KnightsFan

Fair. The P4K and XT3 are significantly cheaper as well.

That's half the issue. Of course people don't like subscription models in general, but if you are paying that much money, you expect it to be reliable--or at least more reliable than the significantly cheaper competition. Premiere is still slightly faster to edit than Resolve. It's as if Resolve's UI has a few milliseconds of lag, and overall the UI is a bit clunkier with less customization. But the time saved from not crashing makes up for it, and Resolve is still improving at an enormous pace at no extra cost. Exactly! A lot of people use Adobe because clients require it. Rewriting muscle memory is doable. Convincing clients is not so easy. It's slower to change the paradigm than to make a better product, and hopefully Blackmagic realizes this, and is in for the long haul.

The E2 has ProRes as well (and 8 bit H.264, fwiw). ProRes is either pending Apple's approval or already available on the other models as well. Raw should come at some point. I don't think all the specs are finalized for the upcoming models, true. The E2 itself has no forced crop in any mode. You can turn on a Super 16 crop if you want, though I'm not sure all the framerate and resolution options for that mode. Are you sure the FF and APS-C Sony sensors they are using have those capabilities?

I'm pretty sure the E2g is already available, you can order on their website, and several people on the fb page already have it.

Those results are certainly against conventional wisdom. However, the A5100 is HD, whereas the GH5 is UHD. The GH5 should gain another ~stop of DR if it was downscaled to HD, putting it above the A5100 in this test. Noise reduction and/or sharpening could play a role as well. The article says "[the a5100] performs slightly worse than the GH4." Not idea what picture profile, nor could I find any measurements of the GH4 on its own that weren't taken down after the method change. Perhaps noise reduction gives the XT2 a lower value also? Interestingly, the XT2 and XT3 match when downscaled to HD, maybe equalizing the NR done on the 4k image. I'm sure tweaking camera settings would make different values, on all the tests done. I wish they were more rigorous in documenting what settings were used, though in recent articles it's been better. Certainly true! That's why I'm in this topic in the first place, to get a crack at the non-test chart footage you have so kindly uploaded Anyway, apologies for going off topic.

That's what I've been saying: someone should make a camera that records audio from a USB audio interface. Lossless multi channel digital audio directly from the quality preamps of your choice, no post-syncing required.

As long as they say how they are measuring, changing the method is more confusing than inaccurate. I don't know of any other site that has nearly as extensive a list of "objective" DR measurements for video mode (and I say "objective" with quotes since we are trying to verify to what extent they are accurate). It would be great if we had a couple other sources to compare against. I appreciate it Taking down the old figures is a good thing. Pushing forward with inconsistent, uncontrolled tests would have been the bigger mistake. Downsampling increases SNR. That's what they are measuring: the contrast ration between signal clipping in whites, and SNR = 2 in the shadows. So while you can argue that SNR isn't a "true measure" of dynamic range, it's what C5D decided to document. Downsampling and noise reduction could both give falsely high ratings using C5D's method (depending on how you look at it), which is something you have to keep in mind for sure. But both would come at the expense of resolution and detail, which is something we can judge from other tests. Again, it would be nice if more people did lab tests, maybe even measuring in different ways, so we could compare results.

That "someone" was me. I compiled a list of every DR rating I could find on C5D, and found the only inconsistency was with one Sony camera. I contacted C5D about it, and they said that the measurement differences were due to one being UHD and the other UHD downscaled to 1080p. The discrepancy was consistent with the difference you'd expect from downscaling. In my list, I included links to the articles I got the DR ratings from. I encourage anyone to look over the list and double check--that's why I posted it in the first place. I'm happy to post it again. Until you check my work, saying "he claimed were consistent, which it probably wasn't" isn't justified. I asked people to help me expand the list, and am still happy to do so if anyone is interested in actually figuring out the degree to which we can trust those DR results, rather than say "it probably wasn't" without looking. A few years ago, C5D changed their test methodology, and edited their past articles to remove the numbers that reflected their old methodology. However, other sites (such as NFS) still quote the old methodology and have old chart images, but if you follow NFS's links you will see that the C5D articles have been edited and those charts have been removed.

You shouldn't be getting duplicated frames unless your shutter speed is actually slower than your frame rate. You should be able to shoot 1/38 shutter with 24p just fine. So that's probably not it. You didn't transcode the footage at any stage, did you? If you are 100% sure of the camera settings, 23.976 fps with 1/38 shutter, then my guess is that there is something wrong with your computer playing the files. If you can upload an original clip from the camera, we can verify. Edit: Is your footage interlaced? Could it be a problem with deinterlacing?

Is your timeline frame rate also 23.976?

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply it necessarily wasn't a DC connector separate to the battery, I literally just meant it looked like a dummy battery, and I assumed that little port on the side was for a dummy battery wire when I initially saw the camera.

That looks like a dummy battery to me. Hopefully it takes a range of voltages.

I have absolutely 0 issue with a company making markups or only allowing proprietary media. I personally do not buy into closed ecosystems, but I respect their decisions. What I have a problem with is if Red makes false claims, both about their own products, and the third party alternatives. Here's Land's quotes: From the video, it appears that Jinni Tech simply used micron drives with standard micron firmware downloaded from micron's website. No duplication of Red IP or firmware, and no hacking. Furthermore, Jinni claims that Red never had any custom firmware on their drives in the first place, and that RED itself simply uses micron drives and firmware. I think most readers would assume that the quote "For our media, we developed our own IP and Firmware" refers to developing the firmware of the drive itself. So if it turns out that Red uses standard micron firmware, as Jinni claims, then Red lied on both counts. Using approved, RED-brand media will be worth it to some people, no matter the cost, and no matter the firmware used. And for other people, cheaper alternatives will be worth the risk. But both parties need to be honest about what they are selling. If it turns out that Jinni "hacked and duplicated" Red IP, then they should be shut down and/or fined. If, on the other hand, Red has slandered Jinni and lied about the quality of their own products, then Red should face consequences as well.

I was primarily joking in my post. But to clarify, the posts by RED in the past have implied that the millions in R&D went into designing and optimizing custom firmware on the minimag drives, whereas the video argues (quite convincingly, imho) that they are ordinary micron drives running micron firmware. After the video was released, RED's statements subtly switch to saying the millions was actually for camera firmware, not custom minimag firmware.

I dont think there is enough financial investment in foveon technology to make it compete with cmos yet for sensitivity and speed. However, iirc, one obstacle was that foveon images required a lot of processing power to make images. If sigma sticks with Raw video, perhaps they could make a decent video camera by offloading that processing to post. That really depends on how you measure. Sigma says 12.5 "usable" stops, which is where many current DSLMs stand now. We will have to wait and see the tests I guess.

From that image from @ntblowz, it looks like the non-Raw recordings are 8 bit both internally and externally? That's a shame.

Sigma's prior cameras have been photo-only Foveon cameras. They are pretty much the only cameras out there that don't use a CFA. The images always looked good to me, but have always been sort of a special purpose/novelty product. I always wanted one, but the SA mount put me off. I am looking forward to Sigma's Foveon cameras in L mount next year, as well as this new FP.

Hopefully. 24.00 isn't even a greyed out option at the moment. I highly doubt it, but it would be nice of course. With that enormous data rate, I don't think you would be able to do uncompressed Raw to SD or USB C at 4k120, even if the processor could handle it (which I don't think it can). If anything, I would say there's a slim, outside chance that Sigma could possibly drop a bombshell firmware update with 4k60 in a crop mode to counter new announcements from their competition. If they were pushing the envelope on specs to FF 4k60, I think they'd come out swinging with that as a headline. Awesome! I totally missed that, but that's a HUGE bonus for usability imo. Or maybe the "DC connector" is actually just a dummy battery itself? I don't really see any ports on the body, though it may not be final design I suppose.

@mkabi All framerates are greyed out except 23.976 when in UHD CDNG, you can see it at 2:06 in the video above. And now that I think about it, they really should have 24.00 in addition to 23.976 if they want to call it a cinema camera.

This is awesome! I'm glad Sigma has decided to make their own unique entry into this category. I've always said that the path to global shutter is through stills cameras without mechanical shutters, and it looks like this is a step in that direction. I can't wait to see how fast the readout is. The L mount alliance is (predictably) making huge strides with the "new" mount, with a slew of cameras and lenses now available. Some positives that catch my eye: 1. HDR videos. I guess it's similar to some of the phone technology we've discussed. 2. "Sigma FP key specs will be opened to encourage support from third party accessory makers" has me really intrigued. Considering we saw it mounted on a drone in the video, perhaps there will be an open control protocol, either with USB or bluetooth? Or perhaps they are talking with Atomos about ProRes Raw? Dare we hope? 3. Can be used as a webcam. That is great and opens up some interesting options for tethered video shooting as well as live streaming. 4. Looks like they have a HDMI clamp accessory. 5. APS-C mode, always handy to have On the other hand, I think there are some missteps on the FP. Maybe it's just a lack of information from the press releases, but here goes: 1. USB charging only when the camera is off. This means you need to use a dummy battery to use an external battery. That means no hot swapping, and more difficult to rig. 2. One thread on the bottom. Seriously, Nikon is the only manufacturer that decided to put even a locator pin slot on their cameras? 3. No 4k60. Oh well. I can't really fault Sigma too much. They are a smaller company, and Panasonic is the only manufacturer who does do 4k60 FF at the moment. 4. No LTC input. Would really be nice considering the cine marketing. 5. Those switches on the top might be difficult to use when rigged up. 6. Tiny, fiddly HDMI port We'll have to wait and see if there is an internal 10 bit. H.264 seems disappointing, I'd rather see HEVC. One thing we can say though, is that it looks like Sony really is dead last in announcing a mirrorless camera that can do 10 bit, internally or externally. Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Blackmagic, Fuji, and now Sigma with cDNG.

One problem is that computers don't go through the same punishment as cameras. An overclocker can test their aftermarket cooling and know that if it works in a benchmark on their desk, it will work indefinitely. A camera needs to work in a benchmark, in the rain, 8 hours in direct sunlight, or on top of a mountain after jostling around for a 5 hour climb. Compounding that, the people overclocking computers are computer geeks. If you are out there buying individual parts for a custom computer build, you can probably be trusted with overclocking capabilities since you necessarily know a little bit about how the components work. On the other hand, the guy who knows enough about photography to want to push their camera to the limit doesn't necessarily have any knowledge of the computer components inside the camera. The people who could be trusted to overclock a camera are still the computer geeks, not the photographers (though there is a small segment of the market that is both).

Interesting results! I certainly disagree with the majority here haha. Though, I suppose in an uncontrolled test, people are going to be judging different things. I tried to ignore DOF, compression, and focus, and really just looked at colors to the best of my ability. It would be interesting to know why people voted the way they did.

Scaling would be for UI only, right? You could still watch native, unscaled UHD content but have 150% UI, correct?

How so? I enjoy my 5.5" HD phone screen. 27" is much more than 4x the size. I'm not looking to see every pixel all the time.

I wonder what would be worse, if they lied about spending millions of dollars on R&D, or whether RED actually spent millions only to settle on off-the-shelf parts.