Andrew Reid

I don't give a flying fuck.

Agree with you but like I said in the first impressions, it is a jekyll and hyde camera. It is at once badly specced and in the very same instance, a superb image to look at. Go figure.

Exactly, a lot of people do. So why is the EOS R getting criticised for being soft?

It's just an encoding mathematics formula. It doesn't suddenly mean you get more colour luminance levels.

The slight catch is that the camera is at my girlfriend's in Berlin! I won't get it until Tuesday or Wednesday next week. That gives me at least 4 days to stitch a nice rain jacket for it. Or maybe a small umbrella that attaches to the hotshoe?

What’s with the RGB Luma range in the menus of the NX1 then? That’s 0-255 I think YCbCr is just an HDMI thing and it’s really an RGB image at the core Also betting some so called 10bit cameras do an 8bit sensor readout like with the GH4 10bit HDMI, there was no advantage to be had.

I had sharpness down at -3 on the X-T3 just one notch above minimum (-4), to maintain some grain texture - and the contrast is as low as you can get in F-LOG... Still too much digital sharpness to the image. It is a bit like the GH5 where you cannot quite turn off the digital sharpening.

Maybe I can

5D Mk IV is not an EOS R. The chart test is useful for telling us about absolute resolution. The real world is quite another matter. Watching a film should not be an eyesight test, it should be an emotional experience. If the higher resolving images with digital sharpened look have a fatiguing, distracting picture that looks too digital, would you rather have a softer 4K image or a harder, sharper one? I know what I'd take. The X-T3 will have a small advantage from oversampling the 6K sensor readout, and you can see it is the best ever tested on the DPReview chart (although they never updated the NX1 image with new firmware, which made a big difference). For filmmakers though it basically means - maybe it is too sharp, might need careful treatment in post. Yet all the pixel peepers are saying it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Take a look at the shots above. Looks fine to me. And that is vs the most detailed 4K camera I own - the X-T3 with the 6K oversampling. Max Yuryev's test video In this thread there was some talk about Max's video. It has been basic knowledge for filmmakers since the 5D Mark III that you can apply different sharpness in-camera, but that it's always better to dial it down to zero in-camera with the option to sharpen in post. The natural look is at 0 but if you want more pop, you just drop the Unsharp Mask or Sharpen effect on in Premiere. Max shows the unsharpened camera file and claims it's a performance problem with the camera. Yet with the digital sharpness applied in post, you can see it matches the X-T3 for fine detail above. This is in 4K even when pixel peeped at 1:1. At normal viewing distances, you'll want to dial it back down to 0 for a more natural less digital look. No digital sharpening is a GOOD THING out of camera Canon is doing the right thing and they are getting blasted for it. That's the original file. Big difference. What I don't get about Max is surely he knew about this basic stuff even from the 5D Mark III sharpening in post days. At the same time other people are complaining that cameras like the GH5 are too sharp and you can't turn off the digital sharpening in-camera(!!!) and they all want to go off and shoot RAW on the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K to get a more natural image. I bet some of these same people are now complaining the EOS R is too soft!! Blow-ups on YouTube The biggest joke of all is the 400% digital zoom people use in YouTube to magnify the unsharpened detail, which together with YouTube's compression makes a complete mush. Even just the digital zoom itself results in mud. Here I did it with the unsharpened EOS R 1:1 crop. If this is how we are to judge the performance and image quality of 4K on YouTube it's seriously misleading. Click this to view at 400% and see how muddy it is (and that's a TIFF!!) - ************************************** Original TIFFs direct from Premiere (3840 x 2160) X-T3 with whatever sharpening in-camera it seems to be doing in F-LOG x-t3-sharpness.tif EOS R sharpened eos-r.tif EOS R unsharpened direct from camera (Canon LOG, zero sharpness) eos-r-unsharpened.tif

Default sharpness varies a lot between cameras. Even minimum sharpening level does. Maybe set them all at minimum then level them out in post with unsharp mask or even small blur for the horrible oversharpened ones. EOS R is not line skipping. It’s 1:1

Check out the lightbulb area in the +2ev shots as well. Also the synth control panel in the middle of the frame. The A7 III (S-LOG 2) has more dynamic range in that area of the image than the Z7 Flat profile does, so the shadows are not the whole story. I will try a few more external recordings tomorrow, +2ev as well.

200 euros. DMCA that.

You got all that from Max's test - ONE SHOT!? Trust me the EOS R image is not lacking. Yeah the rolling shutter and crop are downsides. Almost deal-breakers for many. I suppose I will just have to show you. Will shoot some stuff and upload it as ProRes for people to play around with.

Ah you found the Pink Floyd album Thanks, exactly the kind of grades I'd like to see from original file on Vimeo. Keep em coming! (Click video title to go and download it) I like the Kate Bush one! Z7 has best Kate Bush! That's the N-LOG or Flat shot? I think that one also brought the most out of the blacks too. Cooke lens clearly visible next to the Floyd LP.

You can learn more about ProRes from Apple's latest 2018 ProRes white paper https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper.pdf ProRes is variable bit-rate (VBR) but target bitrates are: ProRes 422 HQ = 737 Mbit ALL-I in UHD 4K. Standard ProRes 422 is 492 Mbit ALL-I "As a variable bit rate (VBR) codec technology, ProRes uses fewer bits on simple frames that would not benefit from encoding at a higher data rate. All ProRes codecs are frame-independent (or “intra-frame”) codecs, meaning that each frame is encoded and decoded independently of any other frame. This technique provides the greatest editing performance and flexibility." I used ProRes 422 HQ in the test to record Nikon Z7 N-LOG 4K. I usually find ProRes 422 LT at 342 Mbit ALL-I saves space without any real noticeable loss in quality. If shooting in 1080p the bitrates are a lot lower (220Mbit for ProRes 422 HQ).

I am sorry i did not mean to critique your brofriend The problem I have is that it's incomplete. There's no telling what sharpness was dialled into each picture profile. That makes a ton of difference. There's no telling what the hell he did to the zoomed shots. The EOS R just does not look like that at 100% crop. He's turned into absolute mush when you view this full screen (click it to enlarge)... What codec settings? He doesn't say. Was it IPB or ALL-I? What bit-rate? Did he shoot RAW or ProRes on the Pocket? Did he compare the sharpness in the LOG profiles as well? Nope. That's how most filmmakers will use these cameras... In LOG! (Or at least Flat on the Nikon) Nothing personal but I just didn't rate it. And on top of all that, it's just pixel peeping. Overall results and cinematic quality matter more than resolution.

On the Nikon Z7 how much difference does 10bit N-LOG make? Is there a step up from the Canon EOS R when you record 10bit externally? How does the Fuji X-T3 compare in F-LOG at 10bit internally? All the questions and more I set out to answer here... Read the full article

Yeah of course it can be turned down far more, and in the Flat profile the micro contrast isn't as hard either. Max doesn't show that. For whatever reason. Speed of upload and all that. Yeah but beware the special sauce of that EOS R 4K.... It has... Something. I am not kidding.

Ich bin ein Berliner! Read the full article

You really do like to comment on everything don't you? Why don't you just moderate yourself A BIT? Every page, every thread, there you are and most of it's chat.

Yeah but when you look at the so-called "super soft" EOS R 4K footage full screen in normal way it looks tac sharp. The last thing it looks is "super fuzzy". When you enlarge a 100% crop to 400% like Max, yes it looks fuzzy. I say... So fucking what? That is not how people watch your stuff!

If places like YouTube have to scan all our user-generated content for advertising billboards, it will be so arduous they will give up and become Netflix instead. If I had to check every post and attachment on this forum for copyright, I'd simply close the forums! It would be impossible. That's the main danger here... That they are opening user generated stuff up to lawyers, making it risky to host it online anywhere at all. YouTube's thoughts on this say: "Article 13 as written threatens to shut down the ability of millions of people -- from creators like you to everyday users -- to upload content to platforms like YouTube. And it threatens to block users in the EU from viewing content that is already live on the channels of creators everywhere." "This legislation poses a threat to both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world. And, if implemented as proposed, Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, European creators, businesses, artists and everyone they employ." "The proposal could force platforms, like YouTube, to allow only content from a small number of large companies. It would be too risky for platforms to host content from smaller original content creators, because the platforms would now be directly liable for that content." https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/10/a-final-update-on-our-priorities-for.html So in other words.. No more of this... And certainly no more of this... Myself and YouTube would be open to copyright claims from every single private premises filmed in that video of Berlin's streets. Even if they continue to allow it, if they have to run everything past an automatic CONTENT ID FILTER, that scans for copyright images within the frame, there's an enormous chance of false positives or it being too draconian and strict. Vodafone advert on the street? Take-down. Poster for a film in a documentary? Blocked. And so on. It's NUTS.

If you have ever taken a photo on a street or made a video in public, the European Union is opening you up to copyright claims by - get this - the owners of advertisement posters, shop fronts and building facades, as well as GDPR privacy violation claims from the general public. Is this the beginning of the end?! Read the full article

Pixel peeping is alive and well I see! Nikon Z7 is fine. It is a miracle in full frame from 8.2K down to 4K. Very nice detail level. Very good dynamic range and colour, which Max's test doesn't even touch on. Z7 in APS-C is similar but less aliasing / stair stepping - but we are talking 4K here, so at normal viewing distances you don't even see the aliasing in full frame mode, let alone in the oversampled Super 35 mode. The EOS R is soft. So what. It's 4K. You have more detail than you'll ever need unless cropping 4x into the image. You wanna know why I don't do tests like this very much anymore? 1. Nobody views your film or music video at 400% crop. The absolute sharpness level in 4K means JACK SHIT. What you want is a soft stable cinematic image - not hard digital sharpness. In fact it's an *advantage* to have a softer image for YouTube, when the player is scaling it down to fit any number of screen resolutions - especially a 1080p screen. It looks more natural when people view it downscaled or even on a 4K TV from normal viewing distances. In the first case the downscaling works badly with a digitally sharper, harder image vs a softer, more cinematic one. In the second case the natural downscaling from the human eye at a longer viewing distance makes a less hard 4K image at 1:1 look more natural and less fatiguing than a "harder" image which shows more emphasised detail. We have plenty enough detail in 4K as it is, even on the EOS R and to overemphasise it, like in Max's video, is a BAD THING. 2. The test by Max claims to be about image quality when he's only testing one small aspect of it and not even very well. He's actually looking 90% at the sharpening levels in the menus, rather than outright performance of the image. All the cameras apply a different level of sharpening to bring out extra detail. You can dial it down or up. So what? How natural and cinematic does that fine detail look to the real viewer? That is the real question. 3. Max's video tests just one aspect of the camera and seems to imply it's 90% of what makes a good image. A wide shot of a building with constantly shifting light at dusk so that not even the lighting conditions are matched on each comparison shot. It says nothing of colour, dynamic range, skin-tones, lenses, sensor size, rolling shutter, motion cadence, codec performance, macro blocking, mud, compression, grading, bit-depth, LOG profile performance and how easy or not it is to grade. These are the things that determine the final result. These are the important things and not ONE in isolation but ALL together. Go back and do a proper test Max that takes you longer than half an hour... But no, he's got subscriber numbers and viewers to chase so it must be done quick! Why the Z7 is singled out for criticism because of Max's test is beyond my understanding. It justifies the pricing over the A7R III because it is a flat out better camera in every aspect of image quality and handling. It justifies the pricing over the D850 because it adds video AF which actually works, gets rid of the mirror, fixes the ergonomics in live-view, shaves the pounds off and at the same time maintains the incredible video quality.