tugela

They are not downsampling, all it is doing is debeyering to a HD frame space, probably with some pixel binning as well. There is no native 4K being converted to HD. Since you have more pixels to begin with the line resolution of output is relatively high (unlike the XA20/25/G30, which are limited by the pixel resolution of their sensor) The C300M2 debeyers to a 4K frame space, and since it has a 4K native sensor, the effective color resolution of the output with good glass is around 1400 lines. The C300M2 uses 4K as it's native output, HD is downsampled from that. It is not the same as the C100. The XC10 on paper should be similar to the C300M2 (excluding the effects of pixel level light scatter) but is limited by the resolution of the fixed 10x zoom (which apparently provides ~80% of nominal resolution). The single processor in the XC10 probably hurts it in signal processing as well, and there are likely shortcuts being taken that don't happen with the C300.

I doubt it. That applies to the C300M2, which has dual DV5 processors, so it can handle the load. The C100M2 has a single Digic DV4 processor, which is last generation. Those processors can't handle full sensor readout IIRC. They are similar to the processors on newer Canon DSLRs, except they have been optimized for video. They use the hardware encoder to produce files, which is why it's output options are the same as the XA20/25/G30 line (which use the same processor). In spite of it's "mark II" designation, the C100 has last generation technology inside and has nowhere near the capability of the C300M2.

No, they failed to live up to my expectations. I have a G30 that I bought when they first came out, was disappointed with the lack of resolution with that - as an upgrade for my existing equipment it was money not well spent. I was expecting the 7D2 to be a true hybrid with modern 4K capabilities, a camera for the future, but instead it turned out to be a stills only camera with token video, much like earlier DSLRs, still stuck in a bygone age. So I got tired of waiting for Canon to get a clue. Now I am cynical about them and do not trust that they will live up to the promise. They can be counted on to disappoint, and the XC10 is no exception - for the price it could be so much more, I know that for a fact since other manufacturers do make such cameras with apparent ease, but Canon simply did not deliver that. It seems they can't, it would cost them too much money even though they charge more for their products than others. How does that work? I guess you could call me a fanboi who has been shown the finger once too many times by my true love, so now I no longer believe in her good faith That is said, so now you know. The XC10 is just another in a long line of Canon products that could have been great, almost, so close, but corners are cut and it slips away, leaving a shadow of what could have been. Very sad.

Too bad it is so soft. Maybe they will be able to implement 4K properly with the mark II in 2017.

Because chocolate eggs kill kids, not guns.

IBIS is probably protected by patents, and if Panasonic don't have access to them, they won't implement it. So don't count on seeing it any time soon.

I think that you should immediately bury your old lenses at least 100 feet under ground. And remember, we want to see photographic proof that you have indeed done this.

I think the issue for them is that their processors are not up to the task, and in order to produce competitive 4K they will need multiple processors. That would be fine for something like the 5D line, bit not for more consumer orientated products, where the cost would be prohibitive. So, rather than release substandard 4K they don't release it at all.

If I were Panasonic, I would release another firmware upgrade, this time for free, but only allow it to be installed on cameras with legal free or paid firmware already on board. Then increase the cost of the paid firmware 5 fold at the same time. That would leave the people with the hack locked out of further firmware enhancements unless they ponied up $500 :).

Maybe now they wont bother developing new firmware then. They will just develop new hardware so you have to pay them to get the improvements. Much more expensive for the consumer for sure, but if they insist on cheating you, what can you do?

If the 5D1V was just announced, the resale value of a 5DIII would plummet.

The difference between now and then is that manufacturers are delivering on the video potential of stills cameras, we have products like the GH4, the NX1 and Sony's latest offerings. So the need to hack to get advanced video has largely gone away. There are too many good options for stock cameras, and more are constantly arriving.

By "groundbreaking" they mean it will be so heavy that it will break the ground.

You are missing the part where I said that I have a 65" 4K screen and can see the difference. HD is inadequate, it is pretty damned obvious if you look at the thing. As for what people are watching, that is irrelevant and not an argument for opposing improved video. The main reasons they buy DVDs and watch SD content are (A) they don't know any better, and (B) that is what people like you have decided they want and what they will get. How is the field supposed to move forward when the people generating content are taking such a backward looking attitude?

Guess you don't have a 4K set. The difference between 4K and HD is pretty clear on my 65" screen. HD is not good enough. End of story.

Sneak preview of a pre-production model here!! http://www.cv.vic.gov.au/existingmedia/7153/acmi_pye_camera_1360.jpg Seems they have gone for the retro look, in keeping with fashionable trends in the still camera segment.

Auto ISO would change exposure as the scene changes, so that would be the source of your problem IMO. If you don't want exposure to change, you need to have ISO at a fixed value. Also, if you are using autofocus and there is any sort of movement of the focus point, the field of view can change slightly, and that may alter your overall exposure.

I'm not sure what the point is. Image quality at the pixel level is usually pretty bad with those high density sensors. It would be similar to what the typical superzoom shoots. People delivering 4K. Having higher resolution on the master footage will allow optimal resolution at 4K with minimal artifacts. Basically the same principle used when shooting 4K for delivery as HD.

*Some* people shot with DSLRs, mostly because they were hobbyist geeks who did it because they could. The vast majority of real video however was shot on camcorder oriented cameras. How quick and easy we forget! I had a S10 before I upgraded my old Rebel to a 3Ti, which is a camera that the hobbyists remember fondly for video. When I first got the 3Ti I was excited because I thought I would be able to shoot stills and video with the same camera.....until I shot my first clips with the thing, then I realized that wasn't going to happen. They were terrible, and the camera was in no way even close to the older camcorder. Later on we had Magic Lantern, and while that was better, it still was well behind the camcorder. When all that began to change was when Sony released the RX10 and RX100. Those were the first cameras designed as real hybrids in that they shot very good shots and video. Panasonic brought the GH4 in later, building on the shoulders of the Sony cameras and the Canon/Panasonic hacks.

Not really. Most high end prosumer camcorders were much better as video recorders than the 5DII/T2i/7D cameras. It is not as though that functionality couldn't be done at that time, but it simply wasn't (and for the most part in Canon cameras, still is not even today).

A hybrid camera is one that does both video and stills at a high level of proficiency. The BMPCC is a video camera, not a hybrid. Cameras like the 5D2 and 7D were primarily stills cameras with a video function (that was not that good) tacked on. They excelled at stills, but not so much at video. In that sense they were no different from prosumer camcorders of the day, which excelled at video but not so much at stills. I would place the GH3 and 5D3 in the "not there yet" category, since they required hacks to get decent video. The first real hybrid was the GH4, but, that no one buys that camera for stills, so it is not quite at the level required to be a class leader. The same argument applies to the A7S, which is primarily a video camera but lacks the resolution to compete as a stills camera. The first camera to tick both boxes really well was the NX1, and it remains at the top of the class today. The only real competition for that spot is the A7RII, which is not available yet and in any case is quite a pricey piece of equipment.

Probably the data bit width is defined by the internal register structure of the processor. It isn't really a question of how fast the processor is, but the width of the data bus being read off the processor. Presumably Sony and Samsung use conventional 8 bit structures, while Panasonic uses 10 bits. If that is the case it is not something that can be changed by firmware but would require the next generation of processor with the appropriate hardware.

So, basically all your technical mumbo jumbo was about a screenshot rather than an actual frame?

You are responding to Pavlovian conditioning. Because so much stuff is shot in Canon cameras, you came to believe that is what it "should" look like.

Those cameras have a whole lot of extra logic built in though in the form for multiple processors. They are also very large bodies that can act as heat sinks for the power used to drive the processors. What Canon can't do readily is produce 4K in a reasonably sized camera with a single processor. The XC10 uses one processor, but it is really shooting 2.5K resolution material. The processor is probably not fast enough to deal with an oversampled sensor that would required for full 4K resolution. Therein lies the problem for Canon. The rest of the 4K players are achieving their results with a single processor.