KnightsFan

In addition to the new Z Cam model, Accsoon announced their own product which seems better designed physicall. Rather than needing to mount it somewhere, it is the phone holder. It has a NPF battery sled, and I'd assume that means it'll charge your phone simultaneously, plus a cold shoe on top. I also see some nice locating pin holes on the bottom. Z Cam though has the benefit of controlling compatible cameras with a USB cable. Would be nice to combine them and get the physical design of Accsoon with camera control. It would be cool (and not that surprising!) if Accsoon made a version that could receive a wireless signal from their CineEye transmitter in addition to HDMI.

I think this is great news. The more we can do with generic devices like smartphones that can run 3rd party software, the more creative options open up to us. Some purists are married to using large sensors to get "real" depth of field control, but I say that once it can be simulated to the point of not being able to tell the difference, we'll all be free to use smaller, lighter gear with fewer expensive accessories. Will this camera be indistinguishable from a full frame camera with a 50mm f1.4? Probably not--but it's getting excitingly close! I'm not an Apple user as I don't like their closed ecosystem, but good for them for pushing a little farther into pro imaging quality with iphones. Yeah since apparently it's physically impossible to make a ProRes encoder that is smaller than a Ninja V.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, afaik neither Video Hummus nor I mentioned anything about what look we preferred, except for the statement (not by me) that the last 0.02% of quality wasn't that important. No, that's not what happened at all. You said you wanted ProRes in a small camera via a bolt on accessory, I said it makes more sense to want ProRes in that small camera via firmware.

@kye I think you should be clearer when you are talking about properties of the codec, vs. properties of the camera. Not having a GH5, I'll take your word that the internal recording is over sharpened vs. the uncompressed output. However, Z Cam (for example) provides sharpening options that are used with whichever codec you are on, all the way down to None which is genuinely blurry compared to any other camera I've used, including Blackmagic cDNG or ProRes. These are minor details in the firmware, from an implementation perspective, that you are suggesting we solve with huge amounts of extra hardware. I'm saying let's vocalize our desire for these options to be exposed as internal settings, rather than vocalize our desire for a separate company like Atomos to come up with their interpretation of what good quality means. The difference is that the hypothetical we're talking about--good internal recording options--is entirely possible via simple firmware changes. The reason they aren't included is to sell us something else, whether it's a higher end Panasonic camera, or Red locking out compressed raw to sell you their brand.

I think the question is whether its still called "raw" if it's been scaled, and as a separate question, to what degree scaling individual color arrays before debayering is better or worse.

But what you're saying in this topic is that you'd like a 3rd party to make an HDMI recorder, putting you in their hands for recording format instead of the camera's. Unless you're envisioning the external recorder space getting large enough that there is legitimate competition with a variety of different options. Why not wish for camera companies to allow for more flexibility in choosing codec, and higher quality instead of adding a whole extra layer of compatibility, accessories, and specs. Remember when Panasonic added 10 bit to the G9 years later via firmware? Remember when hackers added compressed raw recording to the 5D3? Or when Blackmagic made a pocket camera that shot ProRes and Raw at a fraction of the price of contemporary DSLR's, without fans and heatsinks? My sarcasm in this topic is because, in my opinion, wishing for small external recorders is a roundabout solution that would also encourage the implementation of bad internal video. I'd rather pay $100 for firmware that unlocks pro video formats, than $600 + batteries for a recorder even if it's the size of a battery grip. This is the exact reason I hope for the Octopus cinema camera to turn into a real product, or why I'd like to see cameras running vanilla android or Linux OS's. Getting on my soap box here, but the migration away from standardized computers (both hardware and software) to dozens of different devices running proprietary firmwares is a harmful trend.

So you're saying that if I transcode a ProRes file to H.264, you will 100% be able to tell which is which in a blind test?

GoPro makes a camera the records 4k60 for hours on end while enclosed into a waterproof case with no external heatsinks, at under half the weight of the Ninja V. I'm sure it's quite possible to build a screenless recorder smaller than the Ninja V.

Yes, it would have handicapped H264 since it's double compressed, so if H264 introduced the massive losses you say, then it would be even more apparent than if both had started from a clean source. The attitude that H264 is seen as a delivery standard and is therefore not for capture is what annoys me. It reminds me of people who think that a PL mount automatically makes a lens produce professional images. Definitely once you go to ProRes HQ there is nothing at that bitrate for H264. But to get back to the topic, I think we agree that, with the right encoder, H264 is identical to ProRes. So doesn't it make more sense to wish for better encoding in cameras than for a bulky accessory that you have to buy separately, mount, power, and connect up? My entire point is that wishing for a small, external recorder is wishing for a workaround to a problem instead of wishing for the direct solution... I mean if you're talking about products that don't exist, just wish that Panasonic licenses ProRes in the GH6.

So you're saying you'd rather test an individual camera's encoder rather than the codec itself? In which case, like I said, I'd rather buy a camera that shoots the way I want internally rather than bolt an external recorder onto it.

That's why I specified All-I at the same bitrate.

I'll shoot some ProRes HQ, convert to H264 with equivalent specs, and post them as a blind test. Does that seem like a good comparison?

No, I'm not interested in cameras that can't shoot the format I want internally. You won't find measurable differences in quality or usability between ProRes and H264 All-I at the same bitrate, so there are plenty of smaller, cheaper cameras that hit your criteria for a decent codec internally.

It is a puzzling decision, particularly since Red has an interchangeable mount with an existing user base. Changing standards typically hurts consumers who have to buy a whole ecosystem. That said, the low price on the Raptor compared to DSMC2 suggests that it's less about milking consumers, and likely has something to do with licensing deals or whatnot with Canon.

There's a picture on the Newsshooter article Well, can't say it's in my budget range, but it's a nice look into where sensor tech is going. 8k120 means they're reading all ~36mp in just 8ms--is this a glimpse at the end of jello cam? RF is an interesting mount choice for an A-cam in cinema. I'm not opposed per se. I think we should move away from massive, heavy, manual-only lenses, but in order to be an effective replacement it's necessary to have features to leverage lens' builtin AF motors. It should be like having a builtin wireless FF motor inside each lens, with all the features you'd expect from a pro FF kit.

Before getting too far talking about ergonomics, I find that most cameras in the price range have fantastic image quality, so to me that isn't a major consideration. No doubt the images from this camera are phenomenal. I shoot almost exclusively narrative, typically with a crew of 1-4 people. The big issue for me is that this is a 5 lb camera that is 8" long. It wouldn't hamper every shoot, but I've been in situations where that camera wouldn't fit, or would have been wearying to carry for an entire day. I did a comparison between an NX1 and a C100 on a few shoots, and found that for every scenario, the NX1 was simply easier to use, and the C100 is only 3 lbs. All that is to say that an Ursa Mini is not my ideal camera shape. I can't comment much on low light not having used it, but on some night shoots I'll be pushing my ISO way up even at f1.4. So anything with a fixed 1600 (which is really 800 pushed a stop digitally) would be lacking in some situations. I do think that I would rather get a P6K than an Ursa Mini 4.6k even for its new price of $2k. But that's just my opinion as someone who hasn't used either one, would be nice if some owners chimed in as well.

Seems like most people don't visit the sub forums, you might get more responses in the main forum. Without having used either camera, and assuming you're sure it doesn't have anything wrong with it at that price, here's my two cents. It would all come down to how controlled a setting you typically shoot in, and how big your crew is. That's a large camera, meaning support equipment also needs to be sturdier--tripod, gimbal, crane, car mounts, etc. It'll go through more batteries and storage. If in a studio, it may not be a problem, but on a 10 hour location shoot that's a lot of extra stuff to bring, compared to a BMMCC. Those 4.6k sensors aren't known for being great in low light, so you'll also perhaps need more/bigger lights. So if it already matches your production style, than that's a great deal to jump on. However, if you're one-man-banding it on location, consider how it might affect your workflow.

The rolling shutter halved when CineD switched from 12k to 8k. My guess is they are using a lower bit depth readout for sub-12k, which allows them to get higher frame rates in those lower resolutions.

I'll be "that guy" and point out CD's DR comparison actually shows the 12k slightly ahead of the 4.6k. In Braw, they measured 12.1 stops on the 4.6k G2 scaled to UHD. Downscaling the 12k to 4k gave a SNR to 12.4 stops, with a note that there is more data under the noise floor than the 4.6k has. I'd argue that the 4k-normalized number is better for comparison, because if you're looking to maximize SNR in 12k than obviously the 4.6k won't even compare. Worth noting though, they showed that the 12k only does that well shooting in 12k and downscaling in post. Shooting 4k in camera produced only 11.3 stops.

@newfoundmass USB audio is an existing standard which, if implemented in cameras, would let people use USB mics, but more importantly they could use mixers and completely bypass camera preamps and ADCs. And it would open up to a whole range of audio devices, like MixPre's, Zooms, or even desktop mixers from Behringer, Tascam, FocusRite, etc. That would streamline a lot of types of shoots.

An open standard already exists for USB audio interfaces.

My ideal solution would be if cameras could accept USB audio interfaces, then using a MixPre or Zoom F4 and pipe the audio in digitally from there. I think this Tascam unit is an important first step, as to my knowledge it's the first third-party digital audio connection to a consumer camera. Edit: I'm fairly sure the Octopus Cinema Camera supports a USB audio interface, but I'm not confident that camera will ever materialize into an actual product unfortunately

That would be nice, but I assume if they had 32 bit float it would have been prominently mentioned in the announcement.

That's amazing! We'll have to see if Fuji and/or Canon are willing to open their digital interface to other audio manufacturers in addition to Tascam. The prospect of using something like the Deity BP-TRX set with direct digital input from the receiver into the camera could eliminate the need for an external recorder for me--particularly now that Deity has licensed backup recording on the transmitter.

Assuming sharpness is the main property you're looking at, The simple/theoretically-correct-but-not-really answer is, look up the MTF chart for your lens, and you'll see how many line pairs per mm your lens resolves at any given distance from its center. Multiply lp/mm by the size of the sensor in mm, and you know how many line pairs your lens is resolving for the entire image. Example: if the lens resolves 100 lp/mm, then the FF lens resolves 3600 line pairs across its width, and the MFT lens resolves 1800 line pairs over its width. Even with this simplified view, it depends on the MTF curve of a specific lens, which also depends on the aperture you're shooting at. The complex answer is that the MTF chart doesn't show the whole picture. It's a 1D representation, but lenses project 2D image. And it might be different at different focus distances. And it varies from lens copy to lens copy. LensRentals' Roger Cicala has a number of great articles about this topic. So really the best way to answer is to take the lens in question and run some tests with the cameras and lens in question.