Leaderboard

Image Signal Processor, basically just the processing of the image that the camera does. By applying noise reduction, an ISP lowers the noise floor and thus increases dynamic range, usually at the expense of resolution. but yeah your original statement is correct: There is no inherent reason why raw would improve dynamic range on the same camera. If their log format already captures the entire dynamic range of the ADC, then Raw would likely bring no dynamic range improvements. We'd have to test in the real world to find out (like in the video above, which is in German unfortunately).

Here is a short spec ad done by Matteo Bertoli using P6K, Leica R lenses and 1/8 Pro Mist. And, my god, does this look fabulous!

Finished processing the two timelapses I took. Resolve doesn't read RW2 files from the GH5 so I had to have a couple of goes of processing them, but I discovered that the Adobe DNG Converter creates 16-bit DNG files so keeps the bit-depth and DR of the RAW files, which is useful when you're clipping things this hard. Processing involved stabilisation, setting black and white point and a key of just the clipped areas which I pushed towards orange so it wasn't digital white. I'm thinking I'll do one where I don't clip the sun and see how it looks, although I suspect that everything else will just be black, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. In both of them the edges of the sun appear to be blocky and horribly compressed, but it's actually due to the atmospheric effects, the RAW files are, well, RAW, and the pixel size is much smaller than the rather square-looking edges. I suspect it would make more sense visually if I had a higher frame rate (the GH5 can't do a time-lapse interval smaller than 1s which is what these are). I'd try video but I've zoomed in a bit on these, so the extra resolution seems to be quite useful. Suggestions welcome..

I'd give a recommendation for the Zoom H3-VR as well, is crazy insanely cheap. Every VR hobbyist should have it. Although if you want to take it more seriously at a semi professional level, then get a Rode NT-SF1 / Zoom F8n kit instead, which is itself insanely good value for money as well, and will be another level above the H3-VR Yes, the usual platforms (Facebook / YouTube / etc) all support ambisonics For decades ambisonics was "a solution looking for a problem" Well it has found its problem, VR! Perfect match.

Gorgeous shot that is mate. Lovely silky tones. What lens was it with?

No I did not have any problems with dynamic range And make sure you set the bit depth to 14 for stills and 12 for cinema if you want to get the max out the camera. This is a frame from a 12 bit cdng graded in photoshop. its shot trough a window and with a 30 year old lens.

If you have some time, you should download the free Zoom Ambisonics player and the original files from that thread and have a play with those to see how you can move the listening position when set to Binaural. If you have a 5.1 system connected to your Mac then so much the better when you set it to that but unrealistic for how people will be consuming VR on headphones obviously. The 190526_001.WAV file has the constant source of the fountain so is a good example of how far you can shift things.

The H3-VR has a six axis motion sensor so it always knows its position relative to the "front" of the camera and encodes internally in Ambix (used for YouTube and Facebook 360 stuff) and FuMa (usually for games) formats so everything remains in sync with viewing angle. Considering how long Ambisonic recording has been with us (I was selling those Soundfield microphones almost 30 years ago now and even then it wasn't new), it is the video tech that is in its infancy really.

If you want to dip a toe into binaural recording in a budget self contained unit then I have the Zoom H3-VR which is a pretty good unit. It records the audio internally in multi channel ambisonic format but also provides a live binaural stereo downmix to record to your camera. This gives you the option to post-produce the ambisonic files or just go with a binaural version on the camera as with this example I did here with the OG Pocket camera. There are links to the original files and the free Zoom Ambisonics player so you can play around with the possibilities here

The workflow with raw is very easy for me, I have realtime playback in resolve at 4k and even adding effects like filmconvert still play in realtime. ( I do have a radeon 7 that helps ) If you add a small hd oled, you also get your headphone output back and the flipping screen and the peaking and zebras at the same time and lut support Its what makes the camera complete for me. Now I'm waiting for in camera playback and I'm all set

No, the autofocus will. Canon users are happily paying $2300 for a 15-35 f/2.8! Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8 $2,300.....Lumix 24-70 f/2.8 S Pro $2,200 (with better IS)....Sigma 24-70 f/2.8...$1,099! Canon RF 24-105 f/4 $900.....The Lumix 24-105 S f/4 macro $1300 (doubles as a macro, unlike the RF, has better IS) Lumix 16-35 S Pro f/4...$1,500 (this one is slightly overpriced) I bet if the Lumix S series cameras had capable PDAF for video then it would have be extremely popular alternative to Sony and Canon. Canon RF lens prices are outrageous, but people pay to stay in the system because of Dual pixel autofocus. Panasonic should have taken the hit and used PDAF for at least the S1 and S1H. I think they made a mistake.

The S1 gives pretty much the same image if you don't need 4k 60p in 10 bit and gives you $2000 to invest in a lens which you'll need if you want to shoot stills. Here is one for $1699, thats $2300 more for lenses or rent ? https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Mirrorless-Resolution-L-Mount-Compatible/dp/B07W1H5DSZ/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=panasonic+s1&qid=1577066155&sr=8-3

I agree. If all we knew of video games were choose-your-own-adventure movies, we wouldn't be so into video games. One key area where I think video games and VR differ is that video games can present a realistic simulation of depth and physics that can be more exciting than the real thing–but with VR you have to reconcile the game space and game physics with real physics and real space, and teleportation mechanics are the best we've got but imo don't really cut it. Unless someone comes up with a genius approach to locomotion, I think VR will only thrive when we figure out what the most interesting thing we can put in a small space is. And it might just be a lot of interesting interactive stuff (the Rick and Morty game is fun)–or it'll probably be other people. Like Skype but weird af. Or virtual office or virtual surgery, virtual manufacturing/remote piloting. Transporting people to other places. And so, ironically, the least effective VR mechanic (teleportation) might become, in effect, what VR is actually/virtually used for. Maybe the best locomotive mechanic is virtual VR helmets? I think they did this in Superhot VR, I'm not actually creative enough to come up with it. Superhot VR is amazing btw.

I admire your desire to experiment and better learn the craft. Hopefully the neighbors don't think you're a creep!!

Professional web surfers. Who made the rumours sites any kind of authority?