Mokara

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 6:37 AM, Shirozina said:

No - it should have a MF sensor. FF is not cinematic enough these days.....

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

9 hours ago, hmcindie said:

Yes, youtube does a shitty downscale that gives 10x more aliasing to 4k material when viewed under the 4k size.

That's also a good reason why those 4k vids look so "sharp" when watched on a 1080p screen.

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. 

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.

7 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

One good thing about a more detailed image is for high ISO shooting. When you raise ISO the image gets softer generally(with NR). The softer the image is to begin with the softer it will look when you get to higher ISO's. 

Something like the A73 may look a bit too sharp to begin with, but when you get to ISO 12,800 retains a really nice looking image while most other cameras look unnaturally soft. 

Wouldn't a blur in post or filter on the lens attain that soft image on cameras like the GH5 or Sony

The softer image you get with higher ISO is a consequence of noise screwing with the debeyering algorithm and destroying detail.

19 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes absolutely true.

When the picture moves, that's where the pixel peeping becomes irrelevant, especially with 4K.

It explains so much.

- Nikon D5500 looked so cinematic despite such soft 1080p. Lack of digital sharpness, lack of aliasing and little false detail made it calming and immersive to look at.

- Canon soft 1080p used to also have false detail, tons of nasties and jaggies, moire, which is BAD. Valid criticism. However in 4K, all those problems are gone and it's soft enough to look cinematic in motion. When you freeze a frame and zoom into 400% like Max on YouTube, yeah it looks like crap - so what. In motion, at 100% full screen it doesn't look like that.

- Canon 1D C another good example, it's not the sharpest 4K - you might even call it 3K - but it has a wonderful motion cadence

- Sony A6500 - brittle - but you freeze the frame or look at DPReview's chart and go "wow, that's sharp". Meaningless. Listen to Arri instead. They know what they're talking about.

Of course it's still helpful to do a review and look at blow-ups of the image, see how detail is, how it is rendered... But the conclusion you draw from that should be different to the obvious.

I too am changing the way I do reviews from now on.

Obviously you can take a very sharp and detailed 4K camera and make it look softer in post, or especially with lighting changes. That's fine. But if you are shooting "as-is" in natural light and not doing anything in post - just letting that full sharpness off the hook as is most people's tendency - it would be interesting to compare something like an A6500 and EOS R / 1D C on the cinema screen, to see whether all that sharpness on the Sony side would detract from the experience and pull you out of the atmosphere of the shot.

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.

19 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Also 'good' sharpening that doesn't introduce artefacts takes a lot of processing power and is not going to happen in-camera so what you see is crude but CPU light sharpening thus all the halos and nasty edges. I'm not even sure if the sharpening filters in Premier and Resolve are that good and certainly nothing as sophisticated as 'smart sharpen' in Photoshop.

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.

19 hours ago, Nikkor said:

I remember an Interview with the ARRI chef where he explains how important it is to have a strong AA filter for motion vs stills. Basically he says that detail is percieved different in motion than it is in stills. In stills high acuity fine detail is nice, but in motion it creates undesired artifacts so film cameras need strong AA filtration in order to look natural. 

Anyway, withat RS the EOS RS is unusable for video imho, 

What would the ARRI chef know about cameras? Surely his specialty is cooking food?

On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 4:31 PM, Robert Collins said:

The big question mark is graphics - intel 630 integrated is pretty feeble especially set against other specs.

But it is Apple Intel 630! 

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.

22 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

Go and adjust the picture style settings and try and re-produce Max's conclusion - yeah good luck with that - your results would be totally different.

He's really only reviewed the picture style settings, and he doesn't even bothering to tell us what they are!

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. 

56 minutes ago, Robin said:

I don't want to sound to negative towards the XT3 image because I think it's pretty wonderful overall and a more pleasing image than I had from the gh5.. however I wish all these cameras would add an 'off' to the noise reduction and sharpness. Then we could add a little for straight out cam looks if we like but leave it off for doing later or just leaving it natural. I guess people would be shocked at how noisy beyond iso 400 on a gh5 would be without the processing though ?

"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.

47 minutes ago, chrisE said:

Well, that's the crucial question. Where's the border between commercial use and personal use? If I record a video in Germany with people (strangers) and building and post it on youtube, it that illegal already or only in case, I monetize it? How about Instagram, without gaining any money?

If I'm on a family trip and take a photo of my family with some stranger in the background, can he/she request to delete the photo, even if this photo will never be published on any social media platform?

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.

41 minutes ago, Sanka said:

Thanks a lot for that information I had seen nowhere else.

Sorry, I do not want to be too political, but this new project of law is just a sample of Europe way of dealing with its population: unadapted, against our will and destructive (for freedom and creation).

Brexit is a great opportunity to leave the Titanic before hitting the iceberg. How lucky you are to not depends on the Euro ! Switzerland is doing well with Europe being an outsider. Why not UK?

This Europe was wrongly designed for us. It is a bureaucratic monster that benefits to lobbies and costs a lot while forcing every country to adopt new laws (we had never been consulted for) which are not adapted to our need/life style/tradition/cultural difference. My country totally lost its  power of decision in politics and economy, we randomly elect a useless president every 5 years who is just obeying Europe, creating new taxes while destroying our country (industry, social balance, education, health care...) to please a European institution nobody had elected, but working hard for lobbies.

 

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.

5 hours ago, leslie said:

the Internets a big target for a lot of reasons. no doubt governments will or are looking for their slice of the pie and its no secret that governments need more money not to mention those corporations that whisper into their ears . unfortunately due to an lack of common sense and a lot of apathy  and a propensity for political correctness  most people collectively aren't much smarter than a herd of cows they are counting on the fact as proposed that it will create mass hysteria, everyone will have a hissy fit.it will get watered down  till everyones happy and eventually pass , but by then you will need to obtain a permit to stay within the laws and seeing not government does anything for free it gonnna cost you $$ .its just an additional revenue  stream some crazy smart person has come up with. film corporations already pay $$ to make movies in cities and popular spots and not so popular.why not get a slice of  the little guy  that does youtube or vimeo as well  ? i bet a bunch of of permits from the little guys would add up to a truck load of money.

Nothing new about requiring permits to film commercially in a public place.

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.

5 hours ago, andrgl said:

Never ever going to happen, too niche, no profit to be made. Also Blackmagic couldn't even make this work with their original URSA turret scheme.

Why would you want to swap sensors when the recorder/body is out of date in 16 months?

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.

5 hours ago, Yehouda said:

@Anaconda_ANVPSC4K! Sounds good! ?

@MokaraAtomos could make a camera but I don't think it is in their interest yet. Switching out sensors of different size would be great but it is already really difficult to make interchangeable mounts so it is too much to ask mostly for a first camera. The technical promblems would be really BIG.

Maybe one day Atomos will make a camera but I think DJI will move first.

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.

3 hours ago, Yehouda said:

The BMPCC 4K is already a recorder with a sensor ?

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.

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?

5 hours ago, norliss said:

Well I suppose the argument against the type of camera I have proposed would be that it would potentially cannibalise sales of the URSA Mini but I'd argue that it wouldn't because it would be for people that wouldn't/couldn't justify/afford an URSA Mini Pro to begin with.

Steve Jobs once said something like "If you don't cannibalise yourself, someone else will" but that seems to be the mindset with many of these companies now.

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.

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

With regard to the heat, at least on the BMCCC the battery sits outside the chassis and I've got to say even after just 5 minutes of poking around in the menus of my newly received Pocket 4K earlier it was getting a bit warm inside the grip.  

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. 

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

A P4K with the ergonomics of an XC15, including a removable grip would be an interesting middle ground. If they could stick a Sony NP battery under the screen that would help. You can hold it like a DSLR, or remove the grip for a minimal, boxy design. Include that nice remote port, and the stripped down version could replace a BMMCC very nicely.

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.

11 hours ago, Michi said:

Thanks for this article. I did not know about this policy.

Do I understand this right: someone could cause you serious harm simply by claiming copyright violation on three of your videos? No "in dubio pro reo", no nothing? 

For me too this is a reason to consider alternatives. But are there any with comparable features?

Let us know if you've found a convincing alternative.  

  

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.

41 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

I’m surprised so many professionals use copyrighted songs... ?

Especially ones who scream if someone else uses their stuff without asking. Guess there are two standards

6 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

The main thing that strikes me about Vimeo's policy - is that it amounts to financial suicide by Vimeo.

I see the need for copyright laws but they often seem absurd to me. For instance, I dont see why it is illegal to take a photo or video of the Eiffel Tower at night.

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/14/photos-eiffel-tower-night-illegal/

Well, if you digitally delete the existing lights in insert your own, then you should be OK.

Does the resolution process not work? 

7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but what is crazy is the GH5s can shoot up to 192fps without cropping the sensor, anything above that up to 240fps it has a slight sensor crop. But up to 240fps! Impressive. So it is not the sensor in the PK4, it is a sensor processing problem. Too much data to handle I guess with it''s Codec.

I don't get why there is so much dislike for the GH5s on this site. It does just about everything you could want. You can put a Speedbooster on it and be a bit larger than s35. So it is a modern day, even better for slo mo camera than a Sony FS700 in a tiny package compared to it. And used they are damn near the same money. And FS700 Color Science is pretty damn terrible to be honest.

Because the people who always shoot manual think that the AF is not up to Canon's standards.

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Well at least until the Panasonic S1 and S1R come out, but their Achilles heel is still likely going to be the AF - especially via an adapter to Canon EF.

I really think the EOS R is going to please a lot of people... and upset an equal amount as well.... both perspectives are equally right depending on who you are and what you need from the camera.

Correct, doesn't change the fact. However as time passes you expect constant improvement. Canon are infamous for refusing to give us that. They used the same sensor in some of the APS-C cameras for 7 years! Speaking purely in a technological sense, to give you an idea of how much slower Canon's sensor is, that 30ms is a readout of 2160 lines and 3840 columns. Whereas on the NX1 4 years ago, the readout is 3648 lines, 6480 columns!! Quite a bit more to read in one sweep. If that had a 1:1 crop mode of 3840 x 2160 instead of doing the full-width full-pixel readout at 6.4K, it would have far less jello than the EOS R.

The A6300 again is doing a 6K readout so it's processing much more data than the EOS R in the same time it takes the EOS R to do 4K, it is doing 6K.

So Canon have technological problems but actually they don't because the 1D X Mark II does 4K 60p and for that you need sub-17ms rolling shutter, so they have a sensor which is fast enough to avoid the worst rolling shutter issues on the market. It is also a problem in silent stills mode on the EOS R as well so not just a video limitation.

So they caught up but won't give it us. How cynical is that!?

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.

19 hours ago, tyger11 said:

I thought I read that the RF mount is closed, so to not expect any third party lenses (at least none with AF) until reverse engineering is done, maybe never? I'd never invest in this system until that question is answered, unless one intends to stick with Canon lenses.

I'm done giving this company money; not even going to be buying Canon lenses going forward.

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.

4 minutes ago, Django said:

Fair point.. and going further with that I've never heard a single viewer in the world complain that a movie/video scene had a poor/massive crop factor. 

Ignorance is bliss.. but that doesn't mean of course, we as filmmakers don't notice these limitations and have to work with/around them.

Personally RS really bothers me. 4K on EOS-R will be locked tripod/slider shots only. and not aboard any trains!  

Getting back to the review (great as usual) there is one category of shooters andrew doesn't mention in his who this camera will appeal to, and those are 1080p shooters.

Yes we are still alive in 2018! A lot of YT content is still 1080p, even from top tier accounts. TV/Cable is still 720p/1080i. Most hollywood movies/theatres are 2K.

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.

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?