KnightsFan

4 minutes ago, shorty15 said:

You will always get compromised image quality and ergonomics from a jack of all trades, master of none camera

True, except that other manufacturers are putting better specs in their similar sized cameras. No one is expecting Alexa quality from a consumer mirror less. People aren't annoyed because it doesn't stack up against a cinema camera, people are annoyed because canon lacks features that others in the same class have have for some time now.

@Andrew Reid Exactly. And I think most of us count noise level as part of low light performance.

28 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I am still utterly amazed that people don't understand this. 

Take a photo: snip out a "crop" of the pic. Is the exposure the same as with the "full" picture? OF COURSE IT IS!

Yeah, exposure is the same.

However, snip out a "crop" of the pic, and then blow that crop up to the size that the original was. Noise will be more apparent on the crop than on the original.

If you wanted the noise level to be equal on the crop as the original, you lower the ISO, and open the aperture to compensate.

6 hours ago, mnewxcv said:

I've been debating picking up the e1 since they're really fair in price. I know it has its limitations, but compared to a go pro in situations that don't need a plastic enclosure or waterproofing, there seems to be a lot in its favor. 

I looked at the E1 again recently, too, but I have no interest in it. I don't like the footage, and I don't need an extremely small camera. But if you do need something TINY for the occasional shot, the E1 seems like a great choice for the price, especially with a minuscule MFT pancake lens.

3 minutes ago, mnewxcv said:

that is interesting as well. How do you like the e2, and where can you buy one?

The cameras aren't out yet, but I downloaded test clips from the Z cam website and the facebook group. The 4k 120 fps is absolutely stunning, honestly looks like better quality than the 4k out of the NX1: perhaps less sharpening, and significantly less noise reduction. Z-Log is actually really easy to grade. And the best part is it was only 170 Mbps! As much as the P4K footage looks phenomenal, for 1/10 the data rate and very similar output, the E2 looks like the only camera I'd consider as an upgrade to the NX1 so far.

On 9/2/2018 at 6:51 PM, mnewxcv said:

edit: Also appears to be an issue with the free version only. I do not believe it appears in 15 studio on windows 10.

Ah, interesting, I didn't see this when I posted before. Good to know!

Also, incidentally, I was just playing with the H.265 clips from the Z Cam E2 and they worked flawlessly in Resolve Free on Windows 10. So it seems that the color cast issue is specifically from NX1 footage.

1 hour ago, Yurolov said:

In practical terms, if you have a 16-35, or anything relatively wide, will it really mean that much to you? Perhaps. My point is that most people won't know the difference/care. The other considerations are in my view more important.

It means a lot to some of us. Almost every project, I end up using an ultra wide (10mm on APS-C) on a few shots. Yes, I can put that 10mm on a cropped full frame for video, but then as soon as I want to take a picture I'm cropping half those 30 megapixels out, or changing lenses. I'd rather just buy an APS-C camera in the first place.

No problem! Glad we found out a bit more. I guess the question now is whether we can get rid of the color cast, seeing as it doesn't appear on Windows 8.1.

I don't know if anyone else is still checking this thread, but those of you with issues on Windows 10 using Resolve Studio: do you have that "HEVC Video Extensions from Device Manufacturer" installed? I wonder if uninstalling it would help? My crazy thought is that maybe Resolve defaults to using builtin codecs, but if you don't have any, then it uses its own codecs? That could explain why my Windows 8.1 desktop has no issues whatsoever.

@mnewxcv Ah, I see, I misunderstood.

So on this Windows 10 laptop there is a program called "HEVC Video Extensions from Device Manufacturer" in the Apps & features list, published by Microsoft. Seems like the one we're looking for, perhaps?

@mnewxcv Unfortunately I'll be away from my desktop for a few more weeks so I can't check until then. How would one go about checking which codecs are installed? I've never gone and installed a codec pack or anything, so I assume I've just got whatever generic ones Windows comes with.

Although, I'm fairly certain Resolve Studio has native H.265 support, which makes me believe it should come with its own codecs.

7 hours ago, Django said:

full announcement Sept.6 (day after Canon ?) DOA anyone?

I don't know, if they have really killer video specs for a lower price than Canon, Fuji could do really well. None of us really believe Canon will have 4k60p or 10 bit.

Which makes me think, 4k60 at 10 bit seems like H.265 territory to me--could it be that Fuji is the one to implement an efficient codec?

5 hours ago, gelaxstudio said:

In short term future，I think everyone will have 10bit 4K 60P-120P，even raw  or 6K，10bit just solve all the color banning issues，but the sensor size will be the only factor that decide how good the image really is！

I think you're right on the first part. Soon, every camera will shoot very high spec video. However, the quality of each camera will be so good, the advantages of larger sensors won't matter and we'll be back to decisions based on ergonomics, lens investments, and brand loyalty.

15 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

Lol. Wait for crop, codec and video specs before yelling victory. 

For video unfortunately the A7SIII will be much better with 4K60p but we will all be sad not to have DPAF and this canon body and colors. It’s always the same story. It never changes. 

Want spec go to Sony, want ergonomics usability and stuff go to Canikon.  Want both wait, and keep waiting.

True! But at some point, even the low end specs are good enough, a point which we hit a year or two ago for me (and probably many others). Some people really need/want 4k60p, but I'm happy with good quality HD, so ergonomics and usability are a real deciding factor these days. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Canon does, and let's be honest, I'm just as excited to see what the A7S3 is like.

6 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

Hey, remember when everyone said Canon was too late to the game and they couldn't bring a mirrorless that could compete? 

I guess the popular dispute about whether Canon "couldn't" or "wouldn't" make something competitive might be finally put to rest.

26 minutes ago, MdB said:

I suspect it is a programmable control ring, like what is in G7X and RX100. A bit like the aperture ring on the Fuji’s, except can have different functions. It’s also available on the EF adapter too.

Yeah, I'm really curious about that part myself. It's striking that the 35mm prime lens has two control rings, almost like an EF zoom lens...  hmm would it be too wild for them to have a digital zoom mapped to that control ring? With 30 Megapixels you could turn a prime into a decent zoom especially for video. I'm probably just dreaming haha.

Ah well, it was a cool idea anyway. Though, this caught my eye:

Quote

M adapter R was confirmed with “Mount Adapter EF – EOS R”. Three types of mount adapters are available with control ring and drop-in filter.

It would be ridiculously cool if they added an electronic declicked aperture ring for EF lenses, though I suspect they simply mean a control ring for some sort of variable ND filter.

2 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Wild guess: the mount could be a more extreme version of EF-S: same backward-compatible mount, but a special pin to prevent forward-compatibility. And then lenses with the RF mount are allowed to have a much deeper rear element, but it won't butt up against the mirror on a dSLR because it can't be mounted on one despite the superficially similar mount and forward-compatibility of the RF, due to the pin...

With the new lenses, the rear elements can go much deeper, so the rear element needs to be protected, so there's a deeper plastic ring extending around the rear element, and the lens caps are much deeper, too, to accommodate it. But otherwise it's the same basic shape of the EF mount. Telephoto lenses etc. will never be RF, because they don't need to be. Rear lens caps will not be interchangeable, but RF lens caps will mount on EF lenses, they'll just also extend too far.

That's a really cool idea! I wonder how hard it would be to sell to the general public, though? I think people would balk at the idea of carefully inserting a ~20mm long lens rear element into their camera every time you change lenses. But it would certainly be innovative and make Canon's mirrorless much more appealing for the vast swaths of people who own EF or EF-S glass. EF mount is so common I adapted all of my Nikon lenses to Canon just to put them on a NX-EF adapter! Makes it so much easier to quickly use them on borrowed or rented cameras.

On a more general note, while I'm excited to see what Canon has in store, I bet it will be another disappointment for me as my main hope is for H.265. The NX1's codec quality is all I need, and I don't want to double or triple my hard drive consumption for marginal returns on that front. Once the GH5 implemented it, I hoped the floodgates would open to H.265 in mainstream cameras, but we may have to wait a little while longer. Canon would have to pull off something truly spectacular for me to buy into it without H.265.

1 hour ago, mnewxcv said:

was your version of 14, the one on windows 8, free or studio?

It was Studio and I was running Windows 8.1. (Afaik there was no native support for H.265 in Resolve 14 Free.)

Nah, I'm fairly sure the thread is about an Advertising Case Study. /spam

I think it looks fantastic! @mercer  I see what you mean but I think that's mainly due to the lighting and compression--though YT's compression was certainly much friendlier to this clip than the one with lots of moving foliage!

3 hours ago, capitanazo said:

what about davinci 15? still get that color drift?

I got the color shift in 15, but I did NOT get the color shift in 14 (though, as detailed before, this was on two separate computers, etc.)

Perhaps the color shift only occurs on Windows 10? Can anyone offer any insight?

Wait, hang on--are we seriously comparing footage uploaded to YouTube? Doesn't comparing compressed sRGB files sort of defeat the purpose of having higher data rates and dynamic range? I think we should wait for files straight out of the camera before making any real judgments.

@noone That's fair, I agree once images are online there's no telling what is what. It's been processed by the user, and then compressed for web. Sometimes, comparing cameras is more a matter of "I can get the colors I want, but it'll take me twice as long in post," instead of "This camera simply CAN'T produce the image I want." And then once it's compressed, any subtle differences will be gone. Fine noise/grain preserved by shooting Raw? Flattened. 500 mbps ProRes 4k? Squished into 40 mbps. Deep rich colors? Oversaturated by an overzealous photoshopper, then smothered by an overzealous compression engine.

I feel there is an important life lesson here but I'm too busy reading spec sheets to figure it out.

36 minutes ago, mnewxcv said:

I'm on windows 10, but no issues in premiere..... are you able to post a picture of the noise pattern? Is it during playback only?

It's only in playback. When I hit play, it's fine for about half a second and then suddenly it sort of looks like a very light fog machine is blowing haze across the frame--really bizarre. And then if you pause it snaps back to a normal clean image. I tried making a picture to show the effect, but it's barely noticeable without movement.

I suppose it is probably just that the computer is hitting some sort of processing limit, and automatically reduces playback quality despite my settings. But it's an oddly specific effect that I've never seen before.

6 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Well it sort of is. Because when you admit you are talking about 'color preferences' and that there is 'no objective measure' you are not dealing with 'science' at all! But I argued this once before and people simply declared they ]'preferred' their own definition of science over mine.

Yes and no.

"Color science" refers to the hardware and software that the manufacturer uses to define the output of their camera. For example, Arri's color science may include a dual gain architecture in order to make the highlights behave a certain way, whereas Sigma's Foveon color science involves a very specific type of sensor.  The method of creating an image is certainly a science (specifically computer science) built out of objectively measurable variables. The subjective part is that one person may prefer the end result of a specific color science over another, and so a preference of one color science vs. another is not a science itself.

And my argument is that having a preference about the subjective part is a perfectly valid way to decide which camera to get, especially now that almost every modern camera has high technical quality.

7 minutes ago, Mokara said:

A telltale sign that is going on when non-quantifiable qualities such as "color science", "cinematic" and "special sauce" start being bandied about as their rationale. As soon as you hear those sorts of things you know they are full of shit  

That's not entirely accurate. People have preferences on color science, and that is a valid reason to prefer one camera over another, even if there is no objective measure of which color/look is "better."

2 hours ago, mnewxcv said:

I will have to take a look. I have resolve 15 and I believe all my clips load in as audio only. I just thought it wasn't supported. 

Huh, that's odd. What operating system?

On a related note, my NX1 files are ALSO glitching out in Premiere on this laptop; there's this weird wavy noise pattern on top of the image. Again, these same files work perfectly in both Premiere and Resolve on my desktop. So maybe Windows 10 is to blame? Or maybe it's a hardware issue related to GPU acceleration?