Internal 32-bit float stereo paired with lossless 120mm reach from a 20mm lens — all inside a genuinely pocket-sized 10-bit 1-inch sensor gimbal camera?

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, kye said:

You make excellent points, but it really comes down to your perspective.

The detail from the 8K will be completely irrelevant, except in cinemas, where exactly zero people will ever watch this footage.  The extra DR will absolutely be visible, even on smartphones, even with a film emulation applied, and especially because these cameras are designed for wide FOV shooting outdoors where there is a high probability of having huge DR (and even the sun) in the frame.

We can look at images in controlled lighting, this is true.  However under such conditions the vast majority of cameras from the last decade will look just fine.  In fact, if the older cameras have the same bit-depth in their codecs but less DR then they might look BETTER than the modern cameras as the bits will be less stretched!  
So if we're going to compare modern cameras in very controlled conditions then the comparisons should include the vast hundreds of models released in the last decade or so, but if you do mention them then people go berserk because these older cameras fall short in other areas, and you can make a good argument that the controlled tests are nice but not entirely sufficient for evaluation.  In which case, the stunning differences in DR between these cameras is now back in the consideration and the DJI is miles ahead of the Luna.

To summarise that a bit, if you're taking everything into consideration then the DR really matters and if you're not then why aren't you comparing dozens of older cameras, and if you desperately want a tiny gimbal but only shoot in controlled conditions then isn't that a niche application so narrow that it really can't be justified to evaluate the cameras overall?

In terms of me reminding people that lower DR 1080p cameras are fine for many practical tasks, this is true, but modern camera releases have basically nothing to do with practical tasks at all.  There is no justification for 8K codecs.  Period.   The justification for 8K sensors that let you crop 2x for a 4K image is borderline but fine.   Then there's 17K - seriously...   Most camera discussions departed reality long ago and the discussions about this or that camera have the same rigour as discussing which super-hero can win against which other super-hero.

Fair enough, and I think “it really comes down to your perspective” is already much closer to what I have been saying from the beginning : )

 

I would only question “completely irrelevant”, 'cause and when you immediately acknowledge the principal practical justification for an 8K sensor:

Cropping twice into a 4K image ; )

That is precisely where the additional detail becomes visible in the comparisons posted above, particularly with the tele shots and whenever the image is cropped and magnified.

8K is also useful for extracting high-resolution frame grabs : P

 

So yes, I concur that the Pocket’s additional latitude may be much more valuable in a wide, uncontrolled, high-contrast exterior scene. The Pocket 4 Pro remains high on my wish list, of course : )

But in a shot requiring additional reach, reframing or magnification or yet, genuine DSMC use ; ) the Luna’s resolution may be the advantage that actually matters too : )

Which brings us back to perspective, purpose and the particular shot, rather than to any single universal verdict on the two cameras.

 

Let alone the POV Head Tracker, detachable screen, internal 32-bit float stereo audio (all game-changers) and the rest of the Luna’s modular shooting concept ; )

 

E. :- )

[kye]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Fair enough, and I think “it really comes down to your perspective” is already much closer to what I have been saying from the beginning : )

 

I would only question “completely irrelevant”, 'cause and when you immediately acknowledge the principal practical justification for an 8K sensor:

Cropping twice into a 4K image ; )

That is precisely where the additional detail becomes visible in the comparisons posted above, particularly with the tele shots and whenever the image is cropped and magnified.

8K is also useful for extracting high-resolution frame grabs : P

 

So yes, I concur that the Pocket’s additional latitude may be much more valuable in a wide, uncontrolled, high-contrast exterior scene. The Pocket 4 Pro remains high on my wish list, of course : )

But in a shot requiring additional reach, reframing or magnification or yet, genuine DSMC use ; ) the Luna’s resolution may be the advantage that actually matters too : )

Which brings us back to perspective, purpose and the particular shot, rather than to any single universal verdict on the two cameras.

 

Let alone the POV Head Tracker, detachable screen, internal 32-bit float stereo audio (all game-changers) and the rest of the Luna’s modular shooting concept ; )

 

E. :- )

Everything you said above can be copied and pasted a decade from now when people are arguing if a 32K sensor is better than a 16K sensor.

On the 32K sensor you can crop in more..  it's great for high-res frame grabs.. cropping in 9 times instead of 8 times!

The problem with such discussions is they're unconnected from reality.

What CAN you do with an 8K image that you CAN'T do with a 4K image?  Both have enough resolution for cinema.  Both have enough resolution to pull frames and print them on billboards.  Both have enough resolution to win an Oscar...  etc.

All this is beginning to sound like people arguing they need a 150MP doorbell camera to be able to live with themselves.

[eatstoomuchjam]

5 hours ago, kye said:

The detail from the 8K will be completely irrelevant, except in cinemas

Minor nitpick: 8K will also be largely irrelevant in cinemas!  At least near me, many of them still broadcast 2K on most of their screens, with maybe one or two set up for 4K projection.  Only the most eagle-eyed audience members could even theoretically notice a difference in 4K and 8K projection at a viewing distance where they could see the entire screen at once - and outside of maybe a nature documentary, even among those viewers, it's hard to imagine them caring much.

5 hours ago, kye said:

There is no justification for 8K codecs.  Period.

Not true. 
Aside from digital zoom without substantial quality loss, as you mentioned, a number of VFX use cases, especially those involving masking something out, are improved by having the highest-resolution source material available.

That and in theory, you'll get better color information putting 6K or 8K on a 4K timeline, assuming the use of a Bayer sensor.  Remember that it's necessary to guess at the values for 2 out of 3 colors for every pixel when debayering footage.  From what I remember, and I might remember wrong, this means that the readout from Bayer sensors is effectively 4:2:2.  Downsampling from 6K or 8K gives you something that is more effectively 4:4:4.

As to whether that matters to you, maybe none of it does.  In practice, modern debayering is very good and I'm not really sure that viewers are ever going to notice a difference in 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 once at 2K resolution or above.

5 hours ago, kye said:

Most camera discussions departed reality long ago and the discussions about this or that camera have the same rigour as discussing which super-hero can win against which other super-hero.

Correct.  A 4.6K Arri is still preferred in many productions to an 8K camera from another vendor.  The FX5 is going to sell a million bazillion units despite being released as a 5K camera in an era when all of the competitors are at 6K or higher (also assuming that some of the firmware weirdness and constant rebooting to change settings can be fixed).  There are still cameras being released today using the same IMX410 that was in my Z Cam E2-F6 that I bought in 2018.

The Ronin 4D was one of the best product ideas that DJI ever had (really, the Osmo Raw was, but the execution was too clunky).  They were never going to compete with Arri in the space where people use Arri - so take a real pain point from a lot of productions (gimbals are irritating to use/balance and are often disconnected in operation from the attached camera) and fix that.  Now you see the 4D showing up in all sorts of productions - because it's the best camera ever made and wins the spec sheet wars?  No.  But the quality is good and it's an elegant solution for some problems.

[Anaconda_]

Just chiming in to say I was working with someone recently who was extremely happy with his Osmo 4p. Never having to balance a gimble ever again etc.. However, they said the one problem with this cameras is they're too light, which makes it more susceptible to up and down movements when walking. Their solution, which really made me laugh, was to mount it onto their regular camera, Blackmagic 6kPro, and use that as basically a paper weight.

I'd stupidly assumed they were getting double angles of everything! 

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, kye said:

What CAN you do with an 8K image that you CAN'T do with a 4K image?

That is precisely the point about limits, already laid out rather extensively in my post on the previous page... although I may have to start charging royalties if we keep returning to it ; )

Extra dynamic range is not always needed, and neither is extra resolution. But 8K allows greater cropping and reframing while retaining a 4K output, additional room for stabilisation and VFX work, and higher-resolution frame grabs.

You may not need any of those things in your own work, which is perfectly fair. But that is quite different from saying that 8K offers no valid practical advantage over 4K at all ;- )