Jump to content

David Andrade

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Andrade

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A few things. 1. I hear you on Olympus. People sleep on them, but I have faith. Hopefully they don't drop any balls with any future releases. There is a lot they have going for them. They just need impressive video specs. 2. As far as credit, it is what it is, I suppose. I had the most viewed Speedgrade tutorial on YouTube (I still may) but Adobe didn't come to me with any free invites or promotions or anything. While I understand YouTube videos and all the information you've share over the years, and hosting this forum are two VERY different things, I just believe that companies have their own plans and logic for what they do. 3. Why cancel it? Who is it really hurting? You, no? I mean if you're bothered by Blackmagic, that's your prerogative. But just don't make a review or post it on your blog then? You've just robbed yourself of owning a camera you may love, because.....why? It's not as if you're really "sticking it" to them. Sure, they may have lost a sale, but it's just one sale.
  2. Thank you! And yeah, that makes sense. I would have done the same. 31.3mbps isn't that bad. And I am sure if whatever you filmed had more action, the bit rate would go up from there. I think I've justified this camera enough to myself to go out and purchase one now haha
  3. newfoundmass, my head is still sort of spinning from this. I understand after referencing that screenshot what you're saying, at first. It's the last sentence that loses me. So, as we said before, it's compressing the 120fps into 30fps in camera - which is what you're referring to? And this is actually great news, right? As you said, if we had straight 120fps, the bitrate would (potentially) be much lower.
  4. You guys aren't wrong. Thanks for putting things into perspective. Also, the Sony FS100. Actually, this most recent part of the discussion makes me even more interested in the LS300 as opposed to something like the GH5. 10 bit on the Panasonic, sure. 400mbps, sure. But an entirely different form factor, smaller sensor and no VSM. Add the XLR interface on the GH5 and the prices are basically the same. It's becoming more and more clear why this camera is considered by some to be a "hidden gem"
  5. Just for clarity, which option did you end up choosing? I just want to make sure we're all on the same page haha
  6. Please do! Thank you for doing so! Yeah, like I said, unless you can determine something else that makes sense, I think 120 to 60fps makes the most sense. Which doesnt get us super slow motion, but the hope is that slowing it down in the computer won't ruin it much worse than what was done in camera. I'll keep an eye out EDIT: Thanks for the update!! Hmmmm.....
  7. First off, BTM_Pix, thank you for that. Makes me feel better about being confused. Sad to see it scattered like that. Secondly, thank you newfoundmass - that's what I feared. And judging by the document that BTM provided, it looks like it might be in camera, because it lists one frame rate, and then another. The least intrusive would probably be 120 to 60fps...which by your math would give us 25mpbs per second which isnt awful. Of course from there, one would have to go in and then slow it down even more in post. It's not the extra work I'm worried about or even the 46% the VSM is locked at. Now I am wondering if the final file made by the camera should be slowed down even more. In theory, it shouldn't matter. The shutter speed was the same no matter what, so as long as you arent REALLY compressing it when slowing it down, again, it shouldn't experience that much quality loss. Maybe a bit of a convoluted system, though. (Record high speed, import, slow down again, render out high quality) - unfortunately that makes the most sense, because 50mbps divided by 5 is only 10mbps and that is awfully low. (120 to 24fps)
  8. Thank you. Yeah it has have to 2.0 (hdmi) - it's the only thing that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying the 1080p for output. Makes sense. Still a good option if you just want to monitor 1080p (some monitors only show 1080p, anyway) or record a 1080p proxy. A little odd seeing that you can do 4k 422 externally with a higher bitrate, but still good to know it's 1080p. I've just heard that the lower the mbps, the lower the quality, basing it on frame per second. In other words, I've seen people divide the mbps by the fps and the amount of mbps is less because youre allotting less mbs per frame with 120 fps as opposed to 30fps. (if you cut a pizza into 120 pieces instead of 30, of course the slices (frames) will be smaller). That may not be how this works, but that seems to be a consensus online if you look around. In fact, on the sony cameras, the S&Q is considered poorer quality than just filming straight 120 fps for that exact reason, which is why I was wondering.
  9. There are some things I keep reading and there doesnt seem to be a clear answer, despite visiting JVC's web site and Google. Is the HDMI 1.4 or 2.0? I read 1.4, but I didnt think 4k could travel over 1.4, so I assume 2.0? I also couldnt find the page that said that, so it's very possible that they were wrong. I guess this is a moot point as we know that it records 4k 60 over the HDMI, but it's odd that there is no definitive answer anywhere. The bitrate of the 120fps HD. What is it? I read....again.....somewhere....that it was the 50mbps. I can deal with the crop. But 50mbps seems awfully low. Again, I could be getting false information from a non-reputable site, but I can't find a definitive answer anywhere. One last question, which I *may* have found the answer to. When recording to 4:2:2 4k internally, it mentions the HDMI out is only HD. So....HD as in 720p? or full HD as in 1080p?
×
×
  • Create New...