Jump to content

Robert Collins

Members
  • Posts

    771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert Collins

  1. I see 'professional' and 'closed' system as an oxymoron. Who in their right mind uses a computer whose lifespan is determined by the shortest lifespan of any given component. I gave up using Macs for desktops when Apple stopped making desktops (which is a while ago.)
  2. The D610 is coming up to 5 years old!!
  3. I am sorry. Just because you think it is ‘perfectly acceptable’ doesn’t make it so. You finance your manufacturing costs through ‘finance’ not through interest free, unsecured loans from your customers. What you consider ‘perfectly acceptable’ is actually illegal in some countries. The exception is say Kickstarter where the contract is made explicit that your payment is an unsecured loan.
  4. I agree. The 14 bit raw still files out of my A7riii, I can very nearly do anything with easily in post - so much so I hardly need to get it right in camera. On the opposite end of the scale, my Mavic's 60mb/s 8bit footage needs to be pretty much spot on in camera and it is difficult to do much other than tweak in post. And I find 8 bit slog out of the Sony too difficult to handle in post without banding issues (hopefully more down to inexperience rather than incompetence.)
  5. Interesting. Absolutely no idea if it is true of either the GH5s or BMPCC but here is the pdf flyer of the sensor. https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor0/img/product/cmos/IMX294CJK_Flyer.pdf Couple of points. 1) It is a standard 4:3 sensor with a 21.63mm diagonal - so if it is in the GH5s it isnt using an 'oversized' sensor as many people had indicated. 2) The sensor is capable of 4k/120 although only in 10 bit (as opposed to 12)
  6. Overall I think Sony are fine. They are in the big sensor market with the A7 - cos they sell sensors. With hybrid ILCs they are very well positioned - their stills are pretty much second to none and they have a strong competitive advantage here. Their video scores as 'good enough' for most prosumers - ok ibis, decent af and no/little crop factor (And certainly good enough when compared to their FF competitors.) But when it comes to the video only/mostly crowd I think it is fairly obvious that FF isnt the sweet spot. You cant currently fit 4k/60, 12 bit raw etc into a small body with a big sensor. So I dont know where this leaves the A7s series or where there is even room for the A7siii especially as Sony chose not to cripple the video in the A7iii.
  7. Well the latest rumor is that they are going to put a 'stacked' sensor similar to the A9 with a blazing fast sensor readout (A9 is 1/160th for stills). This would all but eradicate rolling shutter. That tech is very expensive though and would easily make the camera US$3500.
  8. Nearly every time a camera comes out you see compromises due to heat problems - say the Fuji XH-1. Its quite possible that the FS5ii is crippled to protect the FS7. But I actually think the heat issues mean we are a 'long way' from seeing 10 bit internal or 4k 60 in an A7siii body with stabilization. I just think with current technology the sensor is too large and the body too small. I am not even sure Sony can bring this to APSC.
  9. I think it is time to give up on the prospect of an A7siii. I feel it is either not going to arrive or arrive with underwhelming specs. If it does arrive, I suspect its stand out feature will be a stacked sensor with fast readout speed that virtually eliminates rolling shutter. That's fine but it is a very expensive solution to what isnt a major problem for 'me'.
  10. OK perhaps you missed my point. The suggestion was that Nikon introduce 16 bit files. As Sony (and others) only produce FF sensors with a maximum of 14 bit digital output, Nikon could only provide 16 bit files by 'padding' the last 2 bits (which is what a lot of the MF cameras are doing). It would still be 14 bits of information in a 16 bit container. To me this sounds like a lousy idea. It is pretty obvious, though, that it will fool some people into believing they have magically created information where none exists!! So I definitely see the marketing angle.
  11. Honestly that is nonsense. Look at the raw digger data from Phase One IQ250 It very clearly shows a 16 bit file with 14 bit information - which is why 3 out of 4 channels are blank. I am not sure if we are discussing whether it is possible to create 16 bit files from 14 bits of information (which is trivial) or whether you actually think it is a good idea on the basis that it fools you into thinking you have 16 bits of information.
  12. It really isnt that simple. I can take an 8 bit jpeg into photoshop and convert it to 16 bit - it will be a 16 bit file with 8 bits of information. The 50mp Sony medium format sensor only outputs 14 bit data, so any 16 bit file generated from the data has simply added 'padding'. For instance the Hasselblad X1D claims to be 16 bit while the Fuji GFX 50s is 14 bit. As you can see here the only difference is the padding in the Hasselblad. https://***URL removed***/forums/post/59002429 Sony (or anyone else) do not actually produce a FF sensor with more than 14 bit output. Now Nikon's image processor could quite easily convert that to 16 bit but it wouldnt actually achieve anything of any consequence. Apart from the fact that it might be a good marketing ploy if it happened to fool people.
  13. Out of interest have you ever managed to generate banding from a 14bit raw file or even a 12 bit raw file for that matter? And even if you have, it may well reflect the fact that you have a 8 bit computer screen (or possibly 10 bit). (I struggle to see the difference between 12 and 14 bit 99%+ of the time and I push the files pretty hard.) In any case, most of the engineers suggest that the 16 bit files from medium format cameras are simply 'padding' 14 bit digital output.
  14. In my experience, PC v Mac threads never really die until people end up debating the benefits of Linux
  15. Mac Pro update delayed until 2019 https://***URL removed***/news/5093932298/report-apple-won-t-release-the-next-mac-pro-until-2019
  16. Taking a look at the Yedlin footage what seems interesting is how little dynamic range is in the 'final output' when compared to how much dynamic range is in the scene. Note the limited DR in the histogram. The footage is also very desaturated. (The camera angle and limited color gamut also seems cinematic.) Take a vaguely similar shot with a digital camera. Straight out of camera it looks something like this... (A7r3) Note that this has bags more dynamic range - it fills the entire histogram and the colors are much more saturated. And that it looks 'digital' However, if you make a tonal adjustment (see below) which compresses the dynamic range - see histogram and tone curve (by raising the blacks and lowering the whites). And reduce the saturation (see below), the photo appears more cinematic... So my feeling is having quite a low dynamic range in your final output is quite key to a cinematic look. Of course you can achieve that with a high dynamic range scene given enough processing leeway (either in camera or post.) Or alternatively, you could achieve it with an iphone given enough additional lighting equipment I would imagine.
  17. BTW the classic example of our 'perception of color' on the internet is 'what color are the strawberries?' The answer is they are 'cyan' - if you dont believe me download the photo and check for yourself. It is because our brain sets a white point and we perceive colors relative to it.
  18. If you actually believe there is something such as 'REAL' color, you clearly dont understand how our brains work.
  19. If you take this screenshot from Jon's video.... ...we perceive the highlight on her forehead as a 'highlight' when in fact it is a 'mid tone'. We perceive the highlight as 'white' or slightly 'blue' when it is in fact 'red'.
  20. Conceptually noone sees 'REAL colors' we 'perceive' colors. The same color will 'look different' to us with a different background. The same applies to 'luminosity' - we only perceive it rather than 'see' it in absolute terms.
  21. My feeling is that there is an element to which the 'filmic look' gets confused with dynamic range. For instance, we tend to associate 'log' footage with both 'high dynamic range' and the 'filmic look'. Log footage is 'low contrast' and 'low saturation' irrespective of how much dynamic range is actually in the scene. And we associate low contrast and low saturation with a filmic look. If you take a look at Jon's footage, you can see it doesnt contain a lot of stops of dynamic range (see histogram) and even the orange shirt is pretty desaturated (see color wheel).
  22. It is simply a trade off of sensor size. The smaller the sensor the easier it is to stabilize. So all things being equal with ibis - M43>APSC>FF.
  23. Yes, the underlying problem with the EF lenses is that they dont have 'stepping motors' (apart from the EF-M lenses) which are basically a prerequisite for fast, efficient CDAF. So ultimately you are going to have to replace the lenses for a 'pro/efficient' mirrorless, so you might as well design the mount specifically for that. Then add an adapter. I think 'all' Canon has to really do is make sure the adapter works at least as well as the Sony/EF adapters.
  24. There is a trade off between your base iso setting between dynamic range and lowlight. The lower you set your base iso the more dynamic range you can have on the sensor because the more light you can get on it without clipping. However, the downside is that your lowlight performance will tend to be worse because you have to have more 'gain' to reach any given higher iso. A good example of this is the D850 v A7riii The D850 has better DR because of its lower base iso but the A7riii has better lowlight helped by having a higher base iso. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-III-versus-Nikon-D850___1187_1177 BTW just to show Sony's fake sLog iso... I know the same applies to the A7riii. In all likelihood Panasonic is doing the same thing with the GHH5/s.
  25. My feeling is that Log isos are fake. I know for sure that with Sony while log states iso800, it actually records at its base iso of 100 (which is why you have to over expose +2 stops). I suspect that with Vlog while it states iso400, it actually records at the base iso of 200 (which is why it adjusts the metering one stop in camera.) Having said that, the fact that the Sony has a base iso of 100 gives it a DR advantage at base iso over Fuji/Panasonic with a base iso of 200 because it allows the sensor to collect more light without clipping (much the same way that the D850 has a DR advantage over Sony at base iso because its base iso is 64.)
×
×
  • Create New...