Mokara

No, he is a demagogue just like Trump, just for the other side. Says things people want to hear so at least some of them will be diehard supporters and his ego will be satisfied. It is less about winning and more about having a core of people swearing blind loyalty to you. So he says things that are "pure" to that demographic and hopes that enough people dislike the other guy more that he will win anyway, even in most voters don't care for him personally. It is NOT about having policies that are going to be agreeable to the majority of Americans. Warren is the same way. I think it totally sucks that mainstream voters are probably going to have to choose between who they dislike the least. It is not a recipe for stable government. I am sick of these old men and women who should be in a retirement home pretending to have all the answers and wisdom, and I am an old person myself, so I am not being biased here. We need a new generation of leaders, preferably someone who is centrist. I don't care if they are Democrat or Republican, that is not important, what is important is that they have reasonable and practical policies. Of the Democrat field I think someone like Pete Buttigieg seems like a reasonable candidate to me (among the front runners). The only issue I see with him is that enough Americans are sufficiently biased against gay people that Trump might sneak in anyway. A military guy with administrative experience who comes across as a smart, decent, rational person who doesn't lose his shit when challenged. That would check off most boxes I think. A bit on the young side but I could live with that. Ideally you would want someone in their 50s for the position though, IMO.

It is only in cultural collapse if you have a certain kind of mind set that looks to the past. If you look to the future then there is no collapse. Cultural change is not cultural collapse. If you are a glass half empty kind of a guy, then you might feel something has been lost. On the other hand if you are a glass half full person then you see a future that will be greater than the past. You only have to take one look at the faces arrayed behind Trump at his rallies to know who the intelligent ones are ? The thing is, that is the only news the people who support him will hear, so for them it is in fact even though it is not. That is why he says these outrageous things, he knows the people he is speaking towards will hear nothing else, so for them he appears to be doing an awesome job while the exact opposite is true and he is flushing the country down the toilet in the name of his ego.

Wrong. The reason why the a7SIII is delayed is because it has to perform at cutting edge levels or it will not sell. They will use the camera to introduce the next step up in their hybrid video lineup. Until the hardware required for that is ready, it will not be released. Personally I have only ever seen one 1D in the wild and that was being used for stills. It is not a massively popular camera and it has limited sales. It does not matter how many people you have seen shooting video with them, it does not change the fact that the vast majority of people who buy a9 and 1D cameras do so to shoot professional stills, because they are the best cameras for that purpose. They are NOT the best cameras for shooting video. The fact that BOTH manufacturers put their cutting edge video in other more dedicated cameras with designs that allow higher video performance should prove that they understand that, even if you do not.

He is not the most successful president of all time. Him claiming he is does not make it so. If Europe and the US undergo economic collapse, so will the rest of the world, because that is where the market is. That will not happen however. There may be restructuring, but things will continue as they are for quite some time to come, at least a generation. Many of the alternate large economies have serious issues, such as being third world environments or lack of diversity in their economic base, they are not going to be able to replace the first world economies any time soon. Chinese companies only dominate because they have an unfair advantage in their home economy. If China was as open economically as most first world countries, western tech would have a choke hold there. There would be no Chinese companies, only western ones with plants in China. Chinese companies make stuff, western companies invent stuff, and the winners will always be the guys who do the inventing first. Trump is an anomaly. He was 3 million votes short in the last election, and only won office because of the electoral college. Since then his numbers have gone down, so in 2020 he will lose by a bigger margin and more importantly will lose in the marginal states that carried him over the line in the electoral college last time. The only hope he has of winning is if the Democrats nominate someone from the activist left wing of their party, which is entirely possible because of how many states use the caucus system instead of primaries to select their delegates for the nomination convention. What libertarians mean is that the only rules that should exist are ones that are favorable to them. Regulation should not apply to them, only to other people. So of course you will have laws, but only ones that control other people, not any that put restrictions on them personally. Laws controlling other people are good, those controlling YOU are bad That is the response of someone who has nothing to say ?

They are not the majority. And they are certainly not silent, they make way more noise than their numbers deserve. They would be the basket of deplorables Hillary was talking about, and that certainly does not represent most Americans (who, btw, did NOT vote for Trump).

You are substituting one method of encoding for another. The second encoding is going to discard information it deems unnecessary according to whatever optimizations it's algorithms make. In other words, you will lose information that was present in the first encoded sequence. It is not a case of just putting you information into a larger bucket, some of it is going to get spilled in the process.

It will only make things worse because transcoding will result in loss of additional information. Transcoding should only be done to aid editing itself, if you don't need to you should not do it.

Probably before then. Storage costs keep going down and speed keeps increasing, most likely professional productions will simply store the raw data directly and deal with it as such in post. Once you are in post you can do anything you like to the data since it has already been recorded and consequently is beyond RED's claims. Lossy RAW is only desirable when you are limited by storage or the write speed of that storage. Once those are no longer bottlenecks then the need for compression goes away. A 5.9:1 ratio would avoid the patent, although in practise no one would cut it that fine I think because of the risk of inadvertently overstepping the line at some point.

Reading US 7,830,967, it would appear that some sort of preprocessing is involved prior to compression, whatever the hell "pre-emphasis function" means. It appears to be some method of averaging adjacent pixels of specific colors before compression. If that is the case, then there are likely other ways to handle RAW data compression that would not infringe that particular patent. US 8,174,560 does not have the "pre-emphasis" requirement, which makes it more general than '967, but does require a compression ratio of at least 1:6. So I think that anything with a compression ratio of less than 1:6 is OK, as long as you don't do any color averaging of the three color streams.

You don't get worldwide protection from the US patent office. A US patent protects you in the US only. You can file a PCT application with WIPO for general priority in signatory countries (which has different rules regarding patentability compared to the US) but the actual patents have to be filed in each country individually to get protection there.

IIRC it has to be 6X or greater. Less lossy compressed RAW would still be OK. It is only really a problem for internal recording, external media is increasingly cheaper these days so large file sizes are less of an issue. And of course of someone comes up with subpixel arrays, essentially generating an image without debeyering (which is where we will be going in sensor design) then the RED patents won't cover that.

When someone says that X is somehow "special", but can't say exactly what it is, that is a sure sign of BS

Yes you can tell the difference, just look at the vegetation, it is usually obvious. When I replaced my old 40" 1080p TV with a 65" 4K model, the difference at the same normal viewing distance was immediately apparent. What confuses people into thinking that the difference is not all that great is that all of the 4K TV sets are upscaling the HD stuff to 4K, which does help a bit since it keeps edges straight (but not the actual detail). Edges catch your eye first so a superficial comparison of the images would be that they are similar, but not if you look between the edges. But if you compare HD footage on a HD screen with 4K footage on a 4K screen, the improvement is clear. Another factor to consider is the bit rate used as well. If whatever you are viewing has a low bit rate it is going to be losing a lot of detail to compression anyway, in which case the differences between resolutions becomes less apparent. Compression will keep the edges but lose the detail between the edges, so when you upscale the HD to 4K it might not seem all that different. It is just an artifact of the low bit rate being used however. So, someone who compares two low bit rate clips may say there is not much difference, while someone who compares high bit rate clips may say there is a clear difference. And both will be right.

The main thing that makes a difference is the screen size. On smaller screens you won't notice a difference but on larger screens you will. Other than that, the subject matter has an affect as well. If the focus of your scene is a large object then you probably wont notice lower resolution, but if it a collection of smaller objects or an object where the fine detail itself is important, then you will. In addition to that a lot of shooters do various things to deliberately soften their images, and of course if they do that they are effectively lowering resolution, in which case both resolutions will look similar.

Usually that stutter/jitter you see when moving a camera is due to the IS system being at too aggressive a setting. Rock solid IS when the camera is mostly stationary is fine, but if you are moving the camera a lot around an axis, such as panning, you need to turn IS off or you are going to get some seriously ugly jumping going on. Generally things like pans need to be done on something like a tripod or gimbal, with IS switched off.

Video specs are super useful in an astro camera!! ;)

I have tried, but there is just nothing you can do to recover the G30 footage. Sharpening does not help. It is fine for a cell phone, or a small HD screen, like a tablet, but it falls apart on a big modern TV. The IQ from NX1 is miles ahead, because of the resolution. The same is true for most 4K cameras, especially the oversampled ones.

Well, no, because 8k is 4x 2k, not 16x. You see differences in dimensions, not areas. And in any case, if you are watching both on a small 2K screen the differences will be minor because it will all be 2K. More precisely, the 8k will be 2k, while the 2k will be ~1.4k after debeyering. On a larger 2K panel you will see a difference. Moving over to a 4K screen the 8k will be 4k, and the 2k still ~1.4k. Try watching something shot on a camera like the HF-G30, which has a 2K sensor but is effectively about 700 lines of resolution after debeyering, then compare that with 2k from an oversampled sensor. The differences are obvious, even on fairly TV panels. Moving on further to a modern 8k screen there will be an even bigger difference, especially since those screens tend to be very large and the differences will be obvious. I have a NX1, which shoots a 6k image oversampled down to 4k. I also have a G30, and the IQ difference between those two cameras is massive when viewed on a 4K panel. No amount of sharpening on the G30 can compensate (and that is ignoring all the purple blooming you get from light scattering on the beyer filter of small sensors).

There was zero chance that they would have been able to beat Apple or Samsung, they are far from being dinosaur companies. It was hubris for RED to think otherwise. Cell phones are a lot more than just cameras, and the cameras on those cell phones are more than good enough for their market space.

It is not the resolution, it is the amount of oversampling a camera can handle. Technically footage that makes use of the full sensor size but line skips/pixel bins is undersampling.

You were responding to me, and I was talking about oversampling, so yes, we were talking about oversampling. do you even read what i write or just stop after half a sentence? The crops used on those cameras are because the processors used do not have the processing bandwidth to the extent that would be necessary to cover the full width of the sensor. It has nothing to do with the sensors actual size or resolution. If the processors could handle the oversampling required, then the camera would have no crop factor. I doubt many are buying this camera as a video camera. They buy it primarily for stills, but with the option of shooting some quality video as well if they have the need. If you are purely into video and have no interest in stills, there are better options.

How do you account for oversampling then? An oversampled image will use more pixels, but it is the processors bandwidth capabilities that determine if that can be done or not. If you don't have the bandwidth you can't oversample, and if you can't oversample then you have to either lineskip/pixel bin or use a crop.

That is with software compression using inefficient mjpeg codecs. This camera will be able to do it with hardware compression. Digic 9 has the same encoder as the DV7, so in principle the 1DIII should be capable of what a C500II can do. It will likely be a bit more restricted in practice however since it will not have the cooling capability that the C500II has. No, it is largely determined by what the processor can handle. High resolution sensors can produce too much data, so to get everything within a bandwidth that the processor can handle they either has to resort to things like pixel binning/line skipping, or sample only from a portion of the total sensor (= cropping).

It is usually evident in anything that has vegetation in it, since leaves are approaching the limits of resolution and anything that results in local degradation reduces them to an amorphous mass. If your subject matter is a face on the other hand, it is far from the limits of resolution, so for something like that you might not notice the difference. That is the issue I have with a lot of these comparative "tests", usually the person doing them chooses subject matter that reinforces whatever claim they are making. So, someone who claims that resolution does not matter will typically shoot a bunch of talking heads or buildings to make their point, and sure, for those things resolution is less important but the claim that resolution is not important is still wrong. They are just focusing on the wrong thing. It could be that they simply don't understand, or it may be that they do understand and are doing that on purpose.

It doesn't matter when your subject matter is large objects, such as people and such. But, in content that focusses on detail, such as natural history, then it does make a difference. It is all about context. Sure, you can produce examples where resolution is not noticeable, but equally you can do the same where it is noticeable. Oversampling is important because it produces more accurate edges in an image. In content with large objects and few edges, you would not see a big difference, but in subject matter with small objects and lots of edges, it is significant.