MattH

The main point is that hd modes never give you true hd resolution. Regardless of what your lens can resolve. Even with the c300 and 5d3 raw you are getting less than a downscaled still frame. So a clean 4k downscaled should give as close to true hd resolution as possible. With, as you say, less (or smaller) digital artifacts. But yes to get pure 4k you would probably need a 6 to 8k sensor and a very sharp lens stopped down to an optimum aperture, and focused well. But once you get over pure 2k resolution it starts to get into the realm of who can tell the fucking difference anyway. As for whether lenses will even give you 1080 lines: a kit zoom, probably not. A decent prime stopped down, close enough. And I would rather have a clean 900 lines than an artifacty 800.

Damn so I have to choose between a 720 stream and a 1gig 4k download? Only 200mb to go!

They aren't really LED Tvs. The name is misleading. They are normal LCD displays with LED backlights. If there is to be any change in the number of LEDs then we want more not less: 3 Led backlights for each pixel ideally.

Did you actually set out to write the snobbiest post ever or did it just sort of happen? because to do that by accident is quite an achievement.

I find this video indicative on the quality of the d750 (make sure to view all these on youtube itself natively at 1080p) sure, its a hard test, and it would be interesting to see how another camera would fair, but to me it doesn't scream 2015 level of advancement. And the image is pretty soft and undetailed too. The d810 is certainly sharper. Though, how much is actual detail I dont know. But it's not immune to artifacts either: Though its better than the d800E if that means anything:

How come its only on vimeo at 720p?

Possibly the c100 mk2 but you havent specified a price limit.

No, the values are re-mapped. So black is 16 and white is 235. So you have the same dynamic range but it is represented by 220 discrete steps instead of 256.

Someone may be able to provide a more substantial explanation (or even a correction) but my limited understanding is this: The whole 16-235 safe levels is to do with broadcasting and with the way old tvs work. Whether this is strictly needed in broadcasting now I don't know, but it has become a standard. Most video players therefore expect a video with 16-235 levels. Because, as you say, monitors are 0-255, these video players expand the 16-235 video out to 0-255. If one of these players receives a 0-255 encoded video it may just treat it like it would a 16-235, so all values below 16 and above 235 will be clipped. This obviously looks bad. There may be players that can interpret a full range video correctly but it cannot be expected. Even if a 16-235 video is treated as full range the video will just look milky. It wouldn't look right, but at least it wont be clipped. I would rather have a milky video than a clipped video. This is why people recommend setting your output levels to 16-235 in your editor. Most of the time it will look correct. And at worst it will look milky. As for what settings to set in camera, it depends on whether you are going to grade the footage. If you are just going to directly upload a clip or just edit with no alterations to brightness, contrast or color, then you may as well record at 16-235. However if you intend to grade the footage anyway It makes sense to get as much data into the file as possible which means shooting 0-255.

Andrews wrists and fingers care after his last coment and your blunt summary. :) It is obvious that the writer of that cinema5d review was determined not to like the camera from the start. It seems rushed and they probably rushed the tests as well. It's sort of telling that they dont show the methodology or even show the images or videos they used to draw their conclusions. The rolling shutter result is in the right ball park. I measured it at 33ms in uhd from various clips. There measurment for the a7s is wrong though. In full frame the rolling shutter of the a7s is roughly equal to the nx1.

I wasn't really talking about the 1DC as something that expensive would never be on my radar anyway. I was just pointing out that as far as rolling shutter goes it certainly isn't in the good category. Its in the category where you have to be particularly mindful of it. Slow pans with a Tripod or IS lenses being a must in my opinion. As far as comparing it to other cameras, the GH4 is better (just waiting on that log profile) and the BMPC of course is perfect. Although it has its own problems.

Look again. Rolling shutter is as bad as any camera out there. 33ms readout in UHD. Its the only thing that truly bothers me about the camera.

This shows the power of the unconcious mind and also the power of fine dark chocolate that the mind will willingly delude itself to have an exuse to eat the chocolate. :)

First post fail. Sorry about that. lol

A is video because there is automatic chromatic aberation correction happening (which is good I guess) it also has "sharper" more aliased edges due to the sharpening.

Yeah with that many pixels it was always going to be hard. It works out at a 3645 line readout which takes 33 miliseconds. Thats why I hope samsung comes out with a similar specced sensor but with 11.2 megapixel for a native 2160 line readout which is 40% less taking 19ms. That would lower the rolling shutter to gh4 4k levels. The rolling shutter in 1080 mode looks good. Thats why I'm eager to see more examples shot in it. There seem relitavely few out there and I think they are all at 120fps. I know andrew you have said that the quality isnt that different between 120 and 30, but I would have hoped there would at least be some improvement. Obviously you are not going to get same detail as a downsampled 4k shot, but if the quality is ok with no aliasing or moire then it could at least be used for fast moving shots.

Yeah, the jitteryness was the first think I noticed. Its weird that it corrects well for big movements but not for shake, I would have thought that with stills-where you are trying to keep the camera still, that high frequency shaky movement would be the most important thing to tackle. Did you have the camera held out in your hands all the time or are there shots where you used he viewfinder giving three points of contact? If the latter, that is even more dissapointing. Ultimately I think the image quality lets it down anyway, but like you said it would be good if they could get it improved for the a7s 2

I'm pretty flabbergasted by peoples use of the word black in this thread. Either it is being used EXTREAMLY loosely or people are using some shit over contrasty monitors. In Andrews last screen shot for example there is nothing even approaching black. Take this black level calibration image: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php My monitor isn't anything special but I can just about see level 4 and easily level 5. Below this blend into the black background. level 5 to me is therefore very dark grey. If you look at Andrews last screen shot, and compare it to the test image there is nothing in that image that is lower than level 25 grey. I created an image to show this but cant figure out how to upload the basard. load them up into an image editor to check for yourself. I would be interested to hear what people are seeing when they look at the black level test image.

I didn't even need to read the article or the forum responses as the answer is obviously yes. The only thing is, you got tense in the question wrong. It should have been: "DID cinema eos mark the end of canon dslr video in 2012?"

So in short. New camera phone running android: not for apple fan boys. I think your critisisms of the device are valid apart from "I don't like this because it isn't my sexy new iphone 6 plus" I will be be giving this devise a miss because like iphones and flagship samsungs it is retardedly expensive for what it is.

Would you please escort your sanctimonious attitude out the door. I'm here to discuss with people not justify myself to jonsey jones. You don't have to be Stanley Kubrick to know that Jaws The Revenge is a shit film. Consider your 'point' thoroughly dismissed. As for what I dislike about the grade. Firstly its teal and orange which I despise, and it's not even done subtly. There isn't much orange in these shots so its just teal teal teal beyond any level of taste or meaning. It's just arbitrary messing around with color for messing round's sake. Secondly its "the blacks" and that isn't in quotation marks by mistake. For in some shots they do not exist. But it isn't like they merely left the shadows milky. It looks like they've heavily crushed the blacks taking all the detail out of the shadows but then expanded it back out again so that the black is now grey, so you've basically just got a lump of solid bluey grey for shadows. Look at the guys face at 0:29! Is that how a human face should look?

In relation to the original question: I think if a person uses one system exclusively they will get used to what field of view a certain lens or focal length gives them. That person has no need for knowing full frame equivalents or crop factors. But for people that use different sensor sizes you have to have some way of knowing what you are going to get. "Full frame" equivalent has become the standard way to do that. I get peoples point when they reject the term full frame: Using a system such as micro four thirds with a lens designed specifically for it is full frame in that context, but this is just an issue of nomenclature. Full frame or 35mm should really be called 135 format. Why not use super 35mm as a standard? well what is super 35mm really? super 35 is 24.89mm wide and was only invented in 1984. Until then academy 35 format was used which is 22mm wide. I would argue that if any of these should be a standard if should be academy 35 as more classic films were shot in this format, although whether anamorphic was used adds a layer of complexity. But why should we use these film standards when most cameras are APS-C which is 23.6mm wide? But then we cant forget that canon APS-C is smaller than all the others at 22.2mm wide. Even though their cinema line supposedly has a full super 35mm sensor. Then there’s the cameras that say they have a super 35mm sensor but don’t. Like the black magic production camera and the Ursa. Which are actually 21.12mm wide: Not even academy 35 never mind super 35. Micro four thirds is certainly no standard. You get a different sized sensor depending on whether you have a multi aspect ratio sensor like on the gh2 or are using a crop in 4k mode on the GH4. All this is just way too confusing. 135 format is the only one that stays the same with no variations and has multiple existing examples from different companies. It’s always 36mm wide. For that reason all crop factors relating to it have a fixed meaning. So I think it is the sensible option as a standard for describing field of view. There is nothing to stop people trying another way like using degrees, but you would have an uphill battle trying to get it established as a standard, and after all who really knows what 10 degrees field of view looks like. So for you personally there isn't much of a problem, you have already associated a visual field of view with its 135 format focal length. So you can think in that focal length, you then just work out the precise crop factor for the camera you are using and write down or remember which setting gives you which focal length. I try to think in 135 equivalents even though I have never owned a 135 camera.

(formatting went weird, please ignore)

Too bad the price is a little too high for enthusiasts. I'm sure the compressed raw will give an excellent image to work with. That is clear DESPITE what they did with the video you linked to. That grade is ABYSMAL!

Good nice early review. Although I'm sure you'll discover a few more things in the next few weeks. Keep us updated on anything you find. Have you done any tests with the 1080p modes? particularly the high frame rate options?