Axel

You got Premiere? There you are. There is a very good tutorial for a very fast method, approprietly named the [i]fast colour correction[/i] - filter under the effects tab. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrJaNHi1c08#ws]Adobe Premiere Fast Color Correction Tutorial[/url] EDIT: I have to correct this video in one respect: The x-axis doesn't represent time, it traces the spreading of the pixels in their actual position in the image. Also, I wonder why the midtone-values are only corrected indirectly by shoving the white- and black-triangles. Though this is a good starting point, at the end you clearly see too many details swallowed by darkness: Below 30 there is more, very likely the dresses don't need to blend into the background ... You see in the list of effects a column of icons "32" and "YUV". This one [i]has[/i] a 32-bit icon. This means, though your pixels are described in 256 tonal steps, every change you make now is calculated not only with integer numbers (256 = 0-255, 8-bit), but with fractions. Only at the very last moment, when the video is rendered to it's final master, the numbers are rounded again to fit into the 8-bit model. But beware: If you only use [u]one[/u] filter without "32" [u]everything[/u] will be 8-bit and look really awful (the "steps" become visible). Once you understand the principle, it is best not to rely only on the fast colour corrector. There are mightier tools, [i]Colorista[/i] for example. And you have one in After Effects. If you save your Premiere project, you can import the "prproj" in AAE and use the >effects >synthetic aperture >Color Finesse. Google for tutorials.

Four additions: • on a sunny day, you need help to control the exposure. To maintain 1/50-60 shutter and to avoid too narrow apertures you must use an ND-filter. This could be an "ND2" (a hundredth of light gets through), "ND4" (one tenthousandth of light gets through) or an "ND8" (the hundredmillionth of light gets through). These numbers look exaggerated, but these are indeed the dynamics between the coin in the shadow of the car tire to the details in the white clouds surrounding the summer sun at noon. You often get these three filters as a set. There also are "VariNDs". These are two polfilters, and if you rotate one you get a stepless darkening of the image. Convenient, but with some side effects. If you decide for a VariND, buy a bigger one and use step-up-rings to adapt it to your lenses or otherwise you'll get vignetting [i]sooner[/i]. To complete the filter review, there are "ND Grades", typically used to bring the brighter part of the image (the sky!) down to moderate values. Because the horizon may not always be in the middle of your image -  :-X - you should use a mattebox then (or a [url=http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=cokin+p+series&_sacat=0&_odkw=ND-filter&_osacat=0&_from=R40][u]cokin[/u][/url] filter holder, not so impressive-looking, but with the same effect). EDIT: You will need NDs rather sooner than later, buy them now. The ND Grades will be used for serious landscape photography, you might wait with the purchase. • with ISO higher than 1600 you may see a bright stripe in the lower third of the image (sometimes visible in EVF/display, sometimes only too late). Then you better half the shutter speed to 1/25-30 (or rather double the exposure time, because strictly speaking there is no shutter anymore). Avoid fast camera moves and too fast moving objects then. • you forgot to mention the control of light and shadow with lights and shadows. Position yourself so that your motif is in an appropriate light. If you stage the scene and you have the manpower, then use a [url=http://www.ebay.com/itm/43-5-in-1-Light-Mulit-Collapsible-disc-Reflector-110cm-New-/140731698805?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20c4434e75#ht_5311wt_1165][u]reflector[/u][/url] to redirect light or to cast a shadow. A useful thing is a little LED-headlight ([url=http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/the-cheap-video-led-light-shootout/][u]here[/u][/url] a review of some of them). It doesn't have to be on the shoe mount on top of your camera, it can also be on a tiny lamp stand. Never use it in the way people use a flash, to nuke any mood off the image. See it as an electric reflector that helps to softly brighten some parts. Use the [i]dimmer[/i] for a subtle change. EDIT: Lighting of course is an important subject for "DSLR filmmakers" (title of this site). Very interesting. You can approach it very directly, in the so called WYSIWYG-fashion. Thanks to EVF and display you see what you get. I find the term "painting with light" useful. Use every and any light source to the effect you desire. You can simplify the many rules from the books to two different concepts. The first is, you see the light conditions that already exist and you just correct minor things. With the second you create a mood from scratch, either by mimicking a natural light or by exaggerating everything to force an expressive impact. It's up to you. • You have the luxus to be able to judge exposure not only by your photographically unexperienced eyes (no offence intended) but by the histogram also. With video, the world sooner ends at the right side, representing the highlights. Filming in lowlight is much easier than in the bright sunlight, because you have less contrasts. You have to test this for yourself: In highkey-situations underexpose deliberately at least one stop, so that no clipping (if the lights fall from the right edge of the histogram into digital Nirvana) occurs. This will get you shots that look terribly underexposed indeed. But don't worry, everything is fine. What needs to be done now varies in description depending on the software you use. Determine which part of the image is >black< (the darkest part, if there is no fog) and which is >white<, perhaps you have an "Auto-Balance"-button. The image will still look too dark. Instead of applying a [i]brightness[/i]-filter (which would affect the whole image, making it foggy), you [i]grade[/i]. You rise the midtones only (and afterwards you correct the highlights and depths again). Whether you do this with [i]curves[/i] or with a [i]3-way-colour-corrector[/i] (one of the three ways meaning midtones) or whatever, depends on your software (it is important to find out, if your software is able to render in 32bit, please check). Rule of thumb: If something looks overexposed, nothing can help. The lower midtones however, let a lot of detail drown in the tar (not only in underexposed clips). If you draw them into the middle, you save the day.

You take manual movie mode only to select 720p, or otherwise it means 1080i. However high the bitrate goes with i, it stays interlaced. Don't. You can choose 24H and/or HBR [u]only[/u] in the creative motion picture mode (mode dial), but you should customize the mode, as Andrew recommends in his book. Make C1 24p with your favorite filmmode (that is colour settings), WB, framerate and so on. Copy 720p 50/60 (via manual movie mode) to C2. You could copy HBR to C3, or you use this for still images (i.e. Raw 3:2, serial speed fast, fn-keys assigned differently). There are several flavours of Orion, but probably they all affect 1080 as well as 720.

[quote author=alter link=topic=534.msg3495#msg3495 date=1333719754]What the hell is going on? I mean many patches don't even mention anything about stability or recommended cards, it is just a big pile of patches creating confusion.[/quote] Freedom. Everybody has the right to create patches with fancy names and release them. Typical GH2 sport. [quote author=alter link=topic=534.msg3495#msg3495 date=1333719754]So back to Orion.. along with explaining my experience i think that patches should be organized at this point and not just keep em coming.[/quote] Make a start. Forbid uncontrolled announces of new hacks. Test them all, with every card, with both firmwares, with every routine people keep (i.e. erasing only files, but never formatting cards). Then publish the results in a daily update. Instead of testing the next best superpatch, let us reconsider why we hack at all. For picture quality. A year ago, in the german slashcam-site, there was a [url=http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Kurztest/Atomos-Ninja.html][color=red]test[/color][/url] of the Atomos Ninja connected to the GH2 via HDMI. The HDMI outputs the signal before any compression (which by the way is the only process that can be influenced by our hacks) is performed. Not compressed doesn't mean that it is not pre-processed in any way. For example, it is already colour-filtered as 4:2:0, and so forth. They recorded parallelly to the card in 24H AVCHD and to the Ninja as ProResHQ. ProResHQ (Full HD 24fps need 147 mbps) is a codec with light compression, but in the respect that's important here, it is "visually lossless", like "Uncompressed" (which would mean ~1500 mbps). This is a frame from the footage they recorded: [img]http://images2.slashcam.de/texte/957-Bildauswahl-Bildauswahl.jpg[/img] The red rectangle from this frame was enlarged to 400%. Here are the two cut-outs: [img]http://images5.slashcam.de/texte/957-400_2-400_2.jpg[/img] AVCHD [img]http://images5.slashcam.de/texte/957-400_1-400_1.jpg[/img] ProResHQ Don't look too close. Compare them from a little distance. The first image was processed by taking 24 subsequent phases of the uncompressed video and simplifying them, before the data for this frame was written to the card. I do see a difference. You don't really see any more details, but you get the [i]impression[/i] of a very subtly clearer image. This is a proof that compression can do a little harm. But it is also a proof that the difference between compressed and uncompressed is not big at all. You have to scale the image. You have to take a [u]still[/u], because with moving images, the said impression becomes very vague. You tested Orion, you found it good. Don't test any more. Because what you believe you see as difference hardly is more than unsuppressed fine noise that makes the image look more organic. Even with a hypothetical [i]Vitaly_on_crack[/i]-patch with 300 mbps would there be no more real detail than you have already.

[quote author=weltenbummler link=topic=527.msg3489#msg3489 date=1333694040]What about the one I mentioned: 45-200 from Panasonic. It's not fast (f4.0), but it's a price issue too. Can you recommend a better alternative in a similar price range?[/quote] 200mm on the GH2 equals 400mm on a full frame sensor. You definitely need a tripod for that. And a heavy one too. But with a 50mm, you have a 100mm already. You get very fast ones (f 1.4) at ebay for under 200 €, the adapter to MFT included. And you not only have a moderate tele lens (100), you have a strong tele (260mm), if you switch to the EX-Tele-mode of the GH2. This means no loss of quality, it actually means [i]better[/i] quality. Zooms on the interchangeable lens devices can't be operated with the fluid transitions we are used to (this will change, but then those lenses will be rather expensive). I just saw 2 videos on your vimeo page. I think we both use the same range of lenses, so let me describe mine: Wide-angle: I had the Olympus 9-18 f4.0-5.6. Very good for photos. Not fast enough for my taste, so I sold it again (BTW: I used it for four months, but I lost only about 50 € at ebay, MFT is hot). I waited for the SLR magic 12mm, but it took too long. I finally bought the Olympus 12mm f2.0. Fast, very sharp lens. Not so good for manual focus, but has a quite good autofocus, that works continiously during filming (a little noisy though, in quiet rooms it sounds as if Robocop operated the camera). Suitable for most situations. And practically indispensible if you plan to shoot with a steady-system. I really think about buying the very expensive Nokton 17,5mm f0.95. Reasons follow: Standard lens: Nokton 25mm f0.95. Makes the GH2 very good for lowlight. Very good focus control. You need this lens, that's obvious. There never again will be a place too dark for filming. Tele: I have an adapted Nikon 50mm f1.4. From Nikon you can buy a [url=http://www.ebay.de/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-Micro-MF-105mm-1-2-8-Ais-/270943728266?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Objektive&hash=item3f1581328a#ht_936wt_1398][color=red]105mm[/color][/url] with f2.8, and it stays affordable. Remember, it can be 210mm, 546mm and even 819mm (at 720p, the TeleEX-crop means 3,9 x). Have you ever heard of a 500mm tele-lens that fast? This alone would be a reason to buy the Lumix.

Hot? Okay. As I wrote before, I tried and I tried but I couldn't see any [u]unambiguous[/u] difference in quality between 44 mbit and the Driftwood Intras. I consider my awareness for sharpness, resolution a.s.f. above average, having worked in many jobs that require critical focus. So I guess I am right and those who see those differences are wrong.

Take AVCHD. Right now people complain about problems with hacks. This unsettles me a bit too, but I'm sure these Problems get solved when proper patches for the FWs, proper SD-cards and the right routines are named. There doesn't seem to be any [i]danger[/i], since with re-immaculated GH2s everything is back to normal. You can use 50/60 fps only with 720p. Perhaps we will get 1080 50/60p with GH3. Until then you will realize the 720 mode to be of high quality (not like with the EOS-DSLRs), and you can scale up the odd slomo with no pain in your 1080 24p timeline.

@Giovanni Bertani My objections are mostly for fun, I like to play advocatus diaboli. I did the same thing when the Sony FX-1 came out (is it really 8 years ago?). I was right and wrong at the same time. Higher resolution [i]has[/i] it's influence on quality, but never prosumers (let alone [i]con[/i]sumers) asked for other parameters. Or they always accepted obviously false declarations. BTW: Did you see this: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpU8TThNLuI#ws]Sony Professional: Introducing the Sony NEX-FS700[/url] I must admit, this camera has some sex appeal. The design, as that of the FS100, is admirable. Had it only been within my bounds. But as it is, you have to live with me party pooper  ...

I am using the tiny Hague MMC with GH2 and Olympus 12mm f2.0, the autofocus works to some extend (not so well in lowlight). I actually got the heavier U-Flycam from India balanced, by taking off almost every counterweight. Tip: Use the display and put a sunhood like [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/JJC-LCD-Hood-Canon-Camcorder/dp/B003WWISJI][color=red]this[/color][/url] on it. This adds further weight.

JVC hastily screwed some parts together to present the first mock-up. Sony again made the first usable prototype, which in two years will be considered a classic. Nobody knows what that "4k-ready" means in terms of any future UHD standard. This is, because there [i]is[/i] already a 4k standard, and these camcorders don't meet it. Nobody now wants to master in 4k, because what with and who for? Nobody now knows the real price of the dubious not-really-4k-ready jackalope. European sources say the "2k ready" body was "just below 9.000 €", and nothing about when or for which price the external 4k-recorder will arrive. Remind me of a bet: It will be 4:2:0, 8-bit. [i]"No camera will make you a Kubrick but will give you more freedom and make life easier."[/i] I have to put quite complex contexts in a simple form now, but I could easily elaborate on this, if you request it: The preferred master format of the master Kubrick required a picture crop of nearly 50%. More: For his masterpiece [i]Barry Lyndon[/i], in which he invested four years of his life, he used a 20x zoom, for which he adapted a lens for a 16mm camera to his 35mm camera (the joystick-control was the model for our modern ease-in-ease-out-zoom-switches). He was warned that the focal length would crop the image further (it's as if you use an APSC-lens on a 5D instead of the other way around, you lose sensor space that needs to be scaled in post), but he had it his way. During all of this much higher resolution was available. 10 years before he had made [i]2001[/i] in Cinerama (a 65mm format, probably over 10k in resolution, only excelled by the now also-obsolete IMAX). One of the two or three most successful filmmakers of all time, Steven Spielberg, also quite often used the smaller format for his films, standard american widescreen, sometimes called the "narrative format". You may not be too astonished to learn that this is true for [i]Schindlers List[/i]. But look for [i]Jurassic Parc[/i] on imdb! High resolutions are the dinosaur skeletons of the past. This never bothered the audience (with a handful exceptions). We will see higher framerates for 3D (Hobbit), but no 4k standard. A lot of films will be mastered in 4k now, but just because the 2k-theatre-systems eat it, the DCPs are downwards compatible, not because of demand.

I don't know about the 60D, but if I take the 7D as model, then with the GH2 you have about the same rolling shutter issues. I love the GH2 for video, like others, I recommend it. Try two weeks or so without hack, then go on with a more conservative patch. You got $6000 to spend? That's a lot. Buy the kit lens then and Voigtlander 25mm - also a 130mm/KB if you use EX-Tele -  (or 17,5mm - ~ 90mm in EX-Tele-mode - too? A lot of money, but probably worth every cent). With one of those, the GH2 is even better for lowlight than the 60D with a f1.4. Enough money left for more lenses and rig accessoires. If I had $6000 to spend, I would perhaps wait until the NEX 700 makes the prices for the FS 100 go down. Or then, I don't know. What I love most about the GH2 is that I carry it with me almost always. It is so small and light! I didn't experience any occasion when people became timid when they saw me raise the camera (as I have with 7D [u]plus rig[/u], because the 7D needs some support to be held steady). So I have much more fun than ever.

[quote author=dtr link=topic=510.msg3347#msg3347 date=1333357608]did you reset the camera settings (can clear up weirdness sometimes)?[/quote] Is that the setup menu, the point between [i]number reset[/i] and [i]format[/i]? Doesn't look like a veritable system reset. The descrption says something about deleting babys name and birtday  :-X

Looks very inviting. Beautiful, compact little setup. You did the right thing.

I didn't have your bad experiences. You asked "what would you do?" Like many (if not all) members of this forum I too believe that higher bitrates can bee good. I just don't know if the difference over 44 mbit really matters. And I honestly don't see it in highkey shots. I made making ofs of music videos in a nightclub on two subsequent weekends, first with, second without hack. It would have been hard to tell if I compared just two seperate clips, but with [i]over an hour each[/i], I found the higher bitrate really as from "another camera", and a better one. On the other hand, if I suddenly realized, after many shots, that it was all with unhacked firmware, I'd say "oh" and not even "fuck", because the original codec [u]is[/u] very, very good.

[quote author=SamStJohn link=topic=507.msg3325#msg3325 date=1333272258]What would you do?[/quote] Uncheck all bitrate-related positions in the pTool. Unhack, for that matter. The benefits of higher bitrates are questionable. Part of the hype obviously is not based on facts. And with FW 1.1 the reports about problems amass. Even expensive cards stuck or freeze. If you have a shoot in a dark place and you know it in advance, make a quick FW-"update" to FW 1.0 with Vanilla. The shadows look better with this.

A big fun to watch, and a great achievement artistically. I say WOW! On vimeo you wrote: "[i]It was hacked, but when I got the footage back I realised the particular patch I'd applied hadn't worked! So in the end it was actually shot with the standard 50p bit rate."[/i] So you did this with 720p! If somebody should miss a proof that the Lumix made first rate quality without any hack ... Or an answer to those who think a film would need higher resolution to transcend it's message ...

[quote author=Axel link=topic=504.msg3318#msg3318 date=1333267192] There was a doc about the phenomenon of "planned obsolescence" on the bilingual TV-chanel ARTE (unfortunately deleted from YouTube).[/quote] I found it in french. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8GlzYHqpjw#ws]Prêt à jeter - 2011/02/15 - Arte[/url] The part with Vitaly starts at 1h3m15s.

[quote author=FilmMan link=topic=494.msg3304#msg3304 date=1333235998] Hopefully not an April Fools gag.[/quote] Yes, actually Vitaly resurrected uncle Joes mummy. To be announced tomorrow.

Owner of both, clear answer: GH2 for video, 7D for photo.

There was a doc about the phenomenon of "planned obsolescence" on the bilingual TV-chanel ARTE (unfortunately deleted from YouTube). In it, german and french viewers could see Vitaly in the flesh, talking. His part was the hook of the story. Epson printers tended to fail after some time. If you took them to the service, they told you the repair would cost more than a new printer. Vitaly had found a chip within the printer whose sole purpose was to count the printings and, after the 1000 were reached, report malfunction. He had developed a little free software, with which you could reset the counter, so you could use the printer the next 1000 times. [quote author=Simco123 link=topic=504.msg3315#msg3315 date=1333256264]To be honest if Panasonic wanted us to have these improvements they would not be crippling them in the first place.[/quote] When the GH1 was built, it was  a lucky hour for all almost-no-budget-filmmakers. I don't think the video functions looked very promising to the developer team at that time, the outcomes must have surprised them. MFT, traditionally highly developed codec. Things fell into place. It is a little wonder. There is nothing crippled. Obsolescence, to dislike everything after some time and to look for reasons to buy new things, works both ways. The industry [i]promotes[/i] that they cripple their products to some extend to make the customers believe they need something new. They do, to some extend, cripple products. But if you look closer at the Lumix-features that you think are crippled intentionally, you will find this position of no substance. [quote author=Simco123 link=topic=504.msg3315#msg3315 date=1333256264] What is troubling is that people like Vitaly might be close to hacking more fundamental hardware limitations like uncompress HDMI out, etc, and Panasonic may decide to step in and say "look we will assist you in certain aspect of your hack which we think is ethical  and will boost sales of our product but don't go further than what we want you to do.[/quote] Take this myth, for example. HDMI is always uncompressed, by definition. The signal is passed out before the compression (the last part of the process) is applied. But to make it 10bit 422 or 444 (if that's what you meant) you'd need different software [i]and hardware[/i]. That's what a TV engineer told me. Panasonic made a camera with one of the best HD codecs (for consumers) there is, for 8-bit 420. You [i]can[/i] capture uncompressed video onto an Atomos externally (not 720, but 1080 in i and p, it is always "i" to a monitor, but 24p is preserved). Philip Bloom tested it. Others tested it. The difference to the AVCHD on the card is hard to see, but there is a small difference, you just can't decide if to the better or worse. There is [i]no[/i] difference to the ProRes you transcode the AVCHD to in post. I wonder, why there is no sound via live-HDMI. If, IF, this was a feature that could be changed by Vitaly, I wished he would. On this 1st of april, I can't believe that Panasonic invites Vitaly to their team. It's true, he helped them sell their cameras. But then he baptized his hacked GH2 "Stalin", which turned out to be no irony or an april hoax. I am from Germany, if I named my camera Hitler, I would not only be hated by my blessedly multicultural neighbourhood, I would also not be able to gather a community of fans. Or so I hope. The fight against our societys obsolescence-mechanism starts with me and you. It is our right to use products we paid for in the way we like them to use. To use them to their full capacity and beyond. Let's not lament about the evil industry. Let's start doing what we [i]can[/i] do, for real.

[quote author=jay shay link=topic=494.msg3272#msg3272 date=1333178635]And at a certain point, one in the near future, resolution will cease to be the bottleneck in the push for a better image. At a certain point most cameras and display devices will exceed what the human eye can take.[/quote] You'd need about 8-10k to let no trace of any pixel-structure remain visible (or rather subliminally perceptible). When we [i]now[/i] talk about "detail" that needs to be depicted through high resolution, we no longer refer to the smallest distinguishable forms in the image (i.e. letters in a newspaper on the desk). This is achieved by 720p within the distance/image size we are used to (and was achieved with SD also because of the relatively small image). We are now talking about an aesthetic sensation of having less technical detail than ever before. The technical layer is less prominent. Will you confirm this: Adding more resolution than we already have, adds not one bit of information to the image (okay, it says "smoother"). Unless you belong to the X-Men, there is [i]no more detail[/i] to be recognized. Future further pixelgrowth will not change anything. But with the image sizes that become possible with 4k and beyond come big spaces in the image that spread a colour using only a few tonal steps, if  everything is limited to 8-bit. If Christopher Nolan had to decide between higher than [i]normal[/i] resolution ([i]Avatar[/i] and almost every film until now was mastered in 2k only, see technical details on imdb) and lower bit-depth, I doubt very much he would choose the first. Christopher [i]who[/i]? [quote author=jay shay link=topic=494.msg3272#msg3272 date=1333178635]Soon increased framerate will be realized and touted as the next holy grail in digital video imagery. (...) Naturally, this is controversial:  30/60 is broadcast, news, it's VIDEO....24fps looks like....FILM. On most cameras today I agree with this argument.  I shoot 24 frames per second on my GH2. But need it be this way.  Is super 24 frames per second necessarily a death knell to good image quality?[/quote] I love controversies. But you are right, and you put it very well. One can hardly be against better quality. The point is, that the industry tells us that megapixels and quality mean the same, and this simply isn't true. Who subscribes to this lie, is prone to forget about why we like to watch motion pictures in the first place. There was an old paper about cinema resolutions ([url=http://etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf][u]here[/u][/url], right click save as) that concluded: [i]"If the ultimate end goal of cinema is to visually replicate the real world, then very high requirements result. The practical solutions will come from making intelligent compromises. There is also an element which states that a visual story telling medium will break down if it fully models the real world, and that there needs to be a gap for the imagination to fill."[/i] I agree. Only that the goal of cinema [i]can't[/i] be to replicate the real world. I'd never endure two hours in an uncomfortable seat for some superficial, banal crap. And here is a quote from Orson Welles: [i]"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations"[/i]

[quote author=MediaMan link=topic=494.msg3252#msg3252 date=1333138290] I'm a gearhead just like many of us here, but if it was only about charts and measurements most DSLRs would never have been embraced by filmmakers. Our audiences don't have the benefit of charts and react to the image striking their eyes . . . and their hearts :)[/quote] [quote author=cameraboy link=topic=494.msg3253#msg3253 date=1333139853]yeah ... i hate charts ... but i love details... ... there is reason why Christopher Nolan use 65 mm film ... we cant afford that but we should do best we can... [/quote] You are both right. Only two or three years ago there was[i] The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo[/i] in the swedish original, as a trilogy. Enormously successful in Europe. All the copies in the cinemas were really of extremely poor quality. Finchers american remake was mastered in 4k, and I saw it in 4k. Who saw both versions would have to admit, that the best quality there ever was didn't make the copy any better. Another film I saw in native 4k was Christopher Nolans [i]Inception[/i]. I am a fan, I like all his films, but this dream-action didn't convince me at all. Films transport ideas and emotions. If you rely on detail, you will instead produce wallpapers  Do you remember diCaprio explaining, that an idea is the most powerful virus, because once you become aware of it, you can't get rid of it? I recommend [i]Drive[/i]. Clean 2D, 2k (sometimes lower, see 5D), first rate acting, cinematography, sound, music, action, emotion, suspence. It draws you into the story, it makes you aware of its ideas and developes them almost together with you. And all this has nothing to do with resolution. How much in percent is the contribution of relative resolution - as long as it is enough and not so bad that it distracts your attention -  to the success of a film? Zero.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't want to argue. It seems if it reads raisins you get hamster shit, and if you want raisins you need to buy caviar. Perhaps "4k" (as I said, the term is undeniably wrong) is the actual FullHD, and that's the way things work. FilmMan doesn't want 4k with the JVC, he wants real 1080p. There are some cameras around that got very close to real 1080p, the GH2 (in TeleEX at least), the FS 100, surely the C300 [i]is[/i] real 1080. So the promises of the last 8 years finally are fulfilled. It will take us some time to get used to the higher resolution, since a lot of stuff in the web and a lot of television (and not few BDs also) is not yet Full (1080i, the typical broadcast format, is not Full), and we keep the distance to the screen by habit. To change this will need a couple of years, probably a decade. The cinemas are digital now, and the image quality in general has improved. 4k will stay a very rare exception there, it isn't paying off like 3D, audiences don't care. So to whom is 1080p not [i]enough[/i]? (To whom is a very good 720p not enough?) "For all intents and purposes" of the most of us here, 8-bit 420 is also enough. You can grade 8-bit with the 32-bit floating point rendering. It doesn't become 10-bit then, but it doesn't fall apart. And the occasions, when a big audience compares my music video on the big screen to Hugo Cabret are too rare to justify the investion in 10-bit  ;) Resolution was never any serious concern for the big directors in Hollywood, but it is in the shopping mall. If the FS 100 will be 4000 € when the FS700 arrives, that's fine. 

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=494.msg3232#msg3232 date=1333117307]10bit is overhyped, I feel. So I have a challenge for you! Show me the difference between 8bit FS100 footage and 10bit F3 footage and exactly what 10bit (not 4:4:4 just the 10 bit colour) brings to a 4:2:2 image. In my opinion, 4K is a bigger deal than 10bit colour. [/quote] Where are we to show the difference? Who of us has a geniune 10-bit clip in the first place? And if? Upload a file so you can watch it on your 10-bit-Monitor? The same of course is true for 4k. Who can monitor it now? The answer is: Make a very good DCP from your best 8-bit-footage (use "Open DCP", it's free), copy it to a USB stick and go to a local cinema. Spend them some cake, make an appointment to view your clip. (Will you find a screen that uses 4k natively? Probably not. They are rare. Only the VERY BIG screens sometimes are equipped with it. No need for it. But this was not the task. View it on a 2k projector.) Will you find your clip unsharp? No. I promise. You will find it looks like VIDEO. You could also take 720p on a bluray and project it via a scaler. Again, the resolution is ENOUGH. I saw Drive this week, again. Good film, shot with Alexa (some with 5D, probably inside the cars). You reach the resolution (the difference between 1920 and 2046 can be neglected), but not the colours. My point is, the resolution is going up, but 1080 hasn'nt been reached yet. We are living in a 720p world. A very high percentage of the content we see every day forces us to step back from the display, because it isn't FullHD. So why do we call for the next false label? Seems crazy to me.

Reminds me of the title song of [i]Watchmen[/i] "The times they are a-changing ..." [quote author=FilmMan link=topic=494.msg3197#msg3197 date=1333068842][i]The point is 1080p and REAL 1080p[/quote] Well, [i]real[/i] 1080p would be from a sensor with 1920 x 1080 pixels (more actually, because of the bayer-mask, see C300). The megapixel-trap is eating people again. Let us for once be strict with the terms. The JVC and this new Sony will not be 4k (as FullHD is not 2k), it will be, I believe it was planned to be named UHD (UltraHighDef), this means four times 1080. It is a nice thought that you can downconvert it easily to 1080. Four pixels (as far away from trueUHD as the first "HD"-consumer-cam, the JVC G-something, was away from FullHD) need to be interpolated into one. A good thing? What is more, the whole image is colour-compressed spacially, in 4:2:0, which is as awkward a ratio for resizing to a quarter as possible, if you do the maths (explanation: every kind of artificial pattern becomes visible, when there is an [i]almost[/i] perfect match). I know you don't need to [i]see[/i] bad artifacts by downsampling, but you can't ignore that every goddam pixel is an interpolation, a fantasy. By no way [i]real[/i]. And why do we seldom see downsampling artifacts with 1080 to 720 or SD (aside from the main reason that they do not divide by integer numbers)? Easy answer: They only show up under critical conditions. Take the moire discussions as an example. But there is a second problem. See FullHD as an image size that allows us to get closer to the display (the tv, the cinema screen). We can see more. That's the whole point of better resolution, to have a bigger image. But the closer we get and the more we see, we will no longer be satisfied with the "Red" of a tomato or the "Blue" of a sky. With SD, you recognized something out of a distance, always within the bright, almost square 4:3. Now you start getting the borders of the frame out of your field of vision. You try to be in it. And a simple representation of an object will not always be enough. If you had any chance to compare your images directly with others with better colour compression and better colour depth, you wouldn't rave about ever higher resolutions (which in retrospect always turn out to be false, in this downsampling-plan of course from the beginning), you'd demand better [b]quality[/b] instead. [quote author=chulx1001 link=topic=494.msg3212#msg3212 date=1333082131] What we need is 10-bit color.[/quote] You got it. Let me add TRUE 1080, without any interpolation tricks. [quote author=raphwoody link=topic=494.msg3218#msg3218 date=1333092160] But won't such a camera, for all intents and purposes, make the Sony F3 obsolete?[/quote] I don't think so. Does a Hummer make other cars obsolete because it has a bigger fuel tank?