tugela

It is probably just an artifact of insufficient bit rate for their particular H.264 encoder.

Not according to Samsung, and I think they would know better than you. They are the "same" processor in the sense that an i5 is the "same" as an i7, but parts of it are disabled in hardware. They all have the same logic inside but parts are not functional in the more limited processors within a family generation. CPUand GPU manufacturers do this all the time. The NX1 has a DRIMe-V processor, while the NX500 has the stripped down sibling, the DRIMe-Vs. They will both use the same command and interface structure but the computational power within the chip is different. As programmer you would not be able to tell the difference by programming alone. You do know that HEVC profiles are just minimum standards and that individual manufacturers can do whatever they want right? It is not written in stone.

Umm...no! That is not how it works. 70 mbps on the NX1 is the same as 70 mbps on the NX500. The NX1 has a more powerful processor, so it can handle the workload needed to downscale 6.5k raw footage to 4K. The NX500 processor can't do it, which is why they use a crop instead. The crop has less information available than the full sensor, so the image is inferior to that from the NX1.

The V is clearly better than the IV.

My understanding is that the LSI is a logic chip that does pre-processing of the raw feed off the sensor (and basically controls it). So it is not just a marketing buzzword. The main improvement appears to be AF performance (which will probably have the biggest impact in the RX100), but it might include other things as well, such as noise reduction and stuff like that.

At 60 fps it can't be worse than 16.7 ms. At a 120fps it can't be worse than 8.3 ms.

One trick that they can play is to read the sensor at lower bit depths (say, 6 bits), then resynthesize the final pixel at 8 bits during the debeyering process. That would reduce the amount of raw data by 4X. Someone viewing the output would not be able to tell the difference, especially on an oversampled sensor.

The answer to that is the so called "raw" used in video is not real raw. It is processed, but has not yet had things like white balance and such applied to it. Real 6K raw (which is actually 4K after debeyering) at 8 bits and 30 fps would require a bit rate of around 4300 mbps (540 mB/s). "HD" raw (which is actually ~700p after debeyering) at 8 bits and 60 fps would require a bit rate of around 960 mbps (120 MB/s). There are very few (if any) SD cards with a minimum write rates that match those specs, even for 720p footage. When you go to 10 bit footage you are generating 4X as much data. So all these cameras that are recording "raw" to SDs are not really recording raw, what they are recording is partially processed data. Minimum write speed is 30 mB/s, so it is not even close.

Probably not. It would require cards capable of the required write speeds, which I don't think is feasible with SD. The restrictions are not just processor related, it is also storage related.

Those cameras have large bodies with big heatsinks for the processors. They can be run much more aggressively as a result. Compressed raw is less demanding for the processor than H.264 or H.265 btw. Inefficient compression allows you to get away with a weaker processor, but the tradeoff is that you need massive storage capabilities.

The NX1 is markedly superior to the RX100M3, both with stills and video. But it does not fit in a pocket however.

Not necessarily. The sensor read speed may be dictated by what the processor can handle, which means that a faster processor could perform the read at higher rates. The NX1 sensor for example can be read at 240 fps, but the processor can't come anywhere close to being able to handle that amount of data and bottlenecks somewhere just north of 30 fps in 4K. As a result of that you have limitations on how much RS and frame rate can be improved in 4K with that system. Improvements in processor capabilities would increase frame rate and reduce RS. The same thing applies to Sony and Panasonic cameras. The biggest obstacle to improved performance are the processors, and as newer generations with higher performance come along we can expect to see higher specs.

No. The tech is licensed to Samsung, who have contracted Sony to manufacture some of their sensors (tech licenses generally allow the licensee to do this). Sony don't have the license (and probably won't get one either), so they can't use the technology in their own products. This might actually be the reason why Samsung got out of cameras btw. Their cameras were not a big money maker, but cell phones are. I think that part of the license deal with Canon was that they could use DPAF in their cell phones, but they had to stop competing in the camera sector to get access to the tech. It would be a win/win situation for both companies. Samsung would have been in a position to give their money maker an edge in its market and have an excuse to drop a minor product that was not contributing to their bottom line, while Canon would get royalties and eliminate competition that was siphoning market share from their flagship products.

I am tempted to replace my mark III with the mark V. While it was a marvel of engineering, the two big things I didn't like about the mark III were the lack of 4K and the inaccurate and painfully slow autofocus. For video you pretty much had to use manual focusing most of the time. When I bought it I had already decided that I would not buy any camera going forward that did not have 4K, but I made an exception for the mark III since I was going on a once in a lifetime trip to a place where carrying a large camera was unwise. It had to be something I could literally slip into a pocket, but still good enough to take decent photographs. The RX100 was no where near as good as my NX1 (or even my old Canon) in terms of picture quality, but it was the by far the best option at the time that met the criteria I had. The mark IV brought 4K, but still had the same autofocus system. This new camera corrects that it seems.

Moire appearing in parts of the image is a function of resolution. The NX500 uses a crop of the same sensor, which means that it has lower resolution than the NX1. Your favorite camera, the XC10, has poor resolution and consequently you don't see moire in those details (since it is not resolving the detail at all). I recall the footage of your moire building, in which you proclaimed the XC10 as being moire free. But the reason it was moire free was that the resolution was so bad that the panels appeared as solid surfaces. There are also compression artifacts that people call moire as well.

Usually those cameras have poor resolution however, such as the XC10. Moire will always be present when fine detail approaches the camera's resolution, it is an inherent property of all digital images. So, for a particular scene camera A might show it while camera B does not. But go to a different scene and the reverse will happen.

Not more so that any other camera. It wouldn't be quite the rip off it is if Sony had done what they should have done. Announce the A6300 and A6500 TOGETHER at the same time and likewise back when the A7R II was announced, release it with the A7S II at the same time, allow us to make a choice and to buy just one, not stumble into the A7R II or A6300 then end up buying the A6500 or A7S II as well because they're better specced for video... I actually think as a sales tactic this is disastrous and we will tire of it very quickly. They have maintained this illusion of constant technological progress... if you think however that in the 6 months between the A6300 and A6500 suddenly Sony invented 5 axis image stabilisation and a touch screen you are mistaken. You are forgetting that the front end has been reworked as well to significantly improve AF capabilities. It is pretty obvious that the A6500 is being announced now as a direct response to Canon's EOS-M5. Sony do not want to let Canon use the improvements in the M series to take market share from them, which would happen if they did not upgrade the A6300 immediately.

It is called competition. If you are essentially competing against yourself, you can update every 3 or 4 years (or even longer). But if competition is white hot in a field with rapid turnover of products, you have to update frequently just to keep up with what competitors are doing. Or you are going to see them take the sales. This is particularly true in consumer markets with higher volumes, where volume makes frequent iterative updates viable. If it has the same sensor and processor, then probably RS will be the same.

The NX1 has a 28 MP sensor, and it handles video just fine, so your argument does not hold.

I think you answered the question in the second sentence with the response in the first sentence They do that with most of their consumer models. The RX100 line for example will have run a few models deep being actively marketed at any one time. Canon does the same thing with their consumer cameras. I guess the reason would be that they bring in iterative upgrades regularly as they come available, but still make use of the older tooled production lines as long as people continue buying the older models. Not true. Canon update their consumer products regularly as well. The shortest update cycle I have seen in Canon was 3 months, when they went from the G20 to the G30. No doubt the folk who bought a G20 were going WTF???, and in that particular case it was a valid question, lol. Except that updated a7 cameras will probably start to appear soon as well, so the "gap" will disappear. Well, there are fools in every endeavor!

The encoding is done in hardware, so it is limited by what the hardware can do. And for the XC10 that is 305 mbps. That will not change. They will not enable recording 4K to the SD because the slot can't handle the data rate. The data rate you see on your card spec is the read rate. Write rates are a lot lower, and the minimum write rate (the spec which is critical for recording stable video) is lower still. I doubt that there are too many (and probably none) SDXC UHS-I cards that could handle a video feed coming in at 305 mbps.

Canon do it as well. Rebels come out just about every year. The G30 was announced three months after the G20, which was a much faster turnaround than anything Sony has ever done.

The reason why they would do it is to prevent the likes of Sony from getting a foothold in competition. That is far more valuable to Canon than any "protection" of the C line. Sony eats a hell of lot more into Canon's overall market than what they derive from the C line. Every a7/a6300/GH4/GH5 sold is a 5D/7D not sold, and that is a really large sum of revenue that did not happen, far more than what they get from the C line. They can't do it however because they don't have processors that are advanced enough to allow them to. Otherwise they would. People who buy C line cameras are buying them for pro-video interfaces and ergonomics, not because of the specs they have. They would still buy those cameras for that reason even if DSLRs could shoot at the same level or performance (which they can't, due to thermal envelope restrictions).

The reason they can't add high quality video to a MILC is because their processors get too hot, and the software solution used in DSLRs is not viable with the storage media used in M cameras. It has nothing to do with protecting the C line (which have fans inside them to keep the processor heat under control). People keep on with this "protecting" nonsense when it has nothing to do with that. It is because the limitations of the hardware inside the camera. Nothing more. Canon are not out to screw everyone.

I think the movie was made only so they would not end up in a prison cell.