KnightsFan

Totally agree. I'd rather see the E2 as a polished product before they announce a GS version. But hey, maybe the industrial market will snatch them up?
True.
But... last weekend I went back to some of my REALLY old projects. (The .wmv files no longer play audio in VLC, so I wanted to re-export in a modern codec. Success, btw) They were shot on an old photo camera. 640 x 480, 15 fps. But it was a CCD with intraframe mjpeg in 422! The motion was day and night compared to modern cameras. Really makes me want a GS camera.

It is EXTREMELY RARE to even have a global sensor cinema 4K camera, in fact what notable ones exist....  only the Sony F55 (VERY expensive!) and the flawed BMPC4K

So if someone brings out a low low priced Global Shutter 4K cinema camera then I'm perfectly ok if it is a compromise or there, such as a S16 sensor (merely the same as my BMPCC has). 

Although honestly I wish the rabid global shutter internet deskjockey fanboys had never managed to convince Z Cam in the first instance that a global shutter camera is a worthwhile project, as I'd have rather Z Cam had directed their limited R&D elsewhere. 
 
Arguably you can use the Z Cam straight out of the box (not counting media or lens, which most cameras don't come with), assuming you have a smartphone (as nearly everyone does). 
 

I expect fewer sales for their GS camera than they're expecting. 

Because there are not "many" people who want a Global Shutter camera above all else as their holy grail, there are only very few, but these few are very vocal online and fool people into thinking it is more important than it really is. 
 
 
Well you'd still be needing plenty of lights if a person got the Digital Bolex instead. 
 

The GH5 is a lot more expensive even used, compared to the E2C. The E2C is like if Panasonic had put 4k 10 bit into their G85.
Same thing that already happens when you get a phone call during a shoot... you ignore it and don't ruin the take.
Haha, I kid--it's a valid point. But to be fair, people already use their iphones to shoot serious videos. It's easier to pop the monitor off and make a call on it than to get it out of one of those fancy rig/cage things with the lens on front and everything lol.

The E2C is certainly an interesting new camera. My guess is it's the same sensor as the E1, but with a better processor, and updated I/O to fit with the E2 family. If so, there was minimal R&D involved, just putting together pieces Z Cam was already familiar with. I'm not really interested in buying one, but it seems like a brilliant option for live streamers. POE can really cut cable clutter.
For $800 you can get a brand new camera that shoots 10 bit internally. Amazing how far we've come.
On a more speculative note, a future that I've imagined is using a tiny PC as a recorder. Run ethernet from the camera to the PC, affix an audio interface to the top, and record multi-track audio in sync with the video using your favorite software. No timecode or synchronization needed, just one record button for everything. You can use codec you want, any hard drive you want. Review footage and edit metadata with a full blown OS.
 
It might be, but the E2C is significantly cheaper for a brand new camera, even compared to a used GH4 and a new Ninja V, plus the E2C is a significantly smaller setup. If  you already have an apple phone, your monitor needs are already covered. With the E2C, you get H.265, and I assume it will eventually have ProRes internally. It seems there are advantages to both.

Yup, sounds like simple compression artifacts to me. Downscaling might make it subjectively more pleasant to look at, but won't recover any details that have been mushed. The only real solution would be to use a higher bitrate or better codec to begin with. Raw of course solves every problem, but is usually overkill. High bitrate intraframe codecs are ideal for fast pans, but even using a higher bitrate interframe codec would improve the image.
However, a better acquisition format doesn't fully solve the problem. If you distribute on a streaming service, then it will be compressed into mush, whether you shot in Raw or not. The delivery format is often the limiting factor these days.

Downscaling is essentially adding a blur to your image. It might help reduce compression artifacts--if that is indeed what you are seeing, that was just my first guess without having seen the image itself. You might get better mileage out of a directional blur rather than downscaling.

Good advice for anyone who uses middle grey as an exposure method but using middle grey as and exposure method may not be good advice.....

Well yeah, but at least for me it means "Dont stick to the native iso's and try some stuff out if needed." 

There are definitely prores videos out there. It's officially in the camera now. They said it can't do prores raw output.

...and Nikon goes from "buy Nikon lenses--you can adapt them to any camera!" to "buy Nikon cameras--you can use any lenses!"

The a7 is old. This is a 2019 camera we are talking about. I assume it will have 4k and high frame rate of some sort, etc, much different from a years-old camera having dropped in price to $800

...and Nikon goes from "buy Nikon lenses--you can adapt them to any camera!" to "buy Nikon cameras--you can use any lenses!"

Nikon has registered several new models with the wireless agencies worldwide, with rumours that a high-end mirrorless Z9 is due to be released this year, along with a more affordable Z5 aimed at the lower-end of the full frame market around $1200. The first affordable Nikon APS-C DSLR to shoot non-cropped Super 35mm 4K is expected to be the Nikon D5700.
Read the full article

It might be a year or two, but in the meantime we can use proxies, the way we did when 4k just started. I dont think computing power will be a big deal in the long term. It seems to me that 8k is happening much smoother and cheaper than 4k did.
Thats not to say that 8k is super important, but i think the tech is shaping up nicely.

It might be a year or two, but in the meantime we can use proxies, the way we did when 4k just started. I dont think computing power will be a big deal in the long term. It seems to me that 8k is happening much smoother and cheaper than 4k did.
Thats not to say that 8k is super important, but i think the tech is shaping up nicely.

Similar price, both will be used by vloggers, hobbyists, students, and professionals for a variety of purposes, and both will end up in those "$1000 camera vs Arri Alexa" videos. Both have some features i like, and lack some that i find essential.
Considering the price, i find a comparison between this and the p4k more apt than say a comparison between this and an a7s3, or between the p4k and an ursa mini. In both of those cases, one option is simply out of my budget.
If you want to tell people which cameras can be compared, youve got a lot of internet to police.

"Z CAM E2 is formally ProRes licensed!" -Kinson
Next firmware update will unlock it automatically; in the meantime they posted a method to unlock ProRes manually. Unlike the internal H.265, which is 10 bit 4:2:0, internal ProRes on the E2 has 4:2:2 subsampling.

It would not work. You can only adapt lenses to mounts with a shorter flange distance. Canon FD < Canon EF < Nikon F. That's one reason FD lenses tend to be so cheap on the used market: they can't be used on modern Canon cameras.
Well technically there are some adapters that use corrective optics to allow FD lenses on EF cameras, but they are generally expensive and reduce the quality considerably.

I stack adapters. All of my Nikon lenses have a "permanent" Nikon F -> Canon EF adapter attached. Stacking cheap adapters can result in more play overall. However, most F/EF adapters can actually be tightened with a flathead screwdriver so there is no added play. (They aren't permanent really, but I haven't taken the adapters off in years)
Then, I use a Canon EF to Samsung NX adapter that lives on my NX1. I basically just treat my NX1 as an EF camera now, as @kye suggested. If you regularly switch cameras and lenses, I highly recommend settling on one standard mount and converting everything to that. I've used my same lens set on 5D3, NX1, XT3, Ursa mini, and others. And sometimes on shoots I've used Canon, Rokinon EF or Zeiss ZF lenses alongside mine. So settling on EF as a standard has really made my life easier.
Unfortunately, that means that my beautiful Konica and FD mount lenses haven't seen use in a long time.

So basically the Panasonic rep told him the Panasonic S1 is centered around photographers and the GH line is for video. Sounds like complete BS as they are both hybrid cameras, but its interesting that they are putting out that message. They definitely marketed the GH5S as a video camera. 

Anyways the exciting thing is that I think the GH6 will really be an interesting camera. It looks like they are pursuing phase detect auto focus on the S1, which makes sense if they genuinely don't care about the video side. Hopefully its being developed for the GH6. 

The thing is at this point I am pretty happy with what the XT3 offers. One of the advantages of smaller sensors is better stabilization and less processing power. It would be neat to see a really well done multi exposure HDR. Right now the two things that would make me buy another camera are significant dynamic range increase and stabilization. 

PotPlayer.
OK, not from a blow up : ) So, I've just checked you have a better H.264 outcome there.
This doesn't mean you'll be able to reproduce every situation under different shooting circumstances.
As you fairly inferred before, let alone motion to see some H.264 to easily break.
This means you're unable to use it for family videos or even professionally?!
Sure not, this delivery pattern is the mainstream acquisition standard so far.
For some reason a operator is mandatory. A camera doesn't shoot per se, no matter how good auto-this auto-that AF included is : D
You'll properly set up your tools accordingly the needs.
 
The whole point I stand is:
ProRes Proxy is not unusable and can be better than H.264 as we've already seen samples about.
Does this mean it will happen all the course?
I'd conclude not all the time.
You've already added something useful to the debate.
I just don't buy that "pretty terrible" remark from yours. Pretty inaccurate to my book to say the least : ) Unfortunately, all my PXY files are private related. I'd obviously tend to avoid it for narrative and documentary stuff for exhibition as my main playground. Never had my doubts on it. 4K follows the task force. Other than that, PXY 1080p will suffice the family job.
 
Nice to discuss it with you in a civil manner BTW, not possible everyday currently as much as ProRes Proxy files to serve as analogy LOL (E : -)
 

Ran PSNR analysis against the original file.
ProRes Proxy avg: 31.52
H264 (same bitrate) avg: 33.79
H264 (<1/10 bitrate) avg: 33.35
H264 (All Intra) avg: 31.73
The H.264 files are all mathematically closer to the original file, in addition to being visually closer. Even the All Intra version!

@Emanuel I might do some more scientific tests later, but here's an example. The source was a 10 bit 4K XT3 clip shot at 200 Mbps. I transcoded using ffmpeg. To make it more even, I lowered the CRF on the H.264 until it encoded at over twice the speed of the ProRes version. Hardware encoding was off. This means that the H.264 actually took less processing power to encode. We could actually increase the quality of the H.264 clips without adding any extra data simply by using a slower setting.
ProRes Proxy: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s8jpbgEvBQdduMul90kdDovQEU-xeJ0e
H.264 (same bitrate): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1G8caHjIW--qLSmNNoLSkaBl2g2sPDU0j
H.264 (<1/10 bitrate): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fIg87fLa0V0KvCnGksRoHEGEWgROadKz
Download and watch them at 100 zoom. I think it's clear that both H.264 files look better than ProRes Proxy in this scenario. I also notice that when watching in the Google Drive viewer, I can't see much difference (thanks, YouTube compression!), although it is night and day when downloaded and played in the app of your choice. Do you disagree?
If you think the difference is an in-camera encoder being worse, just imagine if a C100 looked as bad as that ProRes Proxy shot. And remember that in this case H.264 encoded in under half the time.
Naturally there are MANY problems with this test, but I didn't have much time today. Obviously H.264 benefits from it being a mostly static shot. (though to be fair, the ProRes won't get any BETTER with more motion, it's just that H.264 will get worse). It would be interesting to also test some scenes with a LOT of motion. A handheld walk through the woods perhaps, or even a video that cuts every single frame to a different scene.
If you can source some 4k RAW clips or uncompressed RGB 444 HD clips, I'm happy to do more tests in conditions of your choosing.

"Z CAM E2 is formally ProRes licensed!" -Kinson
Next firmware update will unlock it automatically; in the meantime they posted a method to unlock ProRes manually. Unlike the internal H.265, which is 10 bit 4:2:0, internal ProRes on the E2 has 4:2:2 subsampling.