tugela

Having a patent and being able to use it are two completely different things. Canon's patent has broad priority, so in order to use the tech Sony would have to license it from Canon (not going to happen). Canon on the other hand can use their tech, but just not those unique aspects that are covered by Sony's claims. So, Canon can use it but Sony cannot. Owning a patent does NOT necessarily give you freedom to operate, particularly if your claims fall under the umbrella of older broader claims. If your patent claims fall under the broader umbrella of someone else's claims, you have to license their patent or you can't use it.

The cameras were Samsungs, designed by Samsung, with Sony doing contract manufacturing to fill out the supply chain. DPAF would not have been licensed from Sony, the license would have come from Canon. It is not as though the technology is secret, so from Canon's point of view it doesn't matter who manufactures the cameras for Samsung, as long as they get their royalty. License agreements allow you the right to get your stuff manufactured wherever and however you feel like, you don't have to make it yourself. Canon don't care that Samsung makes cell phone cameras. Cell phones will take the low end of the photo market no matter what Canon does. At least this way Canon gets a slice of that pie, which they otherwise would not get. Sony can scale all they want, but until Canon's patents expire they will not be able to use the tech in their own products. They can make cameras under contract for other companies that DO have a license, but they can't make cameras for themselves without infringement. This is how IP works.

Everything that comes out of HDMI is uncompressed, other than the color coding used, which will always be 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 with HDMI up to version 1.4. To get 4:2:0 you would need version 2.0 or higher and even then that only applies to 4K. If a camera claims to use HDMI 1.4 or lower, and actually outputs 4:2:0, it does NOT conform to the HDMI specifications. When manufacturers refer to compressed output what they mean is that the signal is first encoded in the camera, then decoded and output through the HDMI port as 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 (for most cameras). Uncompressed output happens when the signal is sent directly to the HDMI without first being encoded then decoded. The camera itself may use a different color coding scheme to prepare the signal (such as 4:2:0) and that will alter the image colors, but technically what comes out of the HDMI port will conform to the specs of the larger color coding method even though it might look like 4:2:0. Also, nit picking, but "clean HDMI output" means that the signal does not have the overlays that you normally see on your camera screen, such as mode, shutter speed, aperture, etc. It does not refer to anything else. Clean output allows you to record to an external recorder, which you otherwise would not be able to do with the overlays.

It probably means that Panasonic are pulling out of the imaging business.

I think they should require people who fly to travel in their underwear and wear leg irons and handcuffs behind their backs while on the plane. It should make it easier to remove people from the flight is the aircrew needs a seat for one of their buddies at short notice as well. I like how they have to actually write "front toward enemy" on the thing, lol. Do troops sometimes use them with the business end pointed towards themselves?

What do you think an alcohol is? lol. The stuff you drink is called ethanol. The term alcohol includes all compounds with a general structure R-OH, the most commonly used (for cleaning purposes) being methanol, ethanol and isopropanol. Any of those should be fine for cleaning glass surfaces. Isopropanol is actually the most commonly used one since it will dissolve fats more readily than the other two and consequently is more effective removing things like finger smudges and the like. Ethanol is pretty good at that as well, but since it is a controlled substance it generally is not used for that purpose. The "blue" coating is there to reduce reflections that might otherwise obstruct your view. It is the same stuff that is on the elements of your lenses.

Those cleaning solutions are just alcohol and water, so it is more likely that the damage was mechanical as a result of how you did the cleaning rather than from the solution itself.

It is caused by old hard drives with aging media....just like film in the old days! People should be happy with it, it makes it look more filmic!

How sure are you that this thread is not the source used by CR's source?

Probably from reading "expert advice" off the internet!

There is no definition of a cinema camera, it is whatever you want it to be. Since it is a term without real meaning (a buzz phrase really), it is widely used and abused for a variety of marketing purposes to appeal to a certain sort of user.

Did we see? The reason those lower end models don't have 4K video is because they rely on hardware encoding for video, and the current crop of Digic processors can only do that with active cooling. So don't expect 4K video on those models until the Digic processors catch up to the competition in terms of thermal performance. It isn't a case of Canon corporate not understanding the need for 4K in those models, it is a case of your rep not understanding (or not wanting to admit to) the limitations of the processor tech available to Canon. But the NX1 does put Canon to shame. Two + years on, and it is still a cutting edge camera. The fact that Samsung did not see significant profit in the future of the market does not make the NX1 any less ahead of it's time than it was. The NX1 was an example of what Canon SHOULD have been doing as a supposed market leader.

I have a friend who is a friend of the cousin of a janitor at Canon, and he says it will be called the C101.

If it is not Japan, then they are underlings with no special knowledge of developments going on behind closed door at the home office.

They are not going to tell you that other than guessing on their part. They don't know any more than you. That sort of product information is not transmitted to field marketing people until an announcement has been made, or just before it is made. The reason is to prevent inadvertent disclosure, so it is handled on a need to know basis. The only information those guys would know is the information corporate has provided to them, and you can bet your last dollar that is not going to include development status of unannounced products. Corporate does NOT want the competition to know what they have in the pipeline, or when it might be expected to appear, until they are good and ready to tell the world. If one of these guys really was privy to that sort of information and was so cavalier about it that they were telling any random person who asked, they would not have their job for very long. They would be fired for breaching the confidentiality clauses in their employment contract. Tech companies take those things very seriously.

He is not going to give you advance information on new products. Until those are officially launched, marketing people will just give you blank stares. Telling some Joe Blow in the exhibition room unreleased company secrets is a good way to get yourself fired. And in any case, the marketing people on the floor are probably the last people in the company to find out about new stuff (just to ensure that they don't accidently blab the news to people like you). Because the A7SIII would be a video specific camera. The A7RIII is primarily a stills camera, that would compete directly with the A9, so it would be released some time later so as to not interfere with the early sales that are critical for development cost recovery.

CorelDraw. IMO it is better than Illustrator.

The sensor may have millions of DPAF detectors, but the limit is how much of those the processor can handle and at what rate. It is extremely unlikely that DIGIC is even vaguely capable of doing a significant number of those points. It is probably sampling a few hundred on a continuous basis only (and possibly a lot less than that as well), much like the detect systems on any other mirrorless camera. "Millions of detectors" might sound good in the marketing hype, but it is just that. Hype. That, combined with the superior processing power in the latest Sony cameras, is why the inherent AF performance in the A9 outstrips DPAF.

Well, that is nothing new. It has always been their attitude, and it also happens to be the attitude of most companies that are in the business of making profits. You not liking it does not make it any less true. My guess is that Adobe did not commit resources to the project until the camera was actually released, since they did not want to be developing solutions for firmware that could change. It is a sensible way of doing business. Sucks for you as a first adopter, but that is the nature of the beast. Professionals for who time is money buy gear that is tried and tested and that they know will work, so they will wait for any bugs to be worked out before making the commitment to use that equipment. The latest and greatest gear is for enthusiasts who don't mind being the guinea pigs because it is not going to cost them money being such. Surely you know that by now?

You could always try 8 bit until NLEs catch up. Adobe won't spend the resources (which are likely considerable) until there is enough of a user base to warrant doing so, so they likely won't implement it for quite some time. It will be the same sort of situation as when the NX1 first came out, where for a long time the big NLE programs did not support native editing of H.265 files. It will happen when it happens, until then you can either transcode with some utility, or just shoot in formats which are directly readable.

Their development cost structure will be considerably lower than pure photography companies, because the technology used does double duty in other markets as well. The consequence is that development costs for the basic tech such as sensors and processors is leveraged across disparate things such as TV sets and cell phones. That is why companies like Nikon get their silicon from someone else, and companies like Canon are usually on the backfoot when it comes to cutting edge tech - they don't have that advantage of a broader electronics base to leverage their camera tech. Sony can sell a camera at X dollars and recover it's capital investment a lot faster than Canon and Nikon can as a result. They don't need to sell as many copies to get into the black. This is the main reason why Sony (and Panasonic) focus on MILCs.....they can leverage development costs which are primarily on the electronic side. And it is also the reason why Canon and Nikon are so hell bent on DSLRs, because in those cameras the development cost is more heavily weighted to mechanical systems within the camera (which allows them to dominate that part of the market against competition that has a smaller slice). Because of that you will see Canon and Nikon hang on grimly to the bitter end in promoting DSLRs as the "best" option for imaging. RAW does not have significant processor load since there is no heavy compression. So there will be no overheating. The limitations for RAW is the ability of the camera to write data to storage fast enough.

It is free, other than the $1200 shipping and handling charge!

The focusing on the A9 is faster than DPAF.

And the little RX100M5 does 24 fps in burst mode for up to 150 frames (a bit less if you are doing raw at that speed as well). 16fps is too slow for a modern camera.

You didn't get the fanboi memo explaining that no one is interested in Sony cameras?