Kino

Agreed. However, as you have noted in your example, Sony's SLVS-EC interface is designed primarily for delivering high-resolution and high-framerate capture and not necessarily for increased bit depth: https://www.sony-semicon.com/en/technology/is/slvsec.html#:~:text=Select content-,Overview,more pixels and higher speed. https://www.automate.org/tech-papers/the-evolving-landscape-of-cmos-image-sensor-interfaces#:~:text=High-,SLVS-EC (Scalable Low-Voltage Signaling with Embedded Clock,and data transfer are critical.

The CVP test shows the C50 with a slight advantage over the R5C in the highlights (1/3-1/2 stop), but a disadvantage in the underexposure latitude, which is much noisier. On balance, this new 32mp sensor is basically equal to the R5C in the latitude test despite claims of "improved DR" at the end of the video, a claim that is never demonstrated as they don't use a Xyla chart. After all, they are retailers trying to sell you a new product! Now I'm sure someone will come along with Xyla charts and show that this camera has a DR advantage over the R5C and is closer to the R5 II. Clog-2 implementation would require that. In the meantime, I'm simply not that impressed with the C50 image or with any of the newer Canon "cinema cameras" for that matter. After the class-leading DGO sensor in the C70/C300 III, it seems that they are going backwards while the competition (e.g., Blackmagic, RED, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic) is charging ahead . . .

I was simply agreeing with ND64's statement that the C50 most likely has 12-bit video readout in standard FF 16x9. There is a connection between electronic shutter limitations and video readout speed, although the S35 sensor crop can allow for higher bit depth or higher readout speeds. Moreover, cropping into S35 will not reduce noise. It will have the oppositive effect. The sensor is also not dual gain like the one in the Panasonic S1II and doesn't offer any of those features. The only way you are getting more DR out of a sensor crop is to switch to a higher bit depth (13 or 14 bit). If you compare the C50 with the R5C, which has 12-bit video readout, you see almost identical latitude (4 stops over and 3 stops under) as demonstrated in the CVP review: I will admit that the C50 has a beautifully sleek design, and may be worth picking up for the open-gate mode alone, but I don't see much in the way of image improvements over the R5C that I already own. I guess it is a camera made for those who don't have an R5C or those who may need another compact body. In that case, however, I would rather go with a camera that has IBIS, high ISO performance for low light, and greater DR in highlights and shadows. These are qualities I miss in the R5C and that have apparently not been addressed in the C50.

True in this case. But the S35 5K crop mode may offer 14-bit readout as it has higher DR (according to Canon): https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/eos-c50?srsltid=AfmBOopS72Y9u5DIhecahYb7DGeR8xunJqjUY9e2K9yJhO7Jj3sJKvw_

Your eyes do not deceive you. There are some very subtle differences in the skin tonalities, but the major difference between the two images I posted above is in the resolution: 6K vs. 8K. The Komodo 6K and Komodo X have also been tested against the ZR, but both those cameras suffer from IR pollution in the comparisons. In this regard, the Nikon has an advantage!

$2K vs. $15K Not 16 bit, but not bad! The only problem here is that R3D NE (12 bit) is likely destined for much greater things, like the 8K Z9 II with a new sensor and better DR. That camera should be arriving in early 2026.

Who needs embargoes? Preview in Italian (turn on English subtitles):

I agree and I don't think it is the heat from the ground. There are definitely a few out-of-focus moments in the cheetah chase. Perhaps it is operator error, wrong settings, or preproduction issues. I guess my point is that, especially when considering the autosport clip, the A1II's AF is much improved from the A1, where video AF was more limited in terms of AF types, performance, and subjects. For wildlife video, the R1 seems like the best AF in the business: Using a DNG converter, you could also use the R1's 14-bit RAW photo bursts as video clips, since the high-speed buffer is sustained for a good length of time (10-20 seconds).

The greatest thing about the A1II is that Sony didn't replace an amazing sensor for video with a higher megapixel sensor that would create rolling shutter problems and downgraded video specs. That was my biggest concern. You can also see the advantage of the A1II's new AF for wildlife, sports, and motorsport video:

Oh wait! I realized that the 8K internal / 4K HDMI setting can be recorded in true ProRes 422 10 bit, as it is bypassing the 8-bit limitation on the 8K HDMI output. So, it is truly a "hack."

Using the Gerald Undone "hack" (internal recording set to 8K, but HDMI output set to 4K), you can send out an oversampled 8K image to the Atomos and record it in 4K ProRes 422 10 bit. This bypasses noise reduction and LongGOP compression in the internal files, but I think this looks the worst in terms of color depth, as Sony lists 8K HDMI output as limited to 8-bit in the spec sheet: As for the ProRes RAW in the A1, it is hard to pick out which shots are internal and which are ProRes RAW in this video (she lists the RAW shots in one of her responses): I always look for Blue-channel clipping as a giveaway for ProRes RAW, but otherwise everything cuts together seamlessly. This suggests that the 12-bit 4.3K ProRes RAW upscales nicely to 8K and that the 8K's 10-bit internal is good enough to match with 12-bit color.

According to Sony's website, the HDMI output on the A1II is the exact same as the A1: 7680 x 4320 (29.97p / 25p / 23.98p), YCbCr 4:2:0 8bit / RGB 8Bit 4332x2446 (59.94p / 50p / 29.97p / 25p / 23.98p), Raw 16bit Also, note that the gamma was locked to Slog-3 during RAW output. I believe it is still the same.

The price of entry may be higher than Canon and Nikon mirrorless, but the image quality is undeniable. That is a world-class sensor that shares tech with the 8K Venice and Burano. Coming from Canon, there is also the issue of third-party lenses, where Sony has a huge advantage that balances out the higher initial price point. In terms of the "subsampling," this is 4K/50 from the A1 and it looks incredibly detailed for what it is: Here is the A1 in 4K/120 (HVEC 200Mbps 4:2:2 10 Bit): I'm just amazed at what Sony achieves in this little camera and its highly efficient/compressed codecs.

I saw that. I thought you were referring to the extra processing chip that allows for the new AI and AF in the A1mk2. That damn AI stock footage will finish us all!

I guess you are referring to Sony's consumer and prosumer cameras. This one only costs $60K!