tugela

If you use it, its worth it. It is just a tool.

Well, CR "reliable sources" have claimed all sorts of things in the past that have not turned out to be entirely true or just flat out false. The only reason ML were able to hack the earlier Canons was because they used a fairly basic method to acquire video. Going forward there is no guarantee that they will do things that way. If they handle it more in hardware then hacking will be that much more difficult. And no doubt their firmware writers will not be making things easy either.

Confirmed by Canon? Where? Last time I took note of these things, Cameraegg was not the spokesperson for Canon. Presumably the 1DXII hit the hardware limits as far as 4K is concerned, so the 5D4 will be less than that, especially if it has a single processor. Unfortunately that is what people thought about the 7D2, and look what happened there. So don't hold your breath. In the end Canon are going to be limited by what their hardware can do, and barring any new surprising development, we already have a good idea of what that is going to be. I think the 5D4 will be a very good stills camera, but realistically chances are we will be disappointed with video relative to what else is there. Canon will likely make more modern cameras less hack-friendly, since it is not in their interests from a service point of view for people to be fiddling with the firmware.

Debeyering uses information from adjacent pixels to reconstitute the color of the virtual pixel. If you use information weighted to a large circle of probability, the color will be more accurate but resolution lost. If you reduce the weighting of that circle of probability then resolution will be maintained but color will be inaccurate. That is what creates the halos. You would only need one setting to do that. Once debeyered, the image would have permanently lost the information that was discarded, so either color accuracy or resolution at boundaries. Operations in post cannot recover either.

Doubt it. What you are talking about is software sharpening. The "sharpening" that happens in camera is just a debeyering parameter. The camera either chooses luma weighted debeyering, or chroma weighted debeyering, depending on the settings chosen. Just remember though, once it is recorded, the information you have discarded by your choice can never be recovered. You cannot adjust it in post, because it is gone.

You are being paranoid. They don't care. What is very important to you is completely unimportant to them. They did what was convienent for them, quick and dirty, then went on to paying problems. I see this all the time in an office environment, particularly when you have lower level technical people responding to decisions or actions bosses are taking. You are reading your reactions and your priorities onto them as motives, but they are probably focused on many much bigger things. Something you might spend months in angst about to them is a 5 minute issue in a sea of 5 minute issues. They would have completely forgotten about it an hour later and then be wondering what the hell your attitude problem is all about. You forget.....the basic system they are using in the camera is probably used in many other gadgets they make as well. A hole in the camera OS is probably also in those other gadgets OS. They don't make cameras any more, so they don't care what happens with those, but they sure as hell care about all the other stuff they make.

It is probably generic Bluetooth code for their systems, so it doesn't mean that the person updating the firmware knew much else about the system.

No, they probably have an obligation to support the camera app for the remainder of the existing warranty periods since it is described in the manual as a feature. And to do that they needed to make an adjustment to the firmware in order for the camera to be compatible with the latest version of Android. I doubt they care if people are hacking the camera at this point. It is not like they need to protect next years model because there is no next year.

More precisely, they should enable the enhanced modes with a note that output may be unstable if used. It is pretty clear that they could have allowed higher bit rates for example. I don't think they have some sly purpose in 1.41 however. More likely they just have an obligation to ensure reasonable support for the cameras over the duration of the remaining warranty period, and that would include updates to accommodate newer versions of Android. Beyond that they likely don't care, and if it happens to mess with people's mods, they don't care about that either.

If everything is on manual, including gain, then zooming out will increase the amount of light on the sensor and increase overall exposure. Converse for zooming in. The video clip apparently has gain on auto, but the response to changes in exposure is not instantaneous, which is why the exposure changes like that. If he zoomed more slowly then you would not notice it.

Kidzrevil mentioned seeing similar things with his Sigma zoom, which presumably would not be operated electronically. I think it is just a function of the rapid change in the field of view (with consequent exposure change) and the time it takes for metering to adjust to gain to a different level to compensate. IMO you will see it with any camera if gain correction is not instantaneous.

I'm fairly sure that the reason is that your angle of view will change slightly as the lens focuses. This is not unique to the NX1 and is a lens design property. The change in apparent exposure is a consequence of this. If you watch the video you will notice that the exposure changes happen when the lens is refocussing. If you control the rate of autofocus adjustment you can probably minimize the exposure effect you are observing. If you have the camera in continuous focus mode and aim it at a scene where everything is in focus due to depth of field, but the autofocus system is making fine adjustments based on the elements within the image, you will sometimes see what looks like small changes in the angle of view constantly happening. One more thing, remember that as you zoom out from 50mm to 16mm, the lens will be collecting a lot more light. If you have aperture, shutter speed and gain all fixed, this will result in increased exposure. I am assuming that that you have aperture and shutter speed fixed, with gain floating. What happens when you quickly change your zoom ratio as in the video, changes to the gain will not happen until metering is done. Metering is probably happening at the same rate as refocusing, so until the lens starts to refocus it will still have the old gain (and hence inconsistent exposure). This would also apply to manual zoom lenses, since metering is not instantaneous. I guess what you need to do is just zoom more slowly, and the problem will go away. Essentially it is a property of the angle of view and the speed at which metering takes place.

I "failed" to see the difference in resolution on a 720p screen??? And you don't understand why??? And you apparently don't understand why resolution is important for some scenes, and less important for others??? OMG! And for the record the "how superior 4K is on any screen" is purely your creation. So don't attribute that to me.

On my 720p laptop, of course not. It is all 720p. And in any case, resolution is less of an issue with large objects that fill much of the screen because your eye is looking at the macro scale. It is a problem when the object of attention fills a small part of the screen, such as someone a way back from the camera. At lower resolutions such objects degenerate into blobs, with good 4K it maintains enough detail to still look realistic. Anyone who shoots video should be aware of this, so how come you don't know it? What is your problem?

They will still be bogged down by their processors and thermal envelope limitations. That is why they stuck with Digic 6 processors and MJPEG with the 1DX2. Unless they do something drastic, such as come out with a Digic 8 this year, I think the video on the 5D4 will probably disappoint. At the moment the hardware needed to compete with the MILCs is lacking. Not with a single processor and no fan it won't.

Is that a long way of saying that you don't agree with him?

Not a whole lot of difference. I asked an associate at work what he thought, and to him they all looked the same.

Unless you are planning to lug a tripod around with you, forget about things like the 5D. What you need is something that has good stabilization in camera. Raw means squat if the camera is wobbling about - it will look like shit. Some of the IBIS stabilized systems would work, or a camera with solid DIS, such as the NX1.

People who had pretensions about being the next Spielberg were enamored with 24p. Young people who were viewing content on devices that largely displayed at 60Hz were not. And the reason was simple: 24p displayed on a 60Hz screen looks terrible. Who cares if it reminds the shooter of the golden age of movies - no one who watches it owns a film projector. Almost no one shoots (at least, no one who buys a consumer video camera) for the big screen, so the obsession with 24 fps is an anachronism. I find it baffling that enthusiasts want to shoot to conform to a medium that essentially is obsolete, and not to conform to a medium that viewers actually use. What I always found particularly amusing were the folks who drooled over 24p, but 25p, why, that was no good. No good at all (even though it would be impossible to tell the difference without counting frames).

That is because low frame rates look unnatural and usually like crap.

The trouble is that many equate resolution with oversharpened, because they are looking for soft footage.

Nah. The bulk of the cost associated with products like this is up mostly front in the form of development and marketing. Once they have all that worked out, the actual manufacture and assembly is relatively trivial. If you go out an buy something in a store, the actual cost of making it is pennies to the dollar. The rest is all derived from other expenses, both net and gross. They would have abandoned the line not because of manufacturing costs, but because gross revenue was insufficient to pay for support services and the development cost of the next generation product.

Canon's "surprise" was that people still are falling for the line that big things are coming "soon"

If people are still buying them it is weird that they would not continue making them. Especially since it looks like they could have kept the camera relevant with firmware updates, which you would think would be a relatively small investment for them.

Except that the new modules won't be compatible with the old modules :). It is poor business practice when you provide your clients the opportunity to upgrade their old gear for $500 instead of requiring them to upgrade everything for $5000 :). Cash flow my friend, cash flow.