MattH

Its funny you put 'color' in capitals. What about a monocrome bitmap image? You do know that there are different types of resolution than display or image resolution right? Take this list from wikipedia. I know it cant match your six exlamation marks, but it's at least a start: Display resolution, the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed on a display device Graphic display resolutions, a list of particular display resolutions Resolution (audio), a measure of digital audio quality Temporal resolution, the sampling frequency of a digital audio device Optical resolution, the capability of an optical system to distinguish, find, or record details Angular resolution, the capability of an optical or other sensor to discern small objects Spectral resolution, the capability of an optical system to distinguish different frequencies Sensor resolution, the smallest change a sensor can detect in the quantity that it is measuring Resolution (electron density), the quality of an X-ray crystallography or cryo-electron microscopy data set Resolution of a spectrometer, the ability to distinguish two close-lying energies (or wavelengths, or frequencies, or masses) Resolution (mass spectrometry), the ability to distinguish peaks in a mass spectrum Image resolution, a measure of the amount of detail in an image Printing resolution, the number of individual dots a printer can produce within a unit of distance (e.g., dots per inch) In number storage, the resolution is the reciprocal of the unit in the last place What we are arguing here is merely a question of nomenclature. We can call it anything, Its still a discrete concept from dynamic range. If 'dynamic range' is acceptable to denote the maximum range of light intensity recordable, then then number of discrete values with which we can sample this range would clearly be described as a resolution. And if the word dynamic is good for one, why not the other.

Damn. Well perhaps if Fuji receive feedback that this will cost them a lot of sales they may make a change to the firmware. They need to understand that the cost of a 4k recorder is no small addition. And its not like we are getting 10 bit with it either. It gets to the point that people may as well buy a dedicated pro video camera. For such a small change in firmware they could bring a lot of new people to the system.

It's what it is by definition. If you increase the bit depth from 8 to 10, you haven't quadrupled the range. You've quadrupled the resolution. Not spacial resoltion, not temporal resolution, but resolution in terms of brightness levels. Call that what you will. Dynamic resolution seems a good term to me. Certainly more accurate than dynamic range. As for "soft" 4k. Take a look at the image from the Canon XC10.

I respectfuly disagree. Resolution and sharpness are not the same thing. As for dynamic range, the codec defines the dynamic resolution (how many steps) but it has nothing to do with the dynamic range. An image with a 4 stop range and an image with a 15 stop range could both be recorded in the same 8 bit codec. Having said that, Its great that people are using the NX1 and finding it to their needs. It just isn't the be all and end all, otherwise people wouldn't still be looking at new cameras.

It was always over sharp though, didn't have much dynamic range, and the rolling shutter sucked. They are the reasons I gave it a pass.

It basically makes the battery grip essential for video shooting, so we should just perceive it as one item and add to the price accordingly.

Good point. Im sure that will be perceptible to someone shooting video through the viewfinder so it should be fairly simple to test.

If the refresh rate for the viewfinder is 100 fps, that to me suggests that the readout speed is 10ms. My reasoning for this is that presumably the refresh rate is maintained in video recording and I cant think of any simple way that two readouts could occur at the same time, beyond interlaced (comb filtering? I dont think so). Much simpler to increase the readout speed. So I think rolling shutter will be fairly reasonable for 4k. I too have seen a video which was an interview with a fuji employee that said that F-Log would only be via HDMI out . Hopefully this was a confusion, as this would be disapointing for me. Unless its 10 bit out then it would seem like a massive ball ache to rig up an external recoder just for a flat picture style. Though I can sort of understand why they might to this. So non video pro's will never be able to complain about the "dull colour" for example. If this is the case then I would be more interested in what the inbuilt picture styles can do. Maybe they can be tweaked a little to get more highlight latitude.

Yes, this is very interesting. I didn't believe those samples at first. I thought there must have been something changed between those shots at f2. I thought it was defined by the aperture opening. So if this is true this would explain why full frame often seems to have more blur for the equivalent depth of feild. Because it's a longer focal length the front element is larger so the bokeh balls and also bokeh in general will be more spread out so to speak. Which makes me think, this panasonic 12mm F1.4 could perhaps be thought of, in essence, as a full frame 24mm 2.8 with built in speed booster? Except designed from the ground up of course.

The resolution of QHD is 8,294,400 (3840*2160) In the case of a raw frame on a native 4k sensor this is precisely how many photosites there are and precisely how many samples there are. Lets presume you mean 12 bit raw. So 8294400*12 = 99,532,800 bits per frame 8 bits in a byte so 99,532,800 bits =12,441,600 bytes 1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes 1 megabyte = 1024 kilobytes which = 1,048,576 bytes Therfeore a QHD 12 bit raw frame takes 11.865234375 MB per frame. (99,532,800/1,048,576) If the frame rate is 60 fps the bitrate is 711.9140625 MB per second If the frame rate is 30 fps the bitrate is 355.95703125 MB per second. If the frame rate is 24 fps the bitrate is 284.765625 MB per second. So for 24 and 30 fps the roughly 500 MB per second of the drive is good enough even as recording media. Its worth noting that even if you are editing 60fps, you will never be literally playing directly off the SSD. The data will first be copied to ram. Once its in ram the ram will have no problem giving the data in real time.

At 1:35 : One of the reasons I don't do exstasy. Don't want to look like this guy.

Does that statment make you feel good about yourself, being above the wannabe amatures and "I can barely make it" pros?

No comparison images or videos? I always knew the canon was better because of the image it put out not its specs. The only thing that sours me to it is the lack of super wide angle option. If you need another camera to do that then theres no reason to use that camera to do what the XC10 does as well.

Actually yes. Any peice of music that at accompanied by a silent (or mostly silent) video is in fact a music video. Whether you think it is a GOOD music video is another question entirely.

This video is great because of what it proves. The moral of this video: Image stabilisation IS NOT A FUCKING STEADYCAM! Stop trying to use it as one. Did any manufacturer ever promote IS by saying how good it is to walk round with? I will be suprised if they have. Its designed to compensate for involuntary hand shake when you are trying to hold the camera still, thats it. The added distortion an jittering looks worse than if you just walked around slowly with the camera on monopod. By the looks of it the GX80 will be excellent for getting 4k static shots with a prime lens without a tripod. That is great and all that it needs to be.

The tracking shots looks really smooth, but with the zoom shots everything was shaking/jerking. I would have said it's posible that the camera was physically skaking but it happens in all the examples. Maybe stabilisation is activated and the zooming is confusing it, or maybe it just doesn't work that well. It doesn't look good though.

So, no then. lol. Thanks, that is useful information.

Unless the technical specification given for the gh4 is incorrect. And if the gh4 uses a native qhd crop then it mathematically must be 2.5 crop. The 2.3 was a mistake that was parroted.

Oh Right. Thanks for letting me know.

One thing I noticed about the Brighton beach tests on the vimeo page is that the crop for 4k seems relatively slight. I make it about a 1.1 crop. Which works out at 2.2 crop in full frame terms. Beats the 2.5 of the GH4.

Yeah, the autofocus caused lens breathing, and I think the auto image correction can make things look wonky with movement at wide angle as well. Add a bit of rolling shutter and shakines that not even 5-axis can tame and youve got the perfect recipy for vomitovision.

Look how shaky the unstabilised footage is. I give the stabilisation a gold medal for giving something even close to acceptable. Imagine what it would be like if you actually had smooth camerawork to begin with. That being said. The overal look of the footage in that shot doesn't blow me away.

Why are we even analysing the profits of camera companies? We aren't camera maufaturers checking in on the competition. I mean, I use cameras, but I also use pensils, and i've never one cared to find out what profits the pencil making company makes. I guess if things are so bad the company is going to shut up shop like samsung then it is relevant. But that wont happen with canon. The compacts dying thing is old old news, how long have camera phones been out, jesus. My first camera was a nokia 7250.

Comment failure! Mine was better. Now write annother essay.

Wow, Is there anything more pretentious someone trying to elevate their own importance by issuing awards. If it does have to win an award, it should be "most promising camera" As we haven't seen it working or seen footage from it.