tugela

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

11 hours ago, kinoseed said:

fyi, both have the same processor.
NX500 was/is just crippled, however the crop is controlled by the PPUs which were not able to modify.
There are specific registers, which control how they process cropping/resampling, etc, however as soon as we touch those in memory, the thing crashes.

re the mbps - of course those are "the same", this is just the bitrate for encoding of the file, which already gets the copped/resampled image from the PPU.

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.

1 hour ago, Sten said:

NX1 gives consumers a "counterfeit" 4K video - the exisitng (HEVC Main Profile, Level 5.0) video compression outputs only 80bmps 1080p, but for 4K (as advertised) the NX1 needs Main10 Profile, Level 5.1

Submit a Consumer Complaint to the FTC

 

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.

9 hours ago, Sten said:

do the math - for UHD 4K, the NX1 needs at least 120mbps (70mbps x 1.77x crop) to match the NX500

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.

8 hours ago, hmcindie said:

Because the sensor is the same as in a6300. Same sensor = same rolling shutter.  DRAM helps with memory issues like buffering. LSI is just a marketing buzzword

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.

1 hour ago, Marco Tecno said:

Exactly, that's what I wanted to say. If a 6k raw still is 30-40mb, a 4k one would be about 13-17mb. At 24fps that would mean 320-420mb/sec. No sd card could do that. Hence raw frame is less than this. How much less? 

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.

25 minutes ago, jagnje said:

but they are getting there http://www.43rumors.com/sandisk-releases-brand-new-fast-sd-cards/

Minimum write speed is 30 mB/s, so it is not even close.

6 hours ago, SR said:

Interesting, so theoretically, the NX1 would be able to easily handle compressed raw, if Samsung had decided on it. 

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.

17 hours ago, SR said:

If the NX1 has a smartphone processor, what kind of processors are inside the Red and Arri to handle crazy resolutions along with converting them into compressed raw?

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.

7 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Does your NX1 match this low light performance à la Sony's MILCs?

Comes to my mind the first Cinealta F900 (BTW, 2/3" sensor format) imagerie seen circa 2001; a couple of kilos/pounds more *cough cough* 100x more expensive; without lens, player recorder setup neither...

Let's not forget as far as the limit of 5 minutes concerns because of overheating, a few here were used to shoot film within the 10-minutes limit, so... ;-) Some complaints on these boards remind me those kids used to modern life with no clue about hard life in some other latitudes...

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

10 hours ago, hmcindie said:

If a camera uses the same sensor as a previous camera, odds are that the rolling shutter is 100% same. They could basically just invent words for their press releases and we would not be any wiser. Instead of BSI it's HBI or instead of copper interconnects it's gold! But I've never seen the same sensor operate with a different speed in different cameras. They could speed up the RS but only by skipping fields or cropping in.

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.

5 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

http://www.gsmarena.com/oppo_r9s_to_be_unveiled_on_october_19_new_sony_imx_398_camera_sensor_to_debut_on_it-news-20969.php

Maybe we can expect a new dual pixel sensor and the A6700 in about 8 months, don't buy into this A6500 mumbo jumbo (I know IMX398 is a tiny sensor, but the tech is now available to Sony).

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.

4 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Yup, but the NX1 has tons of moire. Lots of other cameras dont get the same level of dancing disco colors. And those arent artifacts. Even the nx500 beats it.

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.

11 hours ago, Nikkor said:

There is moire and there are debayering artifacts that we call moire.

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.

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

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.

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.

5 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Sony seems to be practicing the same disastrous environmental policies that Apple does...breeding this concept that something's already obsolete by the time you get it home from the store...must be taking it's cue from Apple and it's iPhone mania...oh well...all the Lemmings jumping happily off the cliff!

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.

4 minutes ago, majoraxis said:

Because Sony is continuing to sell the a6300, I have hope the rolling shutter on a6500 will be improved but not specifically promoted as Sony does not want to talk bad about a current product, I also hope the same is true for over heating.

If it has the same sensor and processor, then probably RS will be the same.

6 hours ago, BasiliskFilm said:

If you have watched Sony's sensor development for any time, you would notice they don't change resolution that often. They establish a sensor form factor and gradually evolve it. The current batch (apart from the 24MP full frame which is a throw back to the A99, Nikon D600 series etc) are optimised for video resolutions. The 42MP is an 8K sensor that gives a cleaner line skip result for 4K. The S35 crop of the 42MP sensor is essentially the same as the APS-C 24MP sensor which can do full 6K readout. And 12MP on the A7S obviously works well for 4K. Anything in between will be a mess for video resolutions (see Canon). The question is whether the 24 MP full frame sensor has reached the end of its potential.

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

1 hour ago, j.f.r. said:

They are great, unfortunately you just don't know how to use them...... Not every camera can just magically get you the image you want without knowing what you're doing, also why in the world were you using S-Log in an indoor environment with lights.......

I think you answered the question in the second sentence with the response in the first sentence

2 hours ago, mkabi said:

I don't know what they are smoking over there at Sony, but I love how in that video they say...

"This does not replace the a6300 or the a6000 at all, its an addition to our a6000 line"

then right after that he says...

"and everything that makes the a6300 so great, we just built upon it with some new technology."

I don't know whether they listen to themselves... oh well... thats Sony for you.

Editted to add: Even at the beginning, "...its been aaa  about 6 months, 6 months? 10 months, 8 months, its been 8 months since you last introduced the a6300" and the reply was "has it been that long?"

REALLY??? lol... bah wait another 6 to 8 months for the a6700 or a7000 - can't wait for affordable 5K RAW, same as they put in the RX100 v

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.

9 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Brace yourself. A9 is coming and any Sony camera you have ever get will make you feel you lost money in it. 

At the same time thanks to this we get the best new specs. Unlike Canon for who we have to wait 2020 to get A7RII specs.

And at least it has the merit to boost competition. Sony not existing, GH5 would have not been what it will be, most probably.

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.

9 hours ago, BasiliskFilm said:

So apart from the overheating, the lack of 42 mp still files, and possibly a more user-friendly (though bulkier) form factor, the gap between the A6xxx series and A7Rii has narrowed considerably. For manual shooters, a focal reducer can get you the full frame look, and the 6K -> 4K S35 video mode on both bodies is probably very similar.
For those who can't afford an A7Rii, or the expensive full frame G lenses that add several thousand onto your investment, this could be an option to get comparable results.

Except that updated a7 cameras will probably start to appear soon as well, so the "gap" will disappear.

8 hours ago, Emanuel said:

G7 / G70 (Germany) and the GX85 / GX80 (outside US) / GX7 Mark II (Japan) are the best bang for the buck out there, nowadays and ever, so far...

Albert, BTW, left his NX1 for a G7 ;-)

Well, there are fools in every endeavor!

3 hours ago, Zpotter said:

I bought the XC10, I love the color. But

one of the things I don't like about XC10 is the unnecessary and exclusive use of CFast for video recording.

The highest data rate is 305mbs, which is less than 40MB/s. A Transcend SDXC UHS-I U3 can handle write speed of 60MB/s. A Sandisk in the same class can handle 90MB/s. UDMA7 CF cards can handle more than 100MB/s.

I am sure Canon has no intention of releasing a future firmware update to enable a data rate of more than 500mbs. Then why did they made the choice of having CFast instead of CF? 

If they want to so blatantly champion the CFast standard, couldn't they at least match it with USB3.0 so that we can take advantage of the download speed? Instead, they burden us with a CFast reader, while take away the one thing we need, the battery charger.

In a lot of ways, the design of XC10 makes sense. But in this respect, not at all.

Is there any chance Canon can release a firmware update to allow us recording video on the SD? 

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.

4 hours ago, Simon Shasha said:

 

The constant releasing of new bodies from Sony is really ridiculous. Sony needs to release lenses for APS-C - especially given the A6000 is their most successful camera to date.

 

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).

4 hours ago, Lintelfilm said:

I'm talking about Canon protecting existing Cinema camera owners in this instance. If they add high quality video to a milc the C line looses its footing quite a bit. 

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.