KnightsFan

I'm going to regret getting involved here, but @tuppI think you are technically correct about resolution in the abstract. But I think that Yedlin is doing his experiments in the context of real cameras and workflow, not an abstract.
I mean, it's completely obvious to anyone who has ever played a video game that there is a huge, noticeable difference between 4k and 2k, once we take out optical softness, noise, debayering artifacts, and compression. If we're debating differences between Resolutions with a capital R, let's answer with a resounding "Yes it makes a difference" and move on. The debate only makes sense in the context of a particular starting point and workflow because in actual resolution on perfect images the difference is very clear.
And yeah, maybe Yedlin isn't 100% scientific about it, maybe he uses incorrect terms, and I think we all agree he failed to tighten his argument into a concise presentation. I don't really know if discussing his semantics and presentation is as interesting as trying to pinpoint what does and doesn't matter for our own projects... but if you enjoy it carry on 🙂
I will say that for my film projects, I fail to see any benefit past 2k. I've watched my work on a 4k screen, and it doesn't really look any better in motion. Same goes for other movies I watch. 720p to 1080p, I appreciate the improvement. But 4k really never makes me enjoy it any more.

I'm going to regret getting involved here, but @tuppI think you are technically correct about resolution in the abstract. But I think that Yedlin is doing his experiments in the context of real cameras and workflow, not an abstract.
I mean, it's completely obvious to anyone who has ever played a video game that there is a huge, noticeable difference between 4k and 2k, once we take out optical softness, noise, debayering artifacts, and compression. If we're debating differences between Resolutions with a capital R, let's answer with a resounding "Yes it makes a difference" and move on. The debate only makes sense in the context of a particular starting point and workflow because in actual resolution on perfect images the difference is very clear.
And yeah, maybe Yedlin isn't 100% scientific about it, maybe he uses incorrect terms, and I think we all agree he failed to tighten his argument into a concise presentation. I don't really know if discussing his semantics and presentation is as interesting as trying to pinpoint what does and doesn't matter for our own projects... but if you enjoy it carry on 🙂
I will say that for my film projects, I fail to see any benefit past 2k. I've watched my work on a 4k screen, and it doesn't really look any better in motion. Same goes for other movies I watch. 720p to 1080p, I appreciate the improvement. But 4k really never makes me enjoy it any more.

I think perhaps the largest difference between video and video games is that video games (and any computer generated imagery in general) can have a 100% white pixel right next to a 100% black pixel, whereas cameras don't seem to do that.
In Yedlins demo he zooms into the edge of the blind and shows the 6K straight from the Alexa with no scaling and the "edge" is actually a gradient that takes maybe 4-6 pixels to go from dark to light.  I don't know if this is do to with lens limitations, to do with sensor diffraction, OLPFs, or debayering algorithms, but it seems to match everything I've ever shot.  
It's not a difficult test to do..  take any camera that can shoot RAW and put it on a tripod, set it to base ISO and aperture priority, take it outside, open the aperture right up, focus it on a hard edge that has some contrast, stop down by 4 stops, take the shot, then look at it in an image editor and zoom way in to see what the edge looks like.
In terms of Yedlins demo, I think the question is if having resolution over 2K is perceptible under normal viewing conditions.  When he zooms in a lot it's quite obvious that there is more resolution there, but the question isn't if more resolution has more resolution, because we know that of course it does, and VFX people want as much of it as possible, but can audiences see the difference?  I'm happy from the demo to say that it's not perceptually different.
Of course, it's also easy to run Yedlins test yourself at home as well.  Simply take a 4K video clip and export it at native resolution and at 2K, you can export it lossless if you like.  Then bring both versions and put them onto a 4K timeline, and then just watch it on a 4K display, you can even cut them up and put them side-by-side or do whatever you want.  If you don't have a camera that can shoot RAW then take a timelapse with RAW still images and use that as the source video, or download some sample footage from RED, which has footage up to 8K RAW available to download free from their website.

Seems they are not looking for super low budget films. That being said, I think it's a fair list. It's Netflix not vimeo. 

The reason I bring up which controls is that I've heard that controls are designed to work in a colour space (for example, LGG in rec709) so they won't scale things correctly.  After a conversion to Linear, often the values are almost completely clipped, so I'm not sure what a control that's only meant to adjust things that are under (or close to) 100 IRE would do.  
I guess it's just a matter of knowing its an unknown and trying things if it doesn't look right.  I've definitely struggled with doing WB in post on non-RAW footage before, so it's useful to me to learn more and to hear that BM is working on improving it.
I just went back and found the reference to the WB mention in R17, and maybe I'm remembering it wrong, because maybe it's not more in-line with perception rather than just being purely mathematical, which is the next level again.  Perhaps they operate in XYZ colour space, or something similar?
Anyway, it's great that the ZCam OSX does the heavy lifting for you.  I keep hearing great things about Zcam from professional users, and it seems like they might be on track to grow and really mature as a brand and product lineup.

@kye
1. White balance is just linear gain on R G and B channels. I don't know the formulas for deriving Kelvin and Tint values. So after CST to linear, you could adjust gain values until it "looks right" and it should be correct though you don't know the Kelvin/Tint values--(if you're editing footage that doesn't have the original values in metadata, that wouldn't be possible anyway). Personally, I've found Resolve's WB values work as expected after a CST to linear. No idea if it's mathematically sound as proper linear gain at that point, but I did some basic tests comparing to in camera WB and it looked right to me. But now that I have an M4, I can just use WB sliders on the plugin and save some steps in the node graph as well.
2. I haven't heard that and am not sure how/if it changed. I've barely touched a physical camera since Covid broke out, so my Resolve 17 use has been solely for editing animations.

@kye
1. White balance is just linear gain on R G and B channels. I don't know the formulas for deriving Kelvin and Tint values. So after CST to linear, you could adjust gain values until it "looks right" and it should be correct though you don't know the Kelvin/Tint values--(if you're editing footage that doesn't have the original values in metadata, that wouldn't be possible anyway). Personally, I've found Resolve's WB values work as expected after a CST to linear. No idea if it's mathematically sound as proper linear gain at that point, but I did some basic tests comparing to in camera WB and it looked right to me. But now that I have an M4, I can just use WB sliders on the plugin and save some steps in the node graph as well.
2. I haven't heard that and am not sure how/if it changed. I've barely touched a physical camera since Covid broke out, so my Resolve 17 use has been solely for editing animations.

@majoraxisJust noting for those curious... The color plugin doesn't use LUT's, it uses color transforms. The nice part is it transforms to linear color before applying your adjustment, and then out to whatever you specify. So the white balance and exposure adjustments are actually correct, instead of incorrectly applied to non-linear data. Also by not using LUTs, it has none of the resolution or clipping problems that they would bring. The color plugin is another great reason to use Z Cam--outside of using Blackmagic color in Blackmagic's software, it's one of the best ways to maintain proper color management.
 
(Pro-tip: for any footage, convert to linear for WB adjustments! It's the reason why "raw allows WB adjustments"... really being Raw has nothing to do with it, it's just that it's linear so it's mathematically correct. That and no compression artifacts, in the case of lossless raw.)

@majoraxisJust noting for those curious... The color plugin doesn't use LUT's, it uses color transforms. The nice part is it transforms to linear color before applying your adjustment, and then out to whatever you specify. So the white balance and exposure adjustments are actually correct, instead of incorrectly applied to non-linear data. Also by not using LUTs, it has none of the resolution or clipping problems that they would bring. The color plugin is another great reason to use Z Cam--outside of using Blackmagic color in Blackmagic's software, it's one of the best ways to maintain proper color management.
 
(Pro-tip: for any footage, convert to linear for WB adjustments! It's the reason why "raw allows WB adjustments"... really being Raw has nothing to do with it, it's just that it's linear so it's mathematically correct. That and no compression artifacts, in the case of lossless raw.)

If you (and/or your client) like the aspect ratio and like the fact that you are using a wider portion of the image circle of your lenses, then, to me, those are the most important considerations.
 
So, you are probably best shooting at 4096x2160 (DCI 4K) and down-converting cleanly to 2048x1080 (DCI 2K) or less cleanly to 1920x1013.  Any extra rendering time for the odd height pixel in the "less clean" resolution would likely be minimal, but it would probably be a good idea to test it, just to make sure.

Hi everyone! I've been working on selling my Samsung NX 500 mirrorless camera (28.2mp white) on Ebay and FB marketplace in hopes to invest in a new camera that will do the job for both vlogging and photography. I have a relatively new YouTube channel (called J and Ray) and wanted to slightly upgrade my camera to have some features I find more important. [I've been using my Samsung S20 for vlogs thus far].
Some requirements I have for a better camera include a decent megapixel count, good autofocus, option for external mic (3.5mm headphone jack), wifi/Bluetooth capability preferred, 1080p and 4k (hopefully not a big crop, and with decent autofocus), a flip out screen, and I guess an aesthetically pleasing camera under $1k.
I've been watching and reading reviews on these cameras:
Sony ZV-1
Canon EOS M50
Canon G7X Mark iii
Sony A6100
Fujifilm TX200
I'm currently really actively eyeing the Sony ZV-1 and Canon EOS M50, and can't decide on the tradeoffs of interchangeable lens, higher MP, uncropped 4K, user friendliness, etc. Any recommendations or advice about these 2 and which one would be better, OR recs for other camera choices, would be greatly appreciated and super helpful!!

I used my Wireless Go II yesterday and I would have to say......"Don't buy it!" unfortunately. 
I too had Rode Central App crash randomly while playing files and also when trying to export WAV's more than 7mins in length. I can confirm that these issues have been fixed by the latest Rode Central app that was released today.
Unfortunately the biggest bug with the system is that both my Transmitters failed to record internally on 3 out of 8 of the interviews I recorded despite me always checking that the record light was on. I have the in camera recording, which luckily is fine, but the product as it stands is fundamentally flawed. What good is a backup recording if you can't be confident that the unit is actually recording?
This seems like a completely rushed out product and as a long time Rode microphone user, am deeply disappointed that a  company like Rode could release such an undercooked product to the public. Like me, if Rode had actually used this product for a day, they would have found the same issues I have faced, and by the sounds of it many others are facing too. 
Im returning mine ASAP.
 

Whoa... why was 32 bit not more prominent on the news sites? Definitely going to get one of these at some point if it performs well in reviews. I wonder if the ADC actually has the headroom to take advantage of 32 bit though. It's easy to clip the Wireless Go 1 and as far as I could tell, the gain on the original only affects the output from the receiver.
I also wonder how they got around the patents though, but as long as it works and is legal, it doesn't matter to me! I assume some of those quirks, like the loop recording, have to do with it?

If it has backup recording on the transmitter, then reliability won't be as much of a deal breaker. I have the Wireless Go I. They've been 100% reliable at short distances, but I haven't used them at their limits. I have found them to sound fine. I've never done head to heads, but the results I got were every bit as good as from G3's and UWP's with kit mics... though it's not a direct comparison since it was different conditions, different actors, etc. I guess the takeaway is that they aren't bad by any means, sound-wise. One big disadvantage is that there is no locking 3.5mm connector on Go's though.

It seems very snazzy to be honest. All these points are in the video below, but here's what I like and don't like:
It records on a loop, so if you don't backup the recordings, they get written over once you run out of internal memory. If you record uncompressed internal, you can then get a 32-bit float file off the transmitter. No need for -20db safety track If you record in Sum to Mono mode, the internal recording has a -20db safety track If you experience any audio dropouts to the receiver, the internal recordings will have a marker at those points. You can add markers manually with a single tap on the receivers power button Update in the works for gen1 transmitter to work with gen2 reciever  

Surprised there's not chatter about this here. Anyone know how it gets around those transmission and recording patents?
https://www.rode.com/microphones/wireless/wirelessgoii
I also can't find exact details on recorded audio formats etc.
 

That's not my point at all. Ideally a class will provide the best equipment possible. It's just not feasible for many film programs to have enough "higher end" cameras for large classes. Having high fidelity cameras doesn't hinder an instructor from teaching or grading composition and lighting, and narrative if the class covers that.
Meh, it's not that I really care since I'm not getting one of these either way, I just think that there's disproportionate dislike towards EF mounts, compared to what's actually useful. It feels like car snobs talking about how stick shifts are marginally better when most consumers just want to drive from point A to B.

@tupp
By software failure, I mean that if you have an existing protocol, like L, and translate to another protocol, such as EF, there is the very real chance that not every lens and camera will work. For example, Viltrox's EF to M43 adapter can control aperture, but not autofocus. Some lenses don't work at all. Adapters between different manufacturers will always have that risk. RF to EF is much safer, since the same company could make firmware updates on both ends to fix bugs that they missed in testing.
I think that RF would be the only good option. E, L, and M43 would have a very high chance of failure in some combinations of adapters and lenses. I also suspect Canon isn't licensing RF to Blackmagic.
As for mechanical failure, adding support screws would solve it, but would also require 1st party adapters since there is no standard for it. Z Cam did it, to their credit. I just don't know if it would really sell enough extra units to offset the cost. How many people do you really think would have bought on in L mount, but not EF? If Sony allowed it, E might have added some sales since there are numerous E mount lenses, but if you're targeting users who use EF lenses... I don't think the EF mount is a big hindrance.

There is absolutely no hassle in what I am proposing.  The clueless EF users would never realize that they are using an adapter.
 
 
Well, firstly, shallow interchangeable mounts have a proven track record on several cameras.  For instance, Red cameras have interchangeable lens mounts, and most who get one with an EF mount probably never remove the mount (and likely aren't even aware of that possibility).  Likewise with the FZ mount, the Kinefinity mount, the AJA Cion mount and with countless machine vision cameras that have bolt-on mounts.  Heck, Wooden Camera made modified BMPC's with an interchangeable, bolt-on mount.
 
Have you heard any complaints about mechanical failure of any such configurations?
 
Secondly, if a camera is designed with an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.), the EF adapter can incorporate a flange so that it additionally bolts onto the body at four points, with the design following the lines of the camera body --  looking just like the front of the original Ursa, for instance.  Such an arrangement will never budge unless one uses a wrench.  If the camera comes configured that way out of the factory, EF users will never know that the camera actually has a shallow mount hidden inside.
 
Thirdly, in regards to "software" failure (I assume that you mean "lens signal failure"), the above established cameras with interchangeable electronic mounts have successfully eliminated any such problem, and there absolutely is no reason why it cannot be the same when utilizing an established shallow lens mount.  If contact reliability is a huge concern, a manufacturer could always use a separate ribbon connector for the default EF mount, bypassing the contacts of the shallow lens mount.
 
However, these are dumb simple design/mechanical solutions to a problem that is essentially imaginary.  Is it correct to sacrifice whole worlds of lens choices for a cinematography camera, merely to avoid the possibility of a few momentarily confused EF users?
 
Additionally, more and more popular cameras are appearing with FF shallow mounts.  Are the clueless (yet successful) EF users going to ignore the C70 and other Canon R-mount offerings because it's too confusing to use their L glass with an official Canon EF-to-R adapter?:

There's a large swath of people who just want things to work with absolutely no hassle. I have friends who are very good at making movies--better than me, in fact--and are making a living from their art, but would be unable to go on ebay and buy a vintage lens because they can't wrap their head around adapters, and would end up ordering something incompatible.
And personally, if I'm adapting to EF anyway... I don't mind an EF mount. I see no reason to add another point of mechanical and software failure. The chances of me ever needing a different mount are vanishingly small. Given the option, I'd probably go with a shallower flange for the exclusive reason of boosting to FF, if I ever wanted to. I'm just saying it's not a deal breaker since I'm 99.9% going to using EF anyway.
Yeah true, absolute beginner classes will be handing out fixed lens camcorders, not Blackmagics. But an intro to cinematography class, or anything beyond the "Intro to Film & Video" lecture definitely could. I worked on 4(?) undergrad/grad thesis films in the past 5 years that used blackmagic cameras, and every one of them would have had an easier time with the P6K compared to the 2.5k's and Ursa minis that we did use.
I'm not sure it's useful either to first learn about front filters, batteries, rigs, and rigamarole. It's not necessary to learning the art of filmmaking, and it's certainly something that can be taught if there is an interest. It's like asking screenwriting students to start out with typewriters.

In my opinion, this looks like an absolutely wonderful camera for people who want good images without complex rigs. Most of us here are very tech minded and love adapters, and external rig parts, but I don't think this style camera is aimed at us. No adapters, no front-of-lens ND filters, no rigged batteries (if you use the grip), no external monitor or recorder. I'm sure many schools will be buying these. Simple enough for intro classes, don't need to teach students how to rig it up just to use it, but still makes great images.
IBIS would make it more handheld-friendly in some cases, sure, but would also increase cost. I suspect IBIS requires more engineering, R&D, and QC than any feature Blackmagic has. Add IBIS and the price goes up. For any planned shoot, a gimbal does a better job anyway. Even a wide set of handles with good balance makes up for it.

A decent test would be to shoot a scene in as high quality as you can, like uncompressed raw, and then export a 10 bit and 8 bit version with roughly matching codec and size from that Raw master, and compare those results. If you really want to isolate 10 vs 8 bit, export uncompressed videos with those bit depths. You will most likely see the biggest difference in scenes with smooth gradients in the shadow, particularly with big color grades such as incorrect white balancing, or underexposed scenes.
Maybe I'll do some tests later today.

I did do a quick test. My process was to film a white wall as a 4k Raw clip, which I processed into a 4:2:2 10 bit uncompressed file. I then used ffmpeg to process the uncompressed video into two different clips with the only difference being the bit depth. I used 420 color and crf 16 on both. The two files both ended up roughly the same size. (8 bit is 3,515 KB, 10 bit is 3,127 KB).
I applied a fairly extreme amount of gain, and white balance adjustment equally to all clips. I've included a 100% crop of the uncompressed, 10 bit, and 8 bit files. As you can see, the 8 bit has significantly more ugly banding than the 10 bit.
As you can see, the 8 bit has some nasty banding that is not present in the 10 bit version. This is of course an extreme example to show a relatively small difference, but also it does get perceptually worse in motion rather than still frames. Also note that the PNG files themselves are 8 bit (which would match a typical delivery). The banding you see is from the color grading, as all 3 versions have been quantized down to 8 bit upon rendering.
Moreover, the 10 bit is actually a 10% smaller file. I find 10 bit HEVC is consistently a smaller file size than 8 bit for better quality. The real benefit of more accurate sampling is that it allows more accurate processing throughout, from compression to coloring.
On an related note, both the HEVC clips have lost all the grain and detail compared to uncompressed, which is very unfortunate. However, they are 1% of the file size so I can't complain too much!



 
 
Edit: just look at the file names to see which pic is which

I'm glad you're bringing attention to this, @Andrew Reid, as everyone should at least be aware of who is tracking them and why. I have two Firefox addons, one is uBlock Origin for blocking ads, and the other is Blur for blocking trackers. I can confirm that the EOSHD main site has those two Google trackers (which Blur blocks), and the forum has 0. Blur blocks 9 trackers on SonyAlphaRumors even after opting out of cookies, and 67 ads are blocked.
It's worth pointing out that even if you are okay with being tracked, the richest companies and people in the world make their money off analysis of your data. It's worth considering whether you want to freely donate your data (which YOU pay for with electricity and internet bills!) to the wealthiest people on earth.

I'm glad you're bringing attention to this, @Andrew Reid, as everyone should at least be aware of who is tracking them and why. I have two Firefox addons, one is uBlock Origin for blocking ads, and the other is Blur for blocking trackers. I can confirm that the EOSHD main site has those two Google trackers (which Blur blocks), and the forum has 0. Blur blocks 9 trackers on SonyAlphaRumors even after opting out of cookies, and 67 ads are blocked.
It's worth pointing out that even if you are okay with being tracked, the richest companies and people in the world make their money off analysis of your data. It's worth considering whether you want to freely donate your data (which YOU pay for with electricity and internet bills!) to the wealthiest people on earth.