KnightsFan

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.

"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 depends on the camera and camera settings (and what look you like) but imo diffusion filters are a key missing ingredient toward a more "organic" look, if that's what you're after. They add an extra layer beyond even using vintage lenses, and imo it's worth combining the two if you want a "cinematic" look rather than a technical one.
I think @Zach Goodwin2 proselytized extensively about them, and while I think he was using stronger grades perhaps than I settled on (don't really remember), I agree they have great value.
That said, most on this forum seem inclined toward sharpening video and generally going for a sharper image than I prefer personally. So it is a matter of taste. I like the Alexa, which is quite soft, and I really like the look of 16mm and late-90s films shot by Richardson and Kaminski, which make heavy use of promist, classic soft, and nets. I think JFK is a beautiful movie.
(And the Alexa is a weird camera. I'm convinced it has an optical diffusion filter in front of the OLPF similar to Tiffen digital diffusion but that the pipeline also applies a slight wide-radius unsharp mask. Which isn't crazy. Film's modulation transfer function curve can exceed 100% mtf and then it drops off to extinction more slowly than digital; so this approach could emulate that. And give the "3d" look people talk about while still making skin smooth. But this is conjecture.)
The issue with black promist (also with classic softs and Hollywood black magic) is that you can see "speckles" in the bokeh, which may or may not be desirable, and at very deep stops sometimes the black dots that mitigate the promist's natural halation come into focus. (Also you need a matte box if you want to use a 4x4 filter, so screw on filters might make more sense depending on if you want to keep your rig small... but 1/4 BPM has a good look. Surprisingly strong, though.)
I find these tests interesting:
 
 
Particularly the latter. It's amazing how close the C300 with 1/4 to 1/2 digital diffusion looks to the Alexa. Imo it's a big improvement, however subtle.
 

Yeah I mean 4k 60p, raw, and prores are definitely not things needed or really useful for taping the kids. 

I don’t think it’s about releasing an “unfinished” product. It’s because our minds are stuck in pre-computerised concepts. Nobody would accuse Apple or Microsoft of unreleasing unfinished products just because they update the OS now and then. And it’s not only about fixing bugs. If you have a software system which you can improve, why wouldn’t you? I’d go so far to say there should be some regulation so that any product can be pushed as far as possible in firmware before releasing subsequent products. It’s horribly wasteful to do otherwise.
Its only quite recently that the nature of software is starting to make an imprint in a wider sense. We are hardware minded in general. I know, for example, more recently in airplane software there are structures making sure flight critical software is completely separated from other software. This way systems can be upgraded continuously without the entire system needing to be re-tested and certified. So the concept of upgrade is built in to the core architecture from the start. We’re still quite a few years away before the nature of software is fully absorbed. To treat software based technology, like digital cameras, as if they’re fixed hardware objects from days old will look equally ridiculous as early cars that looked like horse carriages look to us now. In a sense the current transition is even weirder.
I would say all cameras should be continuously updated. The camera makers may charge for that. I would not expect it to be free of charge. The failure to properly valorise software is of course another remnant of old thinking. People don’t want to pay for these things which is, of course, totally absurd. 

I never said uncompressed, but Raw should be mathematically lossless to be a legitimate Raw format. It should also have a linear gamma, little to no digital processing, and no debayering if originating from a bayer sensor. Any video format can be treated as a "digital negative" and store information that can be recovered later. Most log curves are designed to do just that.
If I make a video format that simply takes the bayer data from a sensor, pretend that every group of 3 pixels is a single RGB pixel, then apply ordinary ProRes compression to the entire thing, that's certainly not RAW at all. I suspect that is very nearly what ProRes RAW does.
You can essentially change the white balance on any video if you transform it into linear gamma before doing so. The only hindrance is that most cameras don't store the original white balance metadata in non-raw formats. As long as ProRes RAW retains all the information from pixels sufficiently, it should be just as flexible as any of the other Raw-lite formats for white balance adjustments. It does seem silly that it is not builtin, though.

I agree with @GiM_6x. We should put some effort into using words correctly. Its the reason netflix wont allow upscaled alexa footage to be considered 4k. Prores raw, redcode raw, bmraw, are all fine formats. I dont have an issue with them as formats, but it is marketing bs to call them "RAW." Its not a matter of whats "needed" for a given production, its quite simply a matter of using correct terminology. Its like putting an 8 bit stream into a 10 bit container and calling it 10 bit.

This is big news but i think it's worth mentioning that ProRes RAW currently only opens in FCPX. If you are on Adobe, Resolve or PC it's going to be a no go (AFAIK).
That is pretty limiting compared to other recent Raw codecs like Canon Raw Light which has native support in FCPX, Resolve & Avid.
It's also bit of a shame Nikon couldn't work out to record ProRes Raw internally. They opted for those expensive XQD/CFexpress media cards, why not take advantage of the speed they offer to record high bitrate internally?
 

Compressed it is OK, almost evrything is compressed these days.
Quality LOSS - aka you cannot recover the original info after de-compression - this is something else (a kind of jpeg!).
And it is up to you to accept an "quality loss RAW", which by itself is a contradiction.
Myself I accept a "regular" codec with quality loss. This is what I can aquire with my faboulous income (working in IT hardware, photo/video being a hobby).
I will NEVER accept a so-called RAW if you lose quality, call it anything but RAW and I may embrace it gladly.