newfoundmass

6 hours ago, Phil A said:

Did I miss something? How does 24p cost extra money for the manufacturer of a camera that will anyway have a video function?

It doesn't, Makara is talking out of his butt. His argument makes literally no sense. 

25 minutes ago, Jrsisson said:

Where’s your evidence for 24fps licensing costs?

 

Please don't repeat your educated guess that’s what is happening here.

 

I'm interested in seeing a link to evidence.

There is none, he's making it all up. The idea that they removed 24p for financial reasons is laughable / completely nonsensical. 

No one cares. 

4 hours ago, theSUBVERSIVE said:

With Sony basically focusing solely on FF, people that can't afford FF or want a more budget friendly solution might go Panasonic but now even Fuji offers a compelling camera for this market as well.

Sony is far from focusing solely on FF. They've released like 7 APSC cameras in the last 4 years it feels like. 

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Dual Gain output with twin analogue circuits on the sensor, bit like the GH5S.

I think it is a different sensor to the S1.

Saw an interview with a nice lady from Panasonic confirming its a different sensor than the S1. "Similar" but different. 

I don't need / want 6K right now, but everything else? Gimme! 

6 minutes ago, Amazeballs said:

Personally I felt like this review was overhiped. It goes only about strong points of this camera. I think you defenitly should wait for Sony A7S3 before passing the judjment that there is no competition for Panasonic in this area. It is. A7S3 is the competitor. Lets wait for it and see who wins. Besides flawless AF and probably some new tech sensor, Sony has one key advantage - its lenses. Oh those sweet Tamron zooms.. 

A camera that hasn't been announced, has no specs, etc. isn't a competitor. You need to actually exist in order to compete. When the A7Siii does exist then it'll factor into the conversation. 

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/35846-lesser-known-youtube-channels-people-should-know-about/

1 hour ago, kye said:

Are you racing for a deadline?

No, thankfully! 

What's really strange is I rendered optimized media to try to see if that worked and there was literally no improvement!

I've posted on the BMD boards, hopefully someone can help! 

This only seems to be an issue in multicam for me. When just playing the timeline it's silky smooth even with some graphic overlays and color tweaking. 

My laptop is 2 1/2 years old but should still be able to handle this, right? 

If was a terrible idea to upgrade in the middle of an edit! ?

I can't really see where there's a problem

I'm not sure how to do that. I'm not the most computer savvy ?

I used to be able to do multi cam with effects with no trouble though! And I think my system is pretty good. 

Updated to Resolve 16 from Resolve 15. When doing multi cam with 1080i footage it drops frames like crazy, whereas with 15 it was as smooth as butter.

I am using a laptop with Intel Core i7-7700HQ @ 2.80GHz, 16 GB of RAM, and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060. 

Any ideas / suggestions outside of using proxies? 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

A bit of an unnecessary poke at Mattias for sure, who is after all completely RIGHT about Canon's colour science, completely right that it's all about the image.

Take colour, feel and the image composition away and add specs... and what do you have. Yes that's right... Shit all.

Indeed. Someone as skillful as Mattias could use any camera, but the Canon EOS R helps him achieve his vision easiest.

The $200 challenge should have shown people that it's not just about specs. We're incredibly lucky to have so many tools at our disposal, whether your budget is $200 or $2,000,000 there's no short supply of cameras that can help you create your vision. 

The issue with Canon, and I think some people maybe forget this, is not that their cameras are inadequate but that they take features away that hinder creativity while every other manufacturer has done the opposite, at least to some extent or another. 

Do you need 24p? No. Do you need DPAF in 4K? No. Can you use excessive crops? Yes. You can still create works of art with these cameras, even if it hinders your creative vision. But why should you have to, when you can use a GH5, X-T3, a6400, or hell even an old T3i? You shouldn't have to deal with those limitations because Canon decided they wanted to segment the market more and take away features in their lower end models that they've included for years. 

On 8/22/2019 at 2:41 PM, wolf33d said:

I can’t wait for @Mattias Burling to tell us how great the camera is. You know it’s all about the image. Forget the specs.

The Canon mojo!!

That's an unnecessary shot. @Mattias Burlingalways emphasizes that it's the right camera for him and his work flow, which is more than fair. Just because it's not an ideal camera for you doesn't mean it can't be for him. 

7 hours ago, forofilms said:

Yes, queue up Mattias to remind us of the color science and that specs don't matter...

We all have our preferences and what's important to us. For him SOC color is more important than other specs. And that's OK. I don't see why it bothers people. 

I'm guessing early next year they'll announce the GH6. 

The FW code is really ridiculous. I get why they do it but a 4 week wait?! 

7 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

You’ll probably have them by the end of 2020. Plus a compact L-mount cinema camera from Sigma and, hopefully, something special from Panny in the S1H.

Which is why ultimately I'll probably wait until the end of 2020

7 hours ago, Vision said:

Am in two minds keeping my gh5 with gh5s or sell and move to fullframe S1 ? the only thing is there are only few native lenses to pick from pana and they cost leg & arm 

I think keeping them is the smarter move for now unless you're in a position where you need to "upgrade." Better to see how things play out I think. 

5 hours ago, nathlas said:

What price reduction ? On which coast ? 

 

Is that permanent or just a boost before IBC ?

The S1 is $300 cheaper right now in the US (maybe elsewhere too?) I'm not sure though if it's permanent. 

4 hours ago, funkyou86 said:

The UK deal with the FW upgrade + MC-11 adapter made me switch. The image is very gorgeous, but the autofocus is is rubbish with the Canon USM lenses. 

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I haven't pulled the trigger. It's nice to be able to adapt lenses but I'd like to have some decent afford native lenses to use too. 

With the price reduction it's really tempting but the cost of lenses is just way too hard to swallow. 

I'm so impressed with the stabilization. What a feat, really. 

46 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

It just the typical Canon Apologist Bullshit 

I've seen a lot of Canon apologists but this 24p stuff might take the cake. 

17 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Which are likely made using existing technology and existing license agreements. If there was no reason to not include it, they would include it.

Their reason is obvious: they don't want filmmakers using these cameras. I'm not really sure what part of that is hard to understand. 

I'm sorry but your argument is quite asanine. 

21 minutes ago, Mokara said:

In industry when you license in someone else's IP payment comes in two separate forms typically. Firstly, there is an upfront payment as agreed to which is based off milestones through the development process. So, when I start making the gadget, and I want to use your IP, we come to an agreement that allows me to do that. Right away I will pay you some small amount of cash. Then, as the gadget proceeds from testing to manufacturing to release, there will be a number of agreed to milestones that when met will trigger additional increasingly larger payments I have to make to you (sometimes milestones can happen even after the product is being sold, depending on what the agreement was). THEN, on top of that for every unit I sell I will have to pay you a royalty, also agreed to in advance. 

Just a few posts ago you argued that Canon might have to pay extra license fees for 24p, which is ridiculous, and now you're acting like an expert? 

The mental gymnastics you're doing right now to argue what is blatantly obvious is insane. Seriously, you wrote all that man to excuse CANON, who has a history of handicapping their cameras! Please, think that last sentence over a bit. 

26 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Not necessarily true. There is supporting hardware as well, and if that is not implemented or some part is not capable, then you can unlock all you want and nothing is going to happen. It is not just one thing.

All that, like the reason Canon cripples their cameras, goes without saying. No one said otherwise. 

Why is Canon even releasing EOS M cameras at this point? What was the last lens they released for it? 

43 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

lol, yeah, they can do it alright... I mean just this thing, the XF705! They have the tech and the know-how. They just don't want to.

That's the thing, every camera company has all the necessary code already written. The hard part was finished years and years ago and now it's just a matter of going in and changing fields to lock or unlock things. They could literally change a zero to a one in the code unlock 24p.

15 minutes ago, Mokara said:

24p is not just "there". It costs money to implement. There is development cost associated with every function in the camera. There will be hardware support requirements which will add to the manufacturing cost. There is also the question of the license fee they have to pay to use H.264. 

When you are producing a low cost version of a high end product you manufacture, the way you do it and still make money is to strip out the frills that the likely user does not need. Although those sorts of things might seem trivial to you, they do cost money to implement, money that otherwise comes out of your margin.

<brain exploding gif>

If Canon is at a point where they have to cut 24p as a cost cutting measure then they're on death's bed. 

That's not the real reason, but still. 

"Guys, we gotta cut expenses." 

"Let's cut 24p."

"You're a genius Roger, you just saved the company." 

9 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Newer cameras have 24p included... Canon really sorta is the only exception. If there was such a weird thing as 24p codec licensing, which is an utter B$ of an assumption, then why-o-why is Panasonic including it? Why does Sony still fit 24p in all their cameras? Why does stills heritage Fujifilm care about 24p video? Nikon? Heck, even bloody Pentax... and nobody is even using those to shoot video.

Canon includes 24p in their sub-$200 Vixia camcorders! ?

Canon accidentally sets off filmmaking revolution, 10 years later people act like there hasn't been a decade of people using these cameras to shoot films.