Leaderboard

It actually has a S16 crop mode in 4K

The state of the art - which still doesn't actually match the requirement of full RAW shooting at 24fps - would be the Sony A1 which in APS-C mode can shoot at 20fps in compressed RAW with an unlimited buffer. Not a small price but neither is the requirement. There is also the matter of the memory card usage and battery life restricting the practical usefulness of it. The €400 160gb CFExpress card will give you five minutes of that 20fps APS-C compressed RAW storage but the bigger issue being the battery on the A1 being rated at 430 shots which will give you about 21 seconds of footage before it gives up the ghost. It may be that interpolation improves dramatically over the next few years but it will likely still take something fairly high end (i.e. a sports camera) to make it viable because even at a reduced frame rate it will still need a big buffer so until then the closest option is paying €7.5K for a camera that shoots just above the frame rate of a Super 8 cine camera and chews memory cards and power at an alarming rate. There is, of course, a stills camera that exists that gives you a "burst rate" of up to 30fps RAW in full frame with very modest power requirements and far more affordable media where that €400 will buy you closer to five hours of footage rather than five minutes. For about 20% of the price too. To demonstrate the diminishing returns of stills RAW burst vs internal RAW on the same camera, I've just taken this comparison of an uncompressed RAW in stills mode on my Sigma Fp with the 12bit cDNG RAW frame in cine mode. For me personally, such differences that are there are definitely insufficient for me to take the ball ache of trying to make the stills mode into a cine mode.

It's actually the other way around! The shadows have larger and more pronounced grain than the highlights. Grey card, Portra 400, exposed at -4 stops, 24MP scan to middle grey, 100% crop: Grey card, Portra 400, exposed at +4 stops, 24MP scan to middle grey, 100% crop:

Hello everyone. Forum is 50/50 sharing EOSHD with my content. So half the traffic goes to posts on the forum and half goes to my articles and content. I would like to make some changes to EOSHD to make it more sustainable and grow again after a difficult period. 1. Definitely want to keep in touch and talk to my mates here on the forum. So not going to close the place down or suddenly let it go dark. How do people feel about a Reddit group or a Discord server, which are more smartphone friendly and a bit more about realtime chat and problem solving compared to a thread on a forum which may stretch over many pages and takes a lot of time to delve into? Maybe a better medium for lighter discussions and chat? 2. Financial side of EOSHD is not good at the moment. The forum might have to make way for the blog to put the attention 100% on my content. I can't see a viable way to make money from the forum. I don't think I want to put advertising everywhere either. If you can suggest a way to fund the forum and keep it going, I'd like to know your thoughts on that. 3. Small number of regular users are creating most of the content. We need to grow. Any ideas related to this very welcome. I can't really get my head around it. A very busy forum has crossed into that dangerous territory where a very small minority of regular users are making 99% of the posts. We need a more diverse range of topics and to not have the few interesting pieces flooded with 20 pages of armchair opinions 🙂 4. How the forum shares the domain with my own content needs to change especially on smartphones. If anyone can suggest new forum software that integrates seamlessly with a blog I am all ears as cannot seem to find any at all. 5. If forum is to come to an end after 11 years, it will because all replacements, shake-ups, redesigns and all ideas are exhausted and it becomes financially unviable for me to run it. I didn't agree at all with the way Cinema5D suddenly dumped their forum. All that info and all those posts in the bin. I didn't know what the rationale was behind it at all. Selling it to Mitch at Planet5D was a complete dick move. People (and their opinions) are not pawns to be traded around for money. So I am all for constructive criticism on how we can make the forum grow again, be more interesting again and be financially viable. How can we get some of the members back we lost? Why are they not interested in posting here any more? Is the general topic of cameras and video in decline? And let's look to the positives of this place as well. What works best? How can we play to our strengths and be relevant? Over and out. Andrew

The E-M1 Mark II does 60fps RAW. You get very short clips that you slow down to about 2 sec. max. Didn't really bother repeating the experiment as you're better off using Magic Lantern or a Sigma Fp. It has no legs really. There are so many better options available in 2022.

I think a lot of the grain you saw when you went to a real indoor movie theatre was actually from the screen. It is not some shiny material by a long shot. It was designed to be non-reflective from different angles. Probably drive ins were the same.

Sorry I don't see why it can't be discussed? There is an actual thread for it. This one!

That makes sense, considering that if a certain value gets applied in Linear, then the conversion to Log would reduce that difference the brighter the Luma value is. Funnily enough, my post to you took about 20 minutes to write, as I would write something, have a think about it, google it, read a forum thread / blog post / etc, think about it again, and then adjust or delete what I wrote. My post ended up stating that the grain was higher in the mids and highlights as that was one of the dominant sentiments from what I read. Thinking further about it, and thinking about motion picture film, wouldn't there be noise in both the shadows and highlights, as in a two-stage development process (original negative then positive for projection) one stock would put the noise in the highlights and the other would put it in the shadows (which is why there are rolloffs at both ends)?

Good video, thanks for sharing. One thing that struck me was that I'd like to see a comparison between the DR Boost On vs Off but comparing them against their lowest ISOs. ie, [V-Log DR Boost OFF at ISO 250] vs [V-Log DR Boost ON at ISO 2000] and then [V-Log DR Boost OFF at ISO 400] vs [V-Log DR Boost ON at ISO 2500], etc. That would then kind of be a test of how much ISO range you get in each mode. It sort of looks like it has a dual-native-ISO and that the DR Boost feature is using both at once and therefore doesn't have as large a range of clean ISO values you can use.

I haven't watched the video yet (looking forward to it), but from my very limited testing I found DR Boost noisy in the midtones in a way that I wasn't used to seeing.

Spiffy stuff by a new face on youtube, at least to me. Sounds like a presenter from BBC. Super enjoyable to listen to and to watch, loved the colour board tests. The lenscap tests didnt do that much to me but still loved to listen to his voice. 🙂 Interesting findings presented in a very nice manner. Takeaway, DR Boost is terrific.

Well, my friends and I went out for a ride. We are all beginning to look alike I am afraid. Well at least we didn't have to walk all the time. Only picture was this group photo. That is me in the front, picking my leg. Not much action on here today, so I figured I would contribute something. Looks like I am losing my hair, Yikes.

I'm in love with my A7iv. It sorta of surprised me TBH. I've been making some major kit changes and decided to dip my toe into Sony with the A7iv just to see how I liked it. Within just a few days I was convinced that Sony was the right path forward for me and sold everything to rebuild my kit with the A7iv and A7s iii. No regrets whatsoever other than I wish I'd gone this route a little sooner. The two cameras pair really nicely together, both with some unique features that make it worth having one of each. With all factors added in, I do think the A7iv is the better all-around video camera for most people's needs.

I sold my A7S III and got the A7 IV instead. For me it has a bit more mojo. Colours, and the new sensor at 30mp. Can shoot S35 and S16mm crops without killing the image quality. 10bit, better codecs than A7R IV. Low light pretty alright, at the ISOs I need it, but not A7S III level. I am curious to compare it to my S1 next and see which wins the image quality battle in video mode. There are a LOT of variables though which makes these things a bit more tricky than in GH2 vs 5D Mark II days

Can you send a picture?

Well for all you BM guys out there looking for focus and AF help this may be a cheap answer.

If you record 1080p Prores HQ then that card should be good for about 94 mins, 422 should be longer... Just in case you're feeling like more testing would be fun 🙂 Great to hear the 2h 17m GH6 result was with the DR boost mode on. I can't think of what other features would drain a battery so much that it would reduce that battery life significantly. Thanks for doing these tests. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Even basic tests frequently prove that a significant proportion of "what everyone knows" is actually just plain wrong, or so oversimplified or limited in context that it is either so useless or misleading it has the same effect as being wrong. If you can test it yourself, you really should.