could from the GH4 and always end up with mushy detail. Of course the GH4 had far more resolution than the BMPCC, but stretching the lower dynamic range resulted in images that were less contrasty. Add the BMPCC's higher bit rate and colour depth to its superior dynamic range and you have what is arguably a more detailed image - certainly a richer one.

While I really do love 4K on my XC10, I think there is a real danger on forums like this of pixel peeping in such an analytical way that you forget to look at the image as a whole. Nobody watches films at 300% inches from their screen. 4K is largely a marketing thing pushed by TV manufacturers (yes I'm talking about you Panasonic, Sony, Samsung). It's an easily understandable number that can be stuck on a camera or a TV to sell them as "better". For high-end cinema 4K is certainly becoming an almost-necessity, but we independent filmmakers would be wise to remember most of our favourite films from the past several years were shot on the 14-stop dynamic range, RAW/prores, high colour-depth shooting Arri Alexa in HD/2K. None of us left the cinema saying "I'm going to watch a David Fincher film next time because he uses RED cameras so I can see more details in the actor's shirt."

Sorry, I'm having a ranty day. x

 

Not if you are debeyering off a sensor like that on the XC10, because the image is reconstituted from multiple pixels. The effective resolution will be determined during debeyering depending on whether it is luma weighted or chroma weighted. After debeyering and the limitations of the lens, the effective resolution from a XC10 is really 2K.

In order to get relatively unaffected optimal resolution you need an oversampled sensor, preferably one that images at 6K (which should give a good approximation of 4K after debeyering). This is why cameras like the NX1 and A6500 have much better resolution.

The only real 4K cameras out there are those that do a full sensor read off a 6K image.

They don't notice any of the other things people here wringe their hands about either, but that doesn't stop people from talking about it.

The bottom line is the story told by your content. The only time you need to worry about "flaws" is when your story is crap, because then the audience is watching the image rather than following the story. If you have a great story people will forgive the image, but if your story is not great you had better damned well have perfect resolution, great lighting and all those other things. Particularly if you are shooting natural history.

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 10:42 AM, hijodeibn said:

Sony skintone is terrible, and this new camera is US 1,500, mmm!!! there are much better options out there…..

What is wrong with the skin tones? The outdoor scenes looked normal, while the concert scenes were shot under red lights, so obviously white balance is not going to be correct.

10 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

Let´s see, better IBIS in the market now, do not overheat, you can literally stay filming the whole day, colors (no need to justify this one, it is so obvious), and you can move the camera around with confidence, not an horrible RS like the A6500….yes, it is a better camera for an experience filmmaker, who has the skill to manage the focus, who also use a pro audio equipment and do not rely in very bad audio camera recordings, a Z1 is really cheap, and a powerful tool in the right hands……of course for a blogger who is doing casual videos for youtube and lack of the skills learned by the pro, probably the A6500 could be a better camera, but I think those guys were smart enough to choose the Canon 80D, since they really don´t need 4K after all……the new A6500 was just released this year since Sony knows after the GH5 is in the market is game over for this line, the only think that could save it is if Panasonic is stupid enough to set a price around US$ 2,000 instead of US$1,500, if GH5 is released at US$1,500 the A6500 will devalue most probably 1/3 of its current price the same day!!!…..and guess what?, yeah, the Canon 80D will cost just a little less,  those tricky smart bloggers really know what they are doing….do not underestimate them!!!!

Both the A6500 was designed for high end consumers, not moviemakers, so the "flaws" that concern you are irrelevant for the target market.

The A6500 will not lose "1/3 of it's current value in the same day" when the GH5 is released, because the GH5 does not have the brand presence in the target market. YOU might like the GH5 (or some other camera), but that does not mean the A6500 will become irrelevant.

The NX1 general ergonomics is an ideal size IMO. A lot of the mirrorless cameras are too small, while most of the DSLRs (excluding the pure consumer versions) are too big. Just like Goldilocks and the three bears, there is a size that is just right.

Sony's next gen cameras should start arriving in 2017, so they probably won't need to be warned for long. Plus, there is the GH5 coming. Samsung don't need to be warned because they don't sell cameras any more.

Oh, and why can't someone make a speedbooster specifically for crop mode video on the Canon 5D4? Presumably a lot of them will be sold and there could be some demand for something like that.

The 1DX2 is not really an option for most people due to it's size I think. It is kind of clunky.

Read 620 times....by 22 people.

Unlikely. 4K enabled sets are the bulk of models on sale today. Anyone buying a mid to high end set is going to have a 4K screen. In a few years those will be the only screens you can buy other than bargain basement models. HDR will NOT be a mature feature before 4K is.

Anyone who is buying a new TV and buys a 1080p screen is being very shortsighted.

17 hours ago, dhessel said:

The reason why Trump won is because Hillary Clinton and the democratic party tried to force their will on the American public. They stacked the deck against Bernie Sanders and basically cheated him out of the nomination. They then continued to use all of their connections to try and stack the deck against Trump- getting debate questions beforehand, getting sent articles and news reports for editing from the media, etc... If it had not been for wikileaks exposing all of this we probably never would have none what they were trying to do. The DNC, Clinton, and their connections int the media tried to supplant Clinton as president.It wasn't about what the people wanted it was about what they wanted. In doing so they had a canidate who is one of the most corrupt and hated polititans out there. Looking for someone to protest, someone to blame, look no further than the Democratic party. They tried to force Hillary on us, they failed and this is the result. 

The reason Bernie Sanders lost the nomination is because he did not get enough votes. Clinton beat him among actual democrats in votes by quite a big margin. People forget that. The only reason Sanders was competitive at all was because he got most of the votes from the independents (= republicans) voting in open primaries, and most of the caucus states which heavily favor activists. If the nomination contests had been limited to closed primaries only Sanders would have been crushed in the vote.

If Sanders had been the Democrat candidate he would have been crushed in the general election. He would have been portrayed as a socialist with policies that would inhibit growth, and that would have been enough to persuade middle class moderates to hold their noses and vote for Trump. Sander's message might sell well on the left, much like Cruz's message would sell on the right, but both of them would not have been able to persuade the center. The only candidates who stood a chance of wining the general election were Clinton on the Democratic side, and Trump/Kasich/Bush/Rubio on the Republican side, because they were the ones who could hold the center as well as the opposing wing of their party.

The reason Trump won in spite of the things he said was because he was successful in demeaning Clinton to the extent that many people did not vote. His supporters on the other hand were highly motivated, so they showed up. The election had one of the lowest turnouts in quite a while. Even though they were the minority, the differential was sufficiently large for him to win, and that was their actual strategy (crazy as it might appear on the surface).

1 minute ago, dahlfors said:

This is why every democracy should strive towards having an excellent public education for everyone.

No, it is the reason why democracy is fatally flawed, and in the end will eat itself. Ultimately entropy will win out.

3 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Tbh, Obama had a lot of plans too, then he bumped into the actual system and found out he's more of a face/puppet than someone with actual powers to make change happen. He still needs his radical plans to get legal backing and support from everyone in the system. I mean, for Obama two major issues were Guantanamo and Obamacare. He didn't have any power to just snap his finger and have it done with. As such, Trump will need to jump many hurdles, but he's like a spoiled kid, that's used to get what he wants. So... I think this won't last more than 1.5 or 2 years. He either gives up, because he can't get his way. Or he pushes crazy ideas and in turn needs to be pushed out of office by force. Anyways. I'll get my popcorn out... and hell, I might even start watching tv again...

There is a lot he can do by executive order, and you can bet that he is going to make heavy use of that power. In any case, Republicans in Congress and the Senate have their own agenda, so they will do his stuff in order to make sure he doesn't veto their stuff. Expect lots of extremist social agendas to be imposed on the American people over the next two years and lots of removal of the regulations that keep a lid on rampant robber barons. The public piggy bank is about to be looted big time and the environment is going to be raped. This will happen, there is nothing stopping them now.

Right now the lobbyists for special interests are swarming all over capital hill in a feeding frenzy. They are going to get all sorts of deals done for their clients in return for "favors" and donations for the 2018 election campaign. It is happy days for the special interest groups.

3 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Look I'm not saying its a good or bad idea, but your assumption about border walls is wrong. Israel made a huge one, and its unbelievably effective. Even Palestinians admitted its very effective, and they are master of tunnel making. 

Yes, but something like about 40% of illegal immigrants and undocumented workers come to the US legally, and just don't leave. The wall is not going to stop that. People have this mistaken idea that all these people swim across the Rio Grande, but a very large chunk of them don't do that - they enter through normal ports of entry as visitors.

Building a wall is going to stop the people who do manual labor no one else wants to do from entering, but it will do absolutely nothing from stopping the more skilled illegal immigrants from entering, and it is THOSE who take the jobs that Americans actually want.

So basically it is going to damage the US economy by removing a vital labor component, but do nothing about a different labor component that does hurt US workers. The whole idea is stupid. Well, not for Trump, because guess who will get the contracts to build this thing.

The other thing about the wall is that it will take decades to build, not to mention that it will have to be maintained as well. But Trump will likely be gone in 4 years, and you can bet that the next president is going to cancel/abandon it in the first week at the job. So it will just be a massive waste of money.

I guess another question will be what about all the farmers along the Rio Grande? I am guessing that they will be less than pleased about having a giant wall between them and their source of water.