Leaderboard

I think there is also the issue of "how" the RAW data is compressed not just the insanely broad "all RAW from camera compressed higher than 3:1" belongs to RED. Canon clearly has some kind of deal with RED when there is CRAW Light 8:1 in Hybrid DSLM R5. This, and the fact they fit internal NDs in RF mount flange, makes me incredible excited for future camera generations from Canon. So I find it doubtful we will see RAW in GH6. I would be really surprised. I think they should do what Sigma did and just offer uncompressed 10-bit and 12-bit RAW and develop that external storage grip solution you are proposing and have the huge file sizes countered with cheap M.2 SSD media recording. It has been forever since we heard even a whisper of a rumor about hybrid GH cameras. They are either entirely reworking the model line or they are going to kill it and focus on S series FF cameras.

Big fan of insta360.... I have two one R (360, 1”). The quality of 360 reframed is not there yet but is so much fun.... and finally I can have some selfie too: I have a mini 2 also, big improvement over mini 1 in wind resistance and even more important video signal / range but is missing 10bit log or at list a more flat profile.

You ARE 100% accurate : ) Here's my two cents... On early April 2021:

I want a mini 250 g with 1'' sensor, not interested in bigger drone as is now just a pita especially here if you need/wants to fly over people. Would be already good 10bit with log in the current mini 2

I’ve been ignoring it my entire career and no one has ever noticed. Or at least commented. Without an auto internal ND, it makes true hybrid coverage very difficult...which is what I mostly do. I’ve never chased the next ‘latest & greatest’ spec. Chased certain standards at times yes and for the last few years, that has been 4K 60P plus great SOOC picture quality (stills & video) that can easily be lightly graded. 8K? No thanks. Raw video? Yet to be convinced for my needs. Super shallow DOF. I do like a shallow DOF and have done my whole 20+ year career, but the main reason I personally prefer faster lenses is more because of the lesser need to crank up the ISO and introduce unwanted noise. Because sensors continually improve in that regard, f2 & f2.8 are now my go to’s whereas just a few years ago, it might have been f1.4 (for full frame). Great colour SOOC is not negotiable with me however. Anything that requires extensive work to look good isn’t for me. And in all of the above regards, I’m done camera spec-wise for at least 3.5 years unless something breaks in that time. As with all these things, it’s just finding that balance of the tools that will best do the job that you need them to do within a certain budget. Anyway, my tastes must be different to the masses as I took the blind test and Sony didn’t win for me 😜

Well... I would do that... but I am too busy saving up for the new Sony 50mm f/1.2 so I can take some epic footage of my cat...

You are correct, sir. In another test, another youtuber showed a lot of non-photographers lots of photos, some with a very shallow depth of field, and some with "normal" depth of field, and overwhelmingly the people preferred the photos with MORE depth of field over the photos with shallow depth of field. So there we have it. 6K and 8K Resolution??? Overrated. Straight out of camera colors??? Overrated. Super shallow depth of field (aka, Cinematic Look)??? Overrated. Oh, and then there is the video by Jordan Drake where he says he has been "living in denial" or something like that because he shot a video and purposely didn't use the 180-degree shutter rule, and no one seemed to notice. (Everyone seemed to notice instead their use of gee-whiz transitions and jump cuts.)

Wow Panasonic really nailed colour back then. When I look at this and the colour from the 5Dmkii I have to wonder what the hell happened since then? Maybe my negative perception of colour in consumer cams 2014-2020ish mostly comes from Sony dominance and the pandora's box of giving S-Log to the masses.

They should just make a battery grip that contains an M2 SSD slot that automagically connects to the camera and records the compressed raw on that - bingo.. "external" raw. Or licence Prores from Apple and offer those options. ....or just make it possible to select whatever bitrate and bit depth you want and turn off sharpening, that would do it for me.

Shot mostly on the Zcam S6 with some Panasonic S1 in there too. I feel like the trailer was harder to make than the actual film. 😅

@tupp You raise a number of excellent points, but have missed the point of the test. The overall context is that for a viewer, sitting at a common viewing distance, the difference won't be discernible. This is why the comparison is about perceptual resolution and not actual resolution. Yedlin claims that the video will appear 1:1, which I took to mean that it wouldn't be a different size, and you have taken to mean that every pixel on his computer will appear as a single pixel on your/my computer and will not have any impact on any of the other surrounding pixels. Obviously this is false, as you have shown from your blown up screen captures. This does not prove scaling though. As you showed, two viewers rendered different outputs, and I tried it in Quicktime and VLC and got two different results again. Problem number one is that the viewing software is altering the image (or at least all but one that we tried). Problem number two is that we're both viewing the file from Yedlin's site, which is highly compressed. In fact, it is a h264 stream, and 2.32Gb, something like 4Mbps. The uncompressed file would have been 1192Mbps and in the order of 600Gb, and not much smaller had he used a lossless compression, so completely beyond any practical consideration. Assuming I've done my maths correctly, that's a compression ratio of something like 250:1 - a ratio that you couldn't even hope would yield a pixel-not-destroyed image. The reason I bring up these two points is that they will also be true for the consumption of any media by that viewer that the test is about. There's no point arguing that his test is invalid as it doesn't apply to someone watching an uncompressed video stream on a screen that is significantly larger than the TXH and SMPTE recommendations suggest, because, frankly, who gives a toss about that person? I'm not that person, probably no-one else here is that person, and if you are that person, then good for you, but it's irrelevant. You made a good point about 3CCD cameras, which I'd forgotten about, and even if you disagree about debayering and mismatched photosites and pixels, none of that stuff matters if the image is going to get compressed for digital distribution and then decoded by any number of decoders that will generate a different pixel-to-pixel readout. Essentially you're arguing about how visible something is at the step before it gets put through a cheese-grater on its way to the people who actually watch the movies and pay for the whole thing. In terms of why they make higher resolution cameras? There are two main reasons I can see: The first is that VFX folks want as much resolution as possible as it helps keep things perceptually flawless after they mess with them. This is likely the primary reason that companies like ARRI are putting out higher resolution models. The second reason is that electronics companies are companies, and in a capitalist society, companies exist to make money, and to do that you need to make people keep buying things, which is done through planned obsolescence and incremental improvements, such as getting everyone to buy 4K TVs, and then 4K cameras to go with those 4K TVs. This is likely the driver of all the camera manufacturers who also sell TVs, which is.... basically every consumer camera company. Not a whole lot of people buying a GH5 are doing VFX with it, although cropping in post is one relatively common exception to that. So, although I disagree with you on some of the technical aspects along the way, the fact that his test isn't "1:1" in whatever ways you think it should be is irrelevant, because people watch things after compression, after being decoded by unknown algorithms. That's not even taking into account the image processing witchcraft that things like Smooth Motion that completely invents entirely new frames and is half of what the viewer will actually see, or uncalibrated displays etc. Yes, these things don't exist in theatres, but how many hours do you spend watching something in a theatre vs at home? The average person spends almost all their time watching on a TV at home, so the theatre percentage is pretty small.

If it's worth saying, it's worth repeating, right? also, if it's worth saying it's definitely worth repeating. I completely agree. To put things into perspective, here's a video from the GH1 that I saw shared recently. To my eyes, it look better than almost everything I see posted in the last couple of years. 1080p camera, 1080p upload, from a camera that is so old it doesn't change hands much anymore, but when it does it can be had for about $100.