HurtinMinorKey

1. No Country for Old Men 2. The Empire Strikes Back 3. Fight Club 4. The Life Aquatic 5. Full Metal Jacket 6. The Big Lebowski 7. The Royal Tenenbaums 8. Rear Window 9. 12 Monkeys 10. Gone With the Wind

It looks like old-school Megatron in gun form.

Gh3 is m43, different market, so less direct competition with the Sony's prime-time lineup. And I'm not saying Sony is preventing their licensees from having great video features, i'm just saying they'll make them pay for them. In other words, Nikon can probably get Sony sensors cheaper if they agree to strings attached.

You can't generalize. It depends on the bargaining power. In this case Nikon doesn't really have a video market (to protect), and Sony does.

I've said it once, and i'm sure i'll say it again: licensing agreements. Nikon uses Sony sensors, that means Sony gets to tell them what they can and cannot do with them. It's the only sensible explanation.

Looks stunning, especially towards the middle. There is a lot of macro blocking, but I assume that's the youtube compression,

I was trying to keep them all to four letters, dammit! :D But I think BMPCC is probably better (and certainly used more), you win.

Yes! I think EOSHD should take an official stand on this BMCC: Black Magic Cinema Camera BMPC: Black Magic Production Camera BMPO: Black Magic Pocket

I'd really like to see a comparison of the BMPC to BMCC.

Personally, i prefer the more realistic grade (to Milner's), even though it's a little too saturated and contrasty. It looks silly in a still frame, but in motion it looks fine to me.

You don't have 4 boxes of 256 colors versus 1 box of 1024. You have four rulers that measure in cm increments versus one that measures in 1/4 cm increments.

So let's start with your four 8-bit pixels example and compare it to a single 10 bit observation. Imagine our stored 8-bit values are all max readings: (256) (256) (256) (256) Now suppose we want to approximate a single, native 10-bit observation in the middle of all four of them ("X"). (256) (256) (X) (256) (256) What 10-bit value do we assign? 1024 seems logical, right? But what if the true value of the native 10-bit observation is 1023? (because 1023 would be mapped to 256 in all of the 8-bit observations) Then we have made a mistake in our mapping and overestimated the value. Similarly, we cannot be sure about assigning any number less than 1024, because 1024 might be the true value of the native 10-bit observation! In this case, used an example where the dynamic range is truncated in the 8 bit from above, but it doesn't matter where this lack of precision exists. All that being said, error diffusion complicates the matter. It may be possible to diffuse the errors (the remainders when going from native bit depth to 8 bit) It complicates the matter beyond a simple proof.

I agree with your assesment of this video, but i've seen CInema 5D be Canon shills before, so I can't trust that their expirement was 100% objective.

We've said this in the thread a bunch now. I am sure this is true without error diffusion. But with error diffusion I think there might be a way to store the information in 8 bit.

I'm not sure exactly about the practical implications. The math seems to indicate that we cannot get 10-bit DR benefits out of 8-bit by downsampling. Maxotics, I was wondering when you'd show up! You probably have as good a handle on this as anyone. In Andrew's defense, I think he has been led astray by a Software guy at GoPro. But the idea of error diffusion got me thinking. While we cannot resurrect the full DR of 10 bit, perhaps we can do a decent job of approximating this precision within the DR limits.

let's make this even simpler, and use a dynamic range to show why you can't always resurrect higher bit depth (even with error diffusion): Assume there are two types of A/D conversion: 1 bit (taking on the value of 0 or 1) 2 choices 2 bit (taking on the values of 0 1 2 3) Let's assume that analog values are: (0.1) (1.2) (2.0) (2.1) (3.0) (4.1) and that A/D conversion assigns the closes possible digital value. 1 bit A/D conversion becomes: (0) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 2 bit A/D conversion becomes (0) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) at half resolution you get either: (0) (2) (3) or (1) (2) (3) either one represents 3 levels of light , which you cannot represent in just 1 bit. Is this a contrived example, yes. But the point is to try and show they are not mathematically equivalent.

Error diffusion? How does it know where to place the error? Is this standard? But I don't think it matters. 10 bit can capture more DR than 8 bit, so error diffusion or not, there has to be some 10bit values of the brightest white, or the darkest dark that cannot be represented in 8 bit (while maintaing the contrast in the rest of the picture), regardless of error diffusion.

EOSHD, can we merge threads?

If i understand you correctly, you're showing why you can resurrect the chroma, but not the bit-depth. . Here is my "proof by color" of why i think you should be able to get 4:4:4 1080 from 4:2:0 4K. The bottom left its 1080 4:4:4, and the top right is 4K 4:2:0

3rd edit. i think 4:2:0 25% less chroma information than 4:4:4. So you should be able to reconstruct 1080 4:4:4 from 4K 4:2:0 because 4K has 4 times the resolution of 1080p. I'm much more certain about the bit depth, than I am the chroma though.

Here's a proof by counter example for why it is not always possible to interpolate the extra bit depth from more pixels of information. Imagine 4 pixels of digital information. Imagine the actual analog information (let's just use an arbitrary measure of brightness) is: (1.1) (1.2) (1.3 ) (1.4), so it's a smooth gradient of increasing brightness. Now assume that 8-bit maps everything less than 1.5 to 1, but 10-bit will map more precisely, so that anything less than 1.25 is mapped to 1, but everything above 1.25 is mapped to 1.5. So after analog to digital conversion, our 8 bit info is stored as (1) (1) (1) (1) and our 10 bit info is stored as (1) (1) (1.5) (1.5) Now let's assume that we only have half the pixels from the 10 bit version: (1) (1.5) In this simple example, you can see how no amount of subsampling will resurrect the contrast information that is lost in the 8bit conversion. Does this make sense?

That's because the panning is not smooth.

Storage: I'd go with the 256GB Flash internal for editing, and then augment with external for storage. Spinning drives are slow and affect the performance of almost everything you do. I'm not a big fan of the fusion drives. (and I have one).

When working with raw, Resolve is not the issue. It's just a ton of data, and no program is going to do it well on an underspeced machine.

It's a combination of an unsmooth pan and judder from panning too fast for the distance to your subject. Explanation here: http://kb2.adobe.com/community/publishing/908/cpsid_90843.html See the "seven second rule"