Jump to content

Mokara

Banned
  • Posts

    744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mokara

  1. Anything less than a LF is inadequate however, and you should be aiming for an XLF so you can be one up on the Joneses
  2. If you watch 4K on a smaller screen, it is your computer/device that is doing the downscaling, not YouTube. No sharpness is being added. It looks high resolution because it is high resolution.
  3. I suspect that it is not so much Canon marketing that is responsible for this stuff, it is more the site admins themselves, who probably see EOSHD as a competitor for their audience. That would be they don't want any crosslinking, it provides you with customer exposure they would rather was going to them exclusively.
  4. The softer image you get with higher ISO is a consequence of noise screwing with the debeyering algorithm and destroying detail.
  5. You speak for yourself. I can tell the difference on my TV set. Especially when there is lots of fine detail, such as vegetation. Vegetation shows up lack of detail right away. I think any particular persons take on this really depends on their eyesight. If someone does not wear glasses with an accurate prescription then they likely have less than perfect vision and don't know it. They think the world looks like that, but it does not, so when they see actual detail it looks unnatural to them. For them the world would look soft, so they likely think that video is supposed to look like that too. But if you do have an accurate prescription you sure as hell can tell the difference. I have yet to see any 4K video camera resolve to the level my eyes can. The best I have seen has been Samsung's NX1 but even that does not get where I want it to be. What I want is an 8K camera (probably more, so it can be oversampled), with a 65 - 80" 8K TV to go with it. If you are concerned about aliasing and artifacts like that then you need a pixel count significantly beneath eye resolution. If you do that you will get no visible artifacts. A big problem is that people have been raised watching movies that have been shot at low resolution. They have been conditioned to think that is the "proper" way for movies to look so they try to emulate that without understanding that movies looked that way because of the limitations of the technology that was available at the time. So it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, with new generations doing the same thing and consequently influencing the next generation to do it as well. In camera "sharpening" is a product of the debeyering algorithm weighting. There is no additional computation happening. A raw pixel will record red blue or green depending on what filter is over that particular pixel. To work out the actual color the debeyering algorithm takes information from adjacent raw pixels to generate a color. To get an accurate color you need a wider weighting, but that smears your detail over that area as well, resulting in a softer image. If you want to maximize detail then the debeyering algorithm uses a smaller weighting. That results in more accurate luma but the color is less accurate. When you are at an edge that color inaccuracy would result in false color around the edge, hence the halos.
  6. What would the ARRI chef know about cameras? Surely his specialty is cooking food?
  7. But it is Apple Intel 630!
  8. Simple solution to the problem is to stop stealing other people's stuff. If you are a content creator, then create your own content. Just using other peoples creations without permission is not OK, doubly so if you are outraged when others do the same to you. I seem to recall a thread here a while back bemoaning the fact that third parties were doing just that, making it hard for independent film makers to monetize their creations. How is this any different? Just because the shoe is on the other foot does not make any less of a shoe.
  9. He was comparing the cameras directly against each other. It is not his first dance either, he knows about sharpness settings, so it is not as though he would have forgotten about them. You are being presumptuous about that. People may be OK with softer images, clearly a lot here are, so for them the EOS-R may be good enough. That does not change the observation he was making that the other systems had better detail. It may be that the Canon sharpness setting is so aggressive that turning it all the way down degrades detail, but if that is the case then it is something people need to be aware of, particularly if they are shooting 4K. From his review there is no question that the Canon as shown was significantly less detailed than the other systems.
  10. "Sharpness" in camera is really a debeyering parameter. As long as you have a camera with a Beyer filter you are always going to be in a situation where you have to balance resolution against color accuracy. That will most apparent with anything that has a contrast edge. If you bias towards resolution you compromise color at boundaries, and if you bias towards color at boundaries then you compromise resolution. It is just how it works in anything other than a true grey scale image. In older cameras people used to scrape the beyer filter off their sensors (which was possible in some of the first digital cameras) to make B&W cameras with better sensitivity and resolution, primarily for astro use. Sharpening in post is not the same as sharpening in camera. You might make an image appear like it has more resolution through digital effects such as adding artificial halos, but turning down sharpening in camera comes at the expense of detail, and that cannot be recovered any more than edge color accuracy can be recovered in post if you have sharpening turned up. If you are not doing a whole lot of color correction and do plan to sharpen the image in post, you are better off setting in camera sharpening to the level you want in your final product to start with with since that will give you the best compromise. Trying to do it afterwards through artificial means in that scenario will result in unnecessary loss of information and an overall inferior image. People who just turn sharpening all the way down no matter what without considering what the final product is supposed to look like or how it will be manipulated in the interim simply don't know what they are doing.
  11. I don't think there will be too much doubt. If you are selling posters or porcelain figurines of some iconic landmark in a souvenir stand, then you will run into problems. That is what they are really trying to control. If you are posting your holiday pictures or the product of hobby, nothing will happen. Judges are not that stupid, and those that are will be replaced in short order. As far as people are concerned, the point of these laws is to protect privacy, and you have no expectation of privacy in a public place. They will only be applied in the case of images recorded when there is an expectation of privacy, such as images taken on your private property or in the course of your personal relationships. Like I said before, people are getting hysterical and blowing this way out of proportion. The European president does not make laws, randomly or otherwise. And IIRC, the European parliament is elected. They are no different from any other elected legislative body. If you don't like what your elected representatives are doing, elect someone else. If you don't like what someone else's elected representatives are doing, tough shit, they are not your elected representatives, they are someone else's who presumably support what they are doing. Talk to your representative if you want something different to happen. If you don't, and keep electing the same guys either deliberately or by not voting, then you have no right to complain. Nothing new about requiring permits to film commercially in a public place.
  12. I am pretty sure that you are mis-interpreting the law. In practice it will be directed at content that focuses on a particular person or property for commercial gain. Selling postcards or souvenirs depicting some landmark or personality for example. If it was implemented in the way you are suggesting then any sort of imaging would become illegal and I seriously doubt that was the intent.
  13. If the recorder is out of date, swap a new recorder in. After all, when you use a recorder with a conventional camera, that is essentially what you are doing. An interchangeable lens mount should not really be a problem. If it is properly designed it would simply be a matter of screwing it in. In principle it is no different from adapters people currently use on existing cameras. Since this would be a video only solution you don't need a mechanical shutter, so that would simplify the design.
  14. You can plug a SSD into it? I'm pretty sure that the Ninja will outperform the BMPCC. The point of such a system would be the fact that it is modular, so you could do things such as switch out sensors of different sizes relatively easily. You could use whatever memory size works for you, whatever battery size works, etc. All you would need is a bracket to house the recorder, with a dumb hotshoe for attaching mics and such. The bracket would house the sensor, which in turn can be controlled through the proprietary data interface on the V. So, to do something like that they would need to make a bracket, a controller module (which slots in the battery mounting) with a cable to plug into the sensor to supply power and control things such as aperture/focus adjust/gain, a sensor module and a lens mount module (so that you can mount a variety of lenses). If any part of the system fails or has a significant upgrade, just replace it and keep the rest.
  15. Speaking of the Ninja V, I wonder if you could make a sort of Frankenstein camera from it, by bolting a sensor module to the back using the mounting screws on the top and bottom. Maybe Atomos should look into that, lol. A true modular camera for relatively little effort. The Ninja V has it's extra data port for add-ons, so you should in principle be able to control a sensor from the recorder itself. Which means it is quite feasible to do this with the way the unit was designed (their other recorders probably can't). Maybe they have that as one of the future plans?
  16. That only works if you move enough stock to pay for the development costs. Otherwise you have to limit yourself to a full feature but expensive product, while covering the lower end with a bargain basement product that costs less due to cheaper materials or removing things that add to the cost but are unlikely to be used by the target market. In order to be economically feasible your product has to cover {(cost of development) + (cost of materials) + (cost of marketing)}. This is why high end products are much more expensive than low end products even though performance differences are not that great. The cost of materials in your higher end product may be 50% more than the lower end product but the cost of development will be the same. Since you will sell 10x (or more) of the low end product, the cost of the high end product has to that much higher for you to break even, which is why you see such big differences in cost between the high and low end. If you throw in some intermediate product you may take away enough market from the high end product to make it unprofitable, while at the same time your intermediate product will also be unprofitable due to insufficient market. So, in that situation you are a fool if you make the intermediate product, you can't run a business that way. Basically the cost of development is a constant irrespective of how many units you sell, and it is that fact which determines if you can cover the entire market spectrum with variants or only cover some parts of the market. If you move a lot of product then the cost of development is proportionally a much smaller component of the overall cost of an individual item, that is the situation that companies like Apple and Samsung find themselves in (which is why you get a large number of variants of things like cell phones from places like Samsung - they have the volume where they can afford to do that without losing money). A company like Blackmagic does not move enough product to pay for the development cost of more than a few models. They are a niche player, targeting people with big dreams and few resources. So, at the high end the make something like the Ursa to target those sorts of people in the pro segment, and something like the 4K pocket camera for those sorts of people in the consumer segment. If they did something in between they would not be competitive in the pro segment or the consumer segment (and it would come at the expense of their more targeted products that are competitive, potentially rendering them uneconomic), but it would still cost them the same as the other two cameras. That is why they are unlikely to do it. Can you use an external power source? Without decent stabilization and AF it is probably only good for a tripod anyway, so an external battery back is not a big impediment. Or stick the battery on the front of the camera, so you can use the battery itself as a grip. I have one on my Ninja V, it makes hand holding it quite convenient, lol.
  17. According to that screenshot Andrew posted there is a resolution process. You get banned if there are three unresolved strikes. They tell you when you get two, so at that point you need to do something about it I would guess.
  18. Especially ones who scream if someone else uses their stuff without asking. Guess there are two standards
  19. Well, if you digitally delete the existing lights in insert your own, then you should be OK.
  20. Because the people who always shoot manual think that the AF is not up to Canon's standards.
  21. RS on the NX1 in HD mode is quite a lot better (although you get other artifacts in 1080p), The main reason you see it in 4K is the sheer amount of data that has to be read. The issue really is that the processor is being stretched to its limits in terms of band width. I think the sensor itself is capable of delivering an image with lower RS, it is just that the processor is struggling. The 1D XII has two processors (three, if you include the older Digic used for the focussing/exposure system) and does relatively little processing, which is likely why it has better RS. The EOS R probably has a single processor that does everything, so even though it is newer it has less computational power than the older 1D as a system.
  22. You will probably get manual lenses/converters fairly quickly, but the new lenses probably communicate digitally with the camera and that means IP will be blocking anyone else from making a lens that will work with the system unless they have Canon's approval. Although you will probably get obscure companies in places like China where no one cares about the rules making stuff that can communicate electronically.
  23. That is weird. My TV is claiming that it is receiving 1080p input from cable. Most of the new shows on Netflix are 4K. I think you will find that a lot of YouTube content is 1080p because that is what their cameras shoot, or because everyone has told them that all you need is 1080p. Chicken and egg thing.
  24. Just downloaded the new version of Premiere and appear to have found a bug (at least on my system). When I have the preview screen set at 100% and scroll down the image, the program crashes when the scroll bar hits the bottom. It seem buggy as hell. Do they beta test these releases at all?
×
×
  • Create New...