Jump to content
salim

NX2 rumors

Recommended Posts

On 2018. 03. 15. at 7:50 PM, Matthew Hartman said:

That image sensor has a 14bit 6.5k RAW signal. 

Exactly. That would require 1.14GB/s continuous write speed at 25fps. The NX1 has an UHS-II interface, the maximum bus speed is 312MB/s. But that's only theoretical, afaik the body can't even reach half of that. It's not even close to the requirement of UHD 14bit RAW at 25fps. 1080p maybe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
2 hours ago, Attila Bakos said:

Exactly. That would require 1.14GB/s continuous write speed at 25fps. The NX1 has an UHS-II interface, the maximum bus speed is 312MB/s. But that's only theoretical, afaik the body can't even reach half of that. It's not even close to the requirement of UHD 14bit RAW at 25fps. 1080p maybe...

If the camera has the UHS-II spec then it must be capable of that sort of transfer speed by definition. That is the whole point of a spec, if something complies with it, it has to meet it. If there is no processing going on then there should be nothing stopping the camera from achieving that.

We know the camera can natively shoot full sensor 12 bit RAW+JPEG at 15 fps at a minimum (it can likely do more than that in practise if it only collects data and nothing else). What it can't do is process the files fast enough to clear the buffer, but presumably if the data is written directly to media without any processing then that should not be an impediment. The camera is capable of outputting a full sensor read at 30 fps with at least 8 bits of depth, it may do more but just not normally use the extra bits due to computational overhead. So the data is there, it is just a question of in what form it can be directed to recording media.

If he is recording a crop rather than 6K then it should be almost possible to do what he says he is doing (it would require 350 MB/s). A 12 bit 4K RAW image at 25 fps would require a data transfer rate of 300 MB/s, which would be within spec for the card slot. The bigger question is what cards would he be using, AFAIK the best UHS-II cards have write speeds in the 260-280 MB/s write range, and to do that consistently without dropped frames would be asking a lot. More realistic would be 8-10 bit 4K RAW, that would provide enough headroom for fluctuations. 8 bit 4K RAW at 25 fps would only require 200 MB/s for example, while 10 bits would require 250 MB/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mokara said:

If the camera has the UHS-II spec then it must be capable of that sort of transfer speed by definition. That is the whole point of a spec, if something complies with it, it has to meet it. If there is no processing going on then there should be nothing stopping the camera from achieving that.

Yeah, "must be capable" is all we can say, but noone knows for sure (yet). Just check writing speeds of the best UHS-II card readers and even there you will see big differences. Somehow I seriously doubt that the NX1 will be as fast as those, but obviously I'm just guessing too, so let's say you're right, then we are looking at 8bit 4K RAW tops, for continuous recording without frame drops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Attila Bakos You are completely wrong - more on monday

@Mokara You are on the right way - that were my original thoughts too, one year ago. Very logical and structured way of thinking AND not bad maths...more on monday...

Sorry, no much time to spend on this but just got an alert on an article mentionning the NX1...Normally I'm tired to read the SAR-bullshit but now one of the Sony plastic garbage collectors is laughing on Samsung...

Quote:

/// Samsung has yet no goal to make APS-C or FF Image Sensor for the photo industry. Their focus is on smartphone cameras and automotive industry. Still, their NX1 camera was ahead of times in many areas, pity they did quit. Oh and by the way, back when they had their NX system Samsung was bragging that they would become number 1 in the camera mirrorless camera industry. It didn’t work out well. ///

Comparing facts & the economical power of Samsung vs Sony could help avoiding such statements...But there are guys out there who refuse any intellectual challenge...Powered by Sony plastic brain - without any backside mental illumination...Innovative but dumb statements...

DISCLAIMER: It's all about self criticism. I've buyed this garbage too, but I've learned out of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own an NX1 so had't really been paying much attention to the what and how of the hacking development but I started having a closer look at it last night and today.

From what I've now seen of the tools and architecture - and a couple of clues in @Arikhan 's earlier posts about there being no audio and there being a particular workflow element to it - then I can surmise the approach to this and its more than viable.

Roll on Monday is all I can say.

And to speed the wait along, here is a flashback to a thread from here showing it in 15fps stills mode to simulate what it might look like ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you can truly record 4K uncompressed RAW at 25 fps in 12 or 14 bits, internally, that will indeed prove me wrong. If that happens, it will make a lot of people happy, myself included. Keep in mind though that I didn't make up things like bus speed or uncompressed raw bitrate requirements, so saying that I'm completely wrong without any facts is a bit meh. Prove me wrong for real :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15. 3. 2018 at 7:58 PM, Arikhan said:

Record time is unlimited. There are other limitations though...

On 16. 3. 2018 at 5:15 PM, Arikhan said:

No 30/48/50/60 or higher fps 

That is all so interesting and strange in sametime :-D

It would meant that you have unlocked electronic shutter on NX1 somehow (only NX500 has this feature for exposure 1/30s and above).You have mentioned same RS too - that would not happened with mechanical shutter.

It would be great if such a video-RAW recording would work also for framerates below 10 fps ->  very useful for timelapses.

Limitations you have mentioned are OK but I am worried about crop (if some) and if it will work with both version of NX1 hack. There has to be display blackouts/freezes during RAW recording even with electronic shutter too, right? And have you achieved it in Photo or Video mode?

I am very curious and sceptical but even electronic shutter would be great success.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2018‎-‎03‎-‎16 at 11:57 PM, Attila Bakos said:

Yeah, "must be capable" is all we can say, but noone knows for sure (yet). Just check writing speeds of the best UHS-II card readers and even there you will see big differences. Somehow I seriously doubt that the NX1 will be as fast as those, but obviously I'm just guessing too, so let's say you're right, then we are looking at 8bit 4K RAW tops, for continuous recording without frame drops.

The difference is due not to the interface itself, but what is happening internally in those devices. Just because an interface is capable of a particular speed does not mean that the device can generate or receive data at that rate. To use a UHS-II spec label they have to be capable of meeting the 300 mB/s data transfer requirement however. In the case of a camera like the NX, for example, there is a bunch of processing going on that limits the availability of the data, and that results in lower speeds when recording natively. However, we know the minimum base internal data rate of the camera since it does a 6.5k sensor read at 8 bits/30 fps in preparing data for 4K video. That is a bandwidth of approximately 630 mB/s. The camera does processing on that data however, and the bottleneck for data delivery is the processing itself, not the UHS-II interface. If you found a way to side step that processing you should be able to deliver enough data to swamp the interface, since the camera is dealing internally with at least twice the amount specified by UHS-II. If you only used a crop of the sensor however you would be able to (in theory) deliver a RAW data feed as I explained earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mokara said:

The difference is due not to the interface itself, but what is happening internally in those devices. Just because an interface is capable of a particular speed does not mean that the device can generate or receive data at that rate. To use a UHS-II spec label they have to be capable of meeting the 300 mB/s data transfer requirement however. In the case of a camera like the NX, for example, there is a bunch of processing going on that limits the availability of the data, and that results in lower speeds when recording natively. However, we know the minimum base internal data rate of the camera since it does a 6.5k sensor read at 8 bits/30 fps in preparing data for 4K video. That is a bandwidth of approximately 630 mB/s. The camera does processing on that data however, and the bottleneck for data delivery is the processing itself, not the UHS-II interface. If you found a way to side step that processing you should be able to deliver enough data to swamp the interface, since the camera is dealing internally with at least twice the amount specified by UHS-II. If you only used a crop of the sensor however you would be able to (in theory) deliver a RAW data feed as I explained earlier.

Yeah I get this and this is fine, but last time I checked the bitrate of 4K 12/14bit uncompressed RAW at 25fps exceeded the maximum continuous write speed of the fastest UHS-II cards. How do you solve that bottleneck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Attila Bakos said:

Yeah I get this and this is fine, but last time I checked the bitrate of 4K 12/14bit uncompressed RAW at 25fps exceeded the maximum continuous write speed of the fastest UHS-II cards. How do you solve that bottleneck?

My guess is it's doing 8/10 bits. But even with 8bit RAW, the image should be much more malleable in post and recover shadows and highlights better, you control the amount of denoising and don't have to worry about nailing perfect WB or using log. All this is very welcome over H.265 imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Matthew Hartman said:

My guess is it's doing 8/10 bits. But even with 8bit RAW, the image should be much more malleable in post and recover shadows and highlights better, you control the amount of denoising and don't have to worry about nailing perfect WB or using log. All this is very welcome over H.265 imo. 

But that was my conclusion earlier and Arikhan said I was completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Attila Bakos said:

But that was my conclusion earlier and Arikhan said I was completely wrong.

And we both might be. :) 

Arikhan is a young fellow/student. We should give him the time to concentrate and finish out his studies. Trust me, the suspense is killing me too. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Attila Bakos said:

Yeah I get this and this is fine, but last time I checked the bitrate of 4K 12/14bit uncompressed RAW at 25fps exceeded the maximum continuous write speed of the fastest UHS-II cards. How do you solve that bottleneck?

You can't. The fastest cards available will be able to just cope with 10 bit at most, and that is assuming you only use a 4K crop (in other words, no oversampling).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...