Leaderboard

Jesus fucking christ, what amazing journalism from Engadget: https://www.engadget.com/2019/09/24/xiaomi-mi-mix-alpha-price-launch-date/

Speaking of skate videos, I just watched Mid 90s. Movie was awsome and would highly recommend.

KnightsFan is exactly right. it would be like ford patenting a car that is 4 feet or greater in length with a attached roof. Cars existed before the model T but didn’t have a roof. Is a roof not obvious enough to grant ford an patent to a car, which is a highly complex piece of equipment, because they slapped on an obvious, preexisting, roof on it and made it longer than 4 feet? A roof is obvious. The length of said object is obvious. The size of RAW images is obvious. RED didn’t invent bigger images. They didn’t make an invention related to the CMOS sensor. They simply bought exclusive rights to a sensor off the shelf. Slapped on JPEG2000 wavelet compression on RAW images (existed before) and submitted a patent for it. Compressed TIFFs existed before RED “invented” RAW compression. They used them to “demo” their REDCODE. The video shows they didn’t put in 12 months of research. They took pre-existing technologies, with pre-existing ideas and then claimed they were novel. The premise behind REDS patent is that their incredibly novel idea was to capture 2K+ RAW images on a camera and compress the RAW images ON THE CAMERA inline and store it (instead of having a computer do it) Fucking ground breaking! The patent is entirely without merit.

Guys, I see you got lost, the Nursing Home is down the street to the left.

Did you watch the video? This is quite different. Panasonic does work on sensor development. Where is RED's "large team" of sensor designers that RED claims to have?? Actually, forget about "large team", where is one person who works in their sensor design team doing that? Rob Hummel doesn't know of anyone! Can you help me find someone? I'd love to read what papers they've published, and patents they've got, over their career. Again, NOT AT ALL THE SAME Not even in the same galaxy. Because not only was RED happy to share it, they shouted this proudly from the rooftops: "WE MADE THIS! OUR BIG SENSOR DESIGN TEAM! HERE MADE IN THE USA!" etc etc etc If they just refused to say, like Samsung not admitting to Sharp panels, then I'd have greater respect for RED than them lying (and contradicting their own lies! Because they can't even keep that straight). For sure, that parent is hell shady! And totally wrong. But all these other videos from Jinni Tech, like this latest one, are demonstrating the depth of RED's ethical character.... or rather lack of it! At every turn, wherever he seems to look and start digging, we discover more lies and unethical behavior from RED. Makes you question EVERYTHING about RED, have they ever been able to say anything truthfully? Will they ever in the future? If Jim Jannard or Jarred Land tells me it is raining, I'm going to make damn sure to look out the window to double check!

I have a smallhd 701 that im replacing, looking at the 5inch BM one, Shinobi SDI, Portkeys BM5, and the Smallhd 502 bright. I don't even need a recorder it's just a bonus. However that 5'' 12G seems perfect. Dual batteries, 2500 nits, great UI, Lut preview, metal body, full range of scopes. AND it can record. This might be the one boys.

Looking forward to more from Jonah Hill

This isn't click-bait BS, let's actually talk about why 6K RAW cameras aren't really needed. I see two main reasons: Many cameras already shoot 6K downscaled to a 4K output (and the GH5 even has a lower-processed 5K anamorphic 4:3 mode) so the resolution benefits of 6K debayer resolution for a 4K delivery are already being enjoyed by many people For those who are claiming you need 6K to reframe for a 4K output, it is likely you don't know what reframing actually looks like There is a third reason - that resolution has absolutely nothing to do with how good your film is, but I'll just assume that people who are desperate to get more resolution are probably not yet ready to hear this and I'll move on and pretend it somehow matters. Much analysis has been done of the 6K -> 4K downsampling cameras, so I won't replicate those conversations, but instead let's look at the reframing argument. If you're shooting 6K to reframe and get a 100% 4K crop out, you can reframe into the image up to 150% . ie, if you want to match the same re-framing with only a 4K source, you must scale up that 4K source to 150%, effectively using a 2.5k source. It sounds terrible, and despite people repeatedly saying that ARRI cameras capture at 3.2k and upscale to 4K (a 125% upscale) people still dismiss upscaling out-of-hand without actually knowing what difference this scaling makes, and being too lazy to actually test it themselves. So I did it for you.... I look forward to people arguing their point in the face of overwhelming evidence.... ??? That is, unless you're delivering in 6K and also want to re-frame heavily in post, but seriously - who would be doing that?

Pretty sure they could have done that with a tilty flippy screen as well. IIRC xpro2 had dual zoom level for the OVF. I played around with the xpro1 a few years ago and it was interesting, way too small rear lens tho that made it kinda bad to use unless you aimed your eyeball in there, it had some other downfalls like battery life and the reeeely noisy os zoom lens so I didn't end up buying it even tho it was pretty cheap used. I would not mind to see what the new generation have to offer.

I like being able to hide the screen. I use the viewfinder 90% of the time when taking photos. It's nice to be able to protect the LCD from scratches, and from sweat when you press your face against the camera. The little LCD showing the "film type" is really cute, and seems to have the unique function of showing an easily recognizable icon for the picture profile you're using. Brilliant.

It does have a rear screen, you can just hide it away, as it rotates 180 degrees. I like that it'll bring the camera to the users eye more.

The XT3 can use H264 or H265 video codecs, plus it can do H264 "All Intra" (IOW no interframe compression) which might be easier to edit, but the bitrate is higher. The key for all those except maybe All Intra is you need hardware accelerated decode/encode, plus editing software that supports that. The most common and widely-adopted version is Intel's Quick Sync. AMD CPUs do not have that. Premiere Pro started supporting Quick Sync relatively recently, so if you have an updated subscription that should help. Normal GPU acceleration doesn't help for this due to the sequential nature of the compression algorithm. It cannot be meaningfully parallelized to harness hundreds of lightweight GPU threads. In theory both nVidia and AMD GPUs have separate fixed-function video acceleration hardware similar to Quick Sync which is bundled on the same die but functionally totally separate. However each has had many versions and require their own software frameworks for the developer to harness those. For these reasons Quick Sync is much more widely used. The i7-2600 (Sandy Bridge) has Quick Sync but that was the first version and I'm not sure how well it worked. Starting with Kaby Lake it was greatly improved from a performance standpoint. In general, editing a 4k H264 or H265 acquisition codec is very CPU-bound due to the compute-intensive decode/encode operations. The I/O rate is not that high, e.g, 200 mbps is only 25 megabytes per sec. As previously stated you can transcode to proxies but that is a separate (possibly time consuming) step.

https://youtu.be/VujCOwa89ug

The X pro line are not pure rangefinder cameras. The cameras have a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder. There is an electronic overlay on the screen with the field of view of the lens used. Basically you can see a larger field of view than the one the lens capture. But they don't have the rangefinder focusing capabilities, no split image coming together on the focusing plane. I have used only the xpro1 but from what I know, fuji has changed the optical screen in the xpro2.

Xpro-2 is a fixed lens OVF with overlay guidelines and info if you want it. It’s a cool novelty. The thing I like about OVF is that is allows you to take in the whole scene in front of you as it’s a pretty wide view Whenlooking though the lens via EVF it’s kind of “tunnel vision,” which is good for some stuff too.

It's the most pretentious gimmick (wouldn't go as far as calling it a 'feature') I've seen in a while. Only the Leica M10-D which shares a similar mindset but hardly similar pricing trumps it. I'd rather have a digital camera be ahead of its time rather than stripped back as some kind of 'ode' to the good ol' days. If essence is what you're after... go shoot actual film, already? Really limit yourself to shooting without a screen, max. 36 consecutive shots, etc. This?! I think it's bollocks, but hey, if people were waiting for this, good on them.

After watching this video and the one before it, it's easy to see that ALL of RED's claims should be reexamined. Their false use of "made in the USA" and false claims of designing their own sensors go well beyond ethical business practices. I have little doubt that the industry will be better off once this patent is revoked. It's smoke and mirrors, and it's holding back fair competition.

The internal ND is awesome! And look at the size of it! That alone doesnt leave space for anymore bullshit excuses why you cant put it in DSLR type mirrorless body. You can defiantly house it inside instead of shutter. So I dont know why Panasonic didnt do it with S1H for example. Hope it does with GH6.

Agree. They gathered too many advantages plus the recording function.

https://www.gsmarena.com/xiaomi_mi_mix_alpha_108mp_camera-news-39299.php

Same for Benz getting royalties from all vehicle manufacturers on any vehicles with 4 wheels and a motor on it.

Well, maybe Alan Turing heirs should apply for royalties from RED or Apple too?

with eoshd i thought it was open season on cameras ?

Honestly the more I see the more I like. I was very skeptical about ZCam but I'm glad they've made me eat some crow. I'm glad they exist, at the very least they're pushing things forward!

In the absence of BM footage I was wondering how much the look the resolution plays, so I made this test (also posted to another thread for another reason). The method was I started with an 8K RAW clip from a RED Helium and exported it to Prores HQ at 4K, 3.2K, 2.5K, 2K, and 720p, then added the original and the exports back into a 4K timeline for comparison. Here's the export on YT: Here is the h.264 export download link: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_6462598 and here is the Prores LT export download link: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_6462579 I'm very curious to hear which resolution (if any) reminds you of the cinematic look of either an Alexa, or of the classic BM cameras?

yep, I've seen the F6 rolling shutter and it is on par with other full frame sensors in this pricing bracket. Meaning, not great. But you'd really have to purposefully induce it for it to be a problem. That being said, if you need to do a whip-pan, the E2 with a .64x speedbooster will get you nearly to full frame (1.2x crop) and be a good back-up for this, HFRs, etc. Weight difference is only 100g. No idea about timecode.

they're slooowly releasing footage. I graded this 6K clip in DaVinci. For fun. I have an F6 pre-ordered. Looking forward to getting my hands on it so i can start shooting --

Yes, but in my opinion (and that of many people) "having a resolution over 4000 pixels wide" isn't an original ingredient that you can patent. It is too broad, and too obvious. And you can't patent something obvious. Maybe if Red had patented Raw compression on images "exactly 4000 pixels wide" it would sit better with us. Here's another example: Is it fair that RED's patent covers 16k 120 fps compressed raw video, when they can't do it themselves and certainly couldn't when the patent was filed? Perhaps. But they did say that they removed cDNG because of legal issues, without naming Red specifically.

yup got $600 back! and a free repair! consumer advocacy works!!!! I reached out to their sales rep about the matter - I'm not taking full credit, but I reached out and we should all do this about any product if we are not happy with it.

Raw is for amateurs that can't get the shot right in 8 bit.... ?

I got my start 15 years ago on a VX2100. Skate videos and comedy short films. Those were the days...

Thats the crux, how "specific and particular" does a recipe need to be to be patented. Red's patent is incredibly broad, like instead of being a recipe for a particular burger it is like a recipe that encompasses all burgers, not just the one RED makes. It even knocks down formats that existed before Redcode was invented--just because apprently ">4000 pixels wide" is a specific recipe ingredient. Blackmagic will likely reintroduce the cdng raw video they were forced to remove for legal reasons. Z cam probably would, they are currently making a "partial debayer" raw, likely because bayer raw is currently illegal. Sony obviously wants the patent gone, they tried to appeal it before, likely for their cameras that require an external unit (fs5 price range and up, i suspect.)

If you like the video, please donate to him so he can make a part V and/or send him your red one mx so he can open it up and find the secrets: https://www.gofundme.com/f/jinni-reveals-red?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet Why support him?: All of this seems to have already gotten the interest of Apple Inc that is in a patent dispute with Red. It seems this way as they have started to reference Jim Jannard's posts on reduser and cinematography.com. - If more knowledge of Red not actually having developed its sensor, then this will start to open up flaws in Red's patent on compressed raw internally. Right now Red stops all other camera manufacturers from making cameras that record compressed raw internally. How will this affect ARRI ALEXA CAMERAS? Arri cameras have pro res 4444 on them. This may open up Pro RAW on them - which is more efficient at 4k than 4k Pro Res HQ, but still a 12-bit codec! Why is Pro Res RAW so amazing? When a client asks for 4k, right now on the alexa MINI LF you can do 4k Pro Res 4444, but it eats up data for breakfast. Pro Res RAW brings this to a much more manageable data rate. How will this affect Canon, Sony, and BM cameras? Same. Imagine a smaller mirrorless camera that can do pro res raw? More efficient data rates in higher resolution. Better data for green screen and skintones for grading. This seems like a small thing, a man making little youtube videos, but it has real positives for our industry. His detective work is worth its weight in gold. And all it takes is hitting a link and anonymously sending him some cash. https://www.gofundme.com/f/jinni-reveals-red?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet

No you were not asked where the footage is. I fully understand that no one has footage outside of Sigma. I merely questioned your otherwise interesting article’s title. As I do not feel an article that claims to be “comprehensive” can be absent of the single most important aspect of any camera... the footage. Also no information of base ISO... or ISOs if it is dual? It was a simple comment. It was not meant as a personal attack on anyone. And for the record, I’m pleased to see more players come into the video market, as I believe competition is a healthy thing and great for consumers. Perhaps you will ban me for saying these things? I have noticed of late, that pretty much everything is tolerated by those claiming to be tolerant... unless what is presented is a difference of opinion. That’s where tolerance ends.

But how much does it REALLY matter? Why is it that the world's best DP's are happy shooting on a camera with a 3.2K image sensor that has to be UP SCALED when recording 4k like is the case with the Alexa Mini, and yet people on forums think a 4K sensor is not good enough?

Please don’t advertise you’re an American, it makes the rest of us look bad. Hahaha... just kidding. I’m almost convinced Skip77 (and possibly ZachGoodwin2) are alter egos of somebody on this site having a laugh.

No your test wasn't right. You show two video clips and say one was cropped in. Redo the test the right way and maybe you have point. Math is also not on your side. Use RAW footage and see what happens. The footage you used is not very detailed and very little areas are in focus. That was not a real world test and the footage looked the same.

Did you watch the video I posted? Please tell us all how you can see that the reframed shot is visibly less quality. Quoting the 'rules' when they are contradicted by actual footage is a bit of a strange argument, wouldn't you think?

hmm, you could buy 33 bmp4k's @ $1800 australian for 59400 but you probably want to only get 30 and have some change for memory cards and a couple of rig solutions and a tripod perhaps

I suggest you carefully read my post again - many of your points are arguments against points I didn't make, but you obviously thought that I did. Also, I'm aware that GH5 files aren't 6K RAW, but the logic you're failing to recognise is that a 4K crop is to 6K the same that a 150% crop of 4K is to straight 4K. The argument goes that if you're outputting 4K and are going to crop in by 150% then you need 6K, but what the logic fails to recognise is that you can scale 4K by the same amount and if you add a small amount of sharpening then it's practically indistinguishable from the straight 4K file. Therefore the argument that 6K is required for reframing and keeping similar image quality doesn't really stack up. It's funny when discussing things like this - you and @thephoenix both went to the extreme and then criticised that. That is called a 'straw-man' argument, and although neither of you did it explicitly, you both reacted like I had said things I didn't actually say. Let's examine the title of this thread and break it down: "6K RAW is over-rated. Here's why..." 6K RAW I'm not really talking about compressed 6K. If you're delivering 4K it will likely be compressed. If you're shooting compressed 4K then grading it and then re-compressing it to deliver codec then that's a lot of damage to the image. If you're shooting 4K RAW then you're already miles ahead of compressed 4K. 6K RAW is miles ahead of that and yet apparently it's "argue on the internet" levels of critical, despite that 4K RAW is already miles above the compressed 4K files that the world is awash in. overrated This is a key point - I'm not saying it's useless, I'm saying that it's overrated. To break this down further, I'm saying that there's a rating of some kind (in the direction of shiny-thing mania), and that that level of rating is above what rating it should have. Not that it should be zero, just that it should be below what is has. Here's why This is where the arguments live, and I don't mean people fighting, I mean rational points designed to explore and explain thinking. In terms of context, yes, it depends on what you're shooting and what it's for, but if I was a betting man I'd bet a serious amount of money that you're not delivering anything in 6K and couldn't tell a 2.5K crop upscaled to 4K from a 4K source in a blind test.

12K ha ha... 16K HA HA HA!! The Konica's were very popular lenses and so there are heaps of them available. I think I paid under AU$100 including shipping for an AR -> MFT dumb adapter and two 40mm f1.8 lenses. I bought at the more budget end and so essentially bought a spare in case one was junk. I haven't explored the rest of their range but the 40/1.8 has a great reputation. I also have a couple of different variants of the Helios 58/2 and a Mir-1B 37mm f2.8 (which is apochromatic) and the Konica is my one of my core three lenses. I did a big comparison which is here: People are going to like the image quality from 6K because it's closer to getting 4K 444 than straight 4K is, but not many people are going to have lenses that really reveal the resolving power of such a resolution.

12K or go home. Only real pros shoot 12K. Gods shoot 16K. I think we are in vastly diminishing returns beyond 6K resolution for most filmic work. Sure, are there always uses for higher resolutions, sure! But when it comes to non-scientific bodies of work where you have an actor on frame or a landscape in front of you there are many more things that will improve your film than resolution (I’m talking video work here, not photos). There are also hard physical limits to data storage as well. Laws of physics and all that. Hence why bigger resolutions don’t excite me. Give me higher DR and better ISO please. Even with ISO (S1 and A7siii) we are approaching good enough for 95% of scenes you will encounter. The rest you fabricate. Give me more compact, but still ergonomic, footprint with a decent resolutions, frame rates, codecs, and storage mediums. The camera industry is down but when you stand back it is larger than ever before. Phones have become primarily cameras—not the other way around. Do a poll. What are the top things people look for in a phone? Probably close to no. 1 will be a great camera! It’s more popular than ever. But for most people convenience trumps most everything else. There will come a time when something shot on an 12K Monstro Mega X Beast won’t be, practically, much better than something shot with a iPhone 15 or One Plus Note 20 (for most sane people; we are insane). Also, @kye, can I borrow your Konica Hexacon? I promise I’ll give it back. Honest.

I'm not sure what you are talking about? Are you saying AF is not "Pro"? Honestly I could care less what is "Pro"... I use a gimbal and motion controllers and often times control multiple cameras at once. AF is a needed feature for these situations. I'm not talking about elaborate focus pulling... I'm taking about locking onto a subject and keeping it in focus. The primary reasons I do not buy Reds and Arri are: size, weight, lack of AF and convenience. If that changes I might have to rethink things. This new "pocket" camera is simply too large and bulky to be the kind of camera I would carry day to day. It's size and bulk relegate it to planned shoots. The kind of shoots my C200 is used for. The only thing this camera has going for it imo is price. But honestly, price is not a dominant factor in my purchasing decision. The more important factor for me is convenience of use... because if it is not convenient to use, well... I don't use it.

One -The cameras that shoot 6K downscaled to a 4K output like the A6500 still does not deliver a 6K file. Sorry but that's the truth. Two - Reframing from 6K to 4K is a valid argument for 6k and you must not edit much if you're using this as an argument. You always have limits when you reframe and you have to follow the rules. 6K shooters will also be delivering content in 2K so you have even more options. All the other stuff you said is not overwhelming evidence that we don't need 6K. It's only your opinion and unless you give us your background and work history your opinion is just that. If BMD gave us 100Mbps and crapping image quality and only wanted to deliver 6K as a gimmick then I might agree with you. The P6K is not a gimmick camera and actually looks amazing on paper and the sample footage we've seen so far. 6K is not that far from 4K and the same distance away from 8K, so it makes sense that this 6K footage will be relevant when 8K starts invading the market. And the Gh5 test footage is apples to oranges compared to 6K footage reframing to 4K. try again. I would much rather all the cine companies continue to improve 4K and make it better and better with each release but that's not happening. It's also not - let's have BMD 6K that's crappy vs really good 4k from another company. For the price of the S1 you can get the BMD 6K that blows away the S1 and S1H.

You're using compressed GH5 footage to make your case. That right there is the issue. Go get 6k RAW footage and then make your case. People reframe 4K to 2K all the time and not loss in quality. Yes you have rules to go follow but you would rather try and be right and hypocritical then wrong. You also need to show footage before you reframe it. Show the footage as shot and then reframed to match the same framing. Your test does not work for reframing. It's confusing because it's not the a complete test.

What Sony and Nikon models are you looking forward to? MFT lens won't cover the APS-C sensor, right? I think and have sen a better argument for EF mount and lens for the P6k then the other way around. MFT P4K users are more vocal but the side by side samples sow better detail and clarity on the P6K EF mount. You can't get detail back if the P4K can't capture it. The P4K looks great until you compare it to the P6K. (detail wise).

Since reading comprehension I lacking with you I'll clear this up. I think (EF mount is better) and have seen better argument for EF mount and lens for the P6k then the other way around. Did you see more detail in the P6K? Most side by side comparisons show the P6K resolves more detail. Other then that the image quality looks identical ( the P6K does look better in low light even though other have said the P4K with booster would be better),

The post you just made is trolling. I made no comments directed at you. You guys don't like AMERICANS and that's all this is. You all ran off @webrunner5 because of his views and you attack me for saying the same-things camera related comments that other people post about. You might want to create a few more new click - bait titles for your You Tube channel instead of bothering with me.