Emanuel

Yeah : D Get a good excuse and go for it! : ) And let us know what you think about it afterwards! ; ) We are all ears... Quite a temptation indeed, to say the least :- X

Sure : ) That's actually how this thread started back in January, and I updated it again in March with the 9.9.2 firmware update : ) So yes, PDAF itself isn't the new part here. What I meant by "quite an update" was 10.2.2 as a whole (and AF finally graduating from beta), especially "10-minute pre-record" and all on the "Same hardware" (which is why those were the two bits I put in bold), that's the news! No need for a new camera ; ) alongside 4-channel audio, Cloud Streaming and the rest. And yes, you were already asking for the URSA Cine 12K LF back in January... let's see if that one comes next ; - )

Now this is quite an update... Blackmagic Camera 10.2.2 brings PDAF, continuous autofocus, face and object detection to the Cinema Camera 6K, including adjustable AF transition speed and the ability to pause continuous AF by holding the focus button. But 10-minute pre-record is probably just as interesting (and maybe even more useful in the real world). Up to 10 minutes before you actually press REC... : -) Also added: • 4-channel audio recording • Blackmagic Cloud Streaming • AF mode shortcut assignment • selectable pre-record duration from 5 seconds up to 10 minutes What I find particularly interesting is what this does to the value proposition of the original BMCC 6K. Same hardware, but it is becoming a considerably more capable production camera than the one people originally reviewed. Blackmagic seem to be doing something quite clever here: features developed for PYXIS and their broader production ecosystem are progressively finding their way back into the Cinema Camera 6K. Firmware extending the useful life of hardware rather than giving us another body every year... I can live with that! ; ) EAG :- ) article BMD support page PS: And I even paid about half thanks to that promotional price mentioned on these same pages... remember? : P

This has to be fixed! I'll ask Jarred about this (particularly about the possibility of a lighter R3D NE option) and see what he says (E. :- )

There is one important point here : ) A Japanese decision invalidating the Japanese patent does not, by itself, kill equivalent patents in the US, Europe or anywhere else (even if they belong to the same patent family). Patent rights are territorial and each national right has, legally speaking, its own existence within its own jurisdiction. So no, compressed RAW has not suddenly become free for everyone everywhere : ) What is interesting is something else: if the claims are substantially equivalent (and that is obviously the important bit), the reasoning used in Japan may well become useful ammunition in other validity challenges. That is why, for me, the really interesting question is what Panasonic (or anyone else) does next. If equivalent RED claims start falling elsewhere too (particularly in the US), then yes, we may be looking at a very different landscape. - E. :- )

The funny thing is that 8-bit cDNG on the FP would actually make the challenge more interesting, not less : ) Sigma really does offer CinemaDNG internally in 8, 10 and 12-bit, so “8-bit RAW” is not an oxymoron here. The FP even uses a different dual-base ISO behaviour for 8/10-bit CinemaDNG than for 12-bit RAW. Which could make a nice test in itself: how much of what we normally attribute to “8-bit limitations” comes from bit depth, and how much comes from the usual baked codec / chroma / processing pipeline?

Go figure, I still have a 4K BenQ TK800 gathering dust 'cause, for what I actually need most of the time, our little 1080p GV50 units do the job perfectly well ; ) And then there are our 1080p XGIMI MoGo 2 Pros too. We actually bought several of them for our facilities instead of going for the newer MoGo 3 Pro or even the MoGo 4 (the latter even comes in a Laser version), although both were already available by the time we acquired ours. And yet, I religiously keep my good old 22-year-old XGA (1024x768) BenQ PB6200 in my office! LOL : ) BTW, 768p has pretty much become our new norm for the MiniMax H3 work we've been doing locally on our Olares system, even though 2K is available in the cloud. And there are some pretty good ways of bridging that gap in post anyway: Topaz Video with Starlight Precise 2.5 when maximum quality matters, SeedVR2 through ComfyUI when we want to keep the whole workflow local, or simply Resolve Studio 21's Super Scale when we want to stay inside the NLE. Different tools, different trade-offs, same principle. For me, in the end, what matters with every new tech development is simply what we can actually do with it. Horses for courses. Nothing more. No need to be fanboys of any particular brand, format, sensor size, resolution... or even of any poster here! : D Brand-agnostic, format-agnostic, tech-agnostic ; ) Use whatever gives you something useful, for the sake of the art and whatever the state of the art happens to be. (E. :- )

This is turning into quite an interesting rabbit hole, good call starting this thread : ) Well, at least we have one thing in common this time ; ) the GX85 is in my arsenal too! ... That also makes the format issue particularly relevant. Since the GX85 records video in 16:9 rather than genuine 4:3 open gate, a 1.55x adapter would produce a rather extreme 2.75:1 image. The more practical 2.07:1 combination would require an open-gate body such as the GH7. A potentially more practical option might also be one of the smartphone anamorphics with a standard 37mm rear mount, such as the Beastgrip 1.33x or 1.55x MK2. These could be attached to lenses such as the Panasonic 14mm or TTArtisan 17mm with ordinary step rings, making mounting and alignment considerably simpler than with the 17mm-threaded Neewer.

Again? : ) Nobody said they are equally important. Not even close. That is not the position anyone here has argued at all, but a dismissive caricature of it, no less. And misleading. Period. What has emerged from several contributions here, including yours and mine on the importance of DR, is simply that their practical value depends on the shot, purpose and workflow. Extra DR matters in both controlled and uncontrolled high-contrast scenes, perhaps even more so in the latter. Fair enough. In other cases, reach, reframing, stabilisation, VFX or high-resolution frame grabs may matter too. Budget hybrid cameras, you said? ; ) Correct. Those are real-world uses as well. So saying that none of this relates to anything anyone here actually does is rather sweeping, given that more than one person here had already pointed to practical uses for higher-resolution capture while also acknowledging its limits. Nor is this only about one camera. More will come, including the Pocket 4 Pro with those extra stops, and naturally we will discuss where such advances matter and where their limits begin. This is a camera forum : ) It is the right place for disagreement about cameras, specs, footage and real-world use. Not for theatrics, personal point-scoring, showing off or ego contests. None of us needs to perform as the final authority here, as so often happens on internet forums. “More useful for one workflow” is not the same as “practically irrelevant to everyone else”. Either way, life goes on, and so does this thread. Your contribution has been useful, as have those of others. We do not need to agree. You are one of my fav contributors here, and clearly one of many people’s favourites too. That gives your words more weight, but also more responsibility. Being a valuable contributor does not give any of us the right to be unpleasant to others. And that last reply was unpleasant. And unbalanced. Prima donna behaviour is no more attractive on a forum than on a professional set. In my work, I simply cross prima donnas off the list. I have neither the time nor the patience for them. That is worth remembering for all of us. You, me, everyone. And there is no drama here. This is only a disagreement about cameras. You were the one who announced you were “done”, as though an ordinary disagreement had become rather more serious than it really is. Perhaps you're simply in a bad mood today (it happens to all of us). But your interlocutor should not have to pick up the bill & pay the price. Almost impossible to take a different position from yours without it turning personal (if not at first, up there you kept escalating until it did, at least this time...), as if disagreeing on a point meant challenging a supposed “authority” : X (phew) No hard feelings anyway, count on it :- )

Mike Vogel’s riding high with this new series : ) Good to see him doing so well — a true pioneer and one of the indie AI filmmakers producing some of the most interesting work across YouTube and related digital platforms today. It also proves that solid project development remains fundamental to filmmaking, whether old-school or cutting-edge: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pixverse_a-luxury-mars-resort-no-return-shuttle-activity-7469342407965241344-G5Of

That is precisely the point about limits, already laid out rather extensively in my post on the previous page... although I may have to start charging royalties if we keep returning to it ; ) No way : ) This discussion is precisely about how measurable advantages translate, or sometimes fail to translate, into real-world use. Additional dynamic range matters when the contrast of an actual scene demands it. Additional resolution matters when a workflow requires cropping, reframing, stabilisation, VFX work, digital reach or high-resolution frame grabs. None of those are imaginary specification-sheet exercises. They are perfectly ordinary practical uses. You may not need any of them in your own work, which is perfectly fair. But that is quite different from saying that 8K offers no valid practical advantage over 4K at all. Reality is precisely where those limits are established ;- )

Fair enough, and I think “it really comes down to your perspective” is already much closer to what I have been saying from the beginning : ) I would only question “completely irrelevant”, 'cause and when you immediately acknowledge the principal practical justification for an 8K sensor: Cropping twice into a 4K image ; ) That is precisely where the additional detail becomes visible in the comparisons posted above, particularly with the tele shots and whenever the image is cropped and magnified. 8K is also useful for extracting high-resolution frame grabs : P So yes, I concur that the Pocket’s additional latitude may be much more valuable in a wide, uncontrolled, high-contrast exterior scene. The Pocket 4 Pro remains high on my wish list, of course : ) But in a shot requiring additional reach, reframing or magnification or yet, genuine DSMC use ; ) the Luna’s resolution may be the advantage that actually matters too : ) Which brings us back to perspective, purpose and the particular shot, rather than to any single universal verdict on the two cameras. Let alone the POV Head Tracker, detachable screen, internal 32-bit float stereo audio (all game-changers) and the rest of the Luna’s modular shooting concept ; ) E. :- )

No, @kye I do not think they are lying. Where exactly did I write such a thing?! : ) The reference to Andrew’s forum rules was precisely what I called it: a slightly amusing, good-natured bit of irony meant entirely in a friendly spirit! Nothing more than that : ) BTW, one small correction: the result is 16 stops at SNR=2 and 17.2 at SNR=1, not the other way around. The Luna’s supposed 13-stop result is not really a valid 13-stop measurement either. CineD explicitly says that the aggressive NR prevented IMATEST from distinguishing the different patches correctly, thereby invalidating the result. They will not even include those figures in their database. So yes, their test demonstrates very clearly that the current I-Log implementation is seriously problematic. No disagreement there. But charts and real-world footage are two very different things. A chart isolates one particular variable under one very particular set of conditions. It does not shoot a street, a face, movement, changing available light, colour, texture, skin, foliage, fine detail or an actual scene. This is precisely why the comparative footage posted above matters. Objective measurements are useful, of course. But only for as long as they help us evaluate an image rather than begin evaluating it on our behalf. There are limits to everything, including measurable advantages and human perception. Someone worth $1.6 billion is sixteen times richer than someone worth $100 million. A huge objective difference, no doubt. Yet if both go out to buy a pizza, chances are they will end up buying exactly the same pizza ; ) The extra wealth only begins to matter when what they want to do actually requires it. What about someone worth $160 million vs $10 million...? The same : P And so on ; ) Likewise, an 8K image contains roughly sixteen times as many pixels as a 2K image. Another enormous and objectively measurable difference. Yet once both are projected onto a cinema screen and viewed from a normal seating distance, many people may struggle to tell them apart at all. The additional resolution only becomes meaningful when the screen size, viewing distance and image content actually allow us to see it. And @kye this is especially worth remembering in your case! LOL ; ) Considering how often you have quite rightly defended 1080p as being more than sufficient in the real world : ) Which is precisely why you know that a measurable advantage does not automatically become a meaningful real-world one. Probably better than most camera lovers : ) More is more. It is not automatically more relevant forever. Four additional stops can obviously be extremely valuable when a particular scene actually requires them. I have never denied that (take a look up there! ; ) But a four-stop advantage on a latitude chart does not mean that the resulting image will look four stops better, or even necessarily better at all, in every real-world shot. And this particular latitude comparison was not even entirely like-for-like. The Luna was tested in 8K25 I-Log at around 120 Mbps, while the Pocket’s headline result came from 4K25 D-Log2. CineD did see the same aggressive NR in the Luna’s 4K wide modes, correct, but they did not repeat the complete latitude test in 4K. Nor did they test the standard profiles, which they themselves suggest may currently be the better choice. It is also worth remembering that D-Log2 is only available on the Pocket’s 20mm wide camera. The 60mm module falls back to regular D-Log, where CineD measured 11.6 stops at SNR=2 and 8 stops of exposure latitude. By comparison, the Luna’s tele camera in its valid 8K25 I-Log mode measured 9.7 stops at SNR=2 and 5 stops of exposure latitude. So the gap there is about two stops in measured dynamic range and three stops in latitude. Still a clear win for DJI, certainly, but rather less apocalyptic than the headline comparison between the two wide cameras ; ) The digitally extended 120mm view naturally derives from that same 60mm camera too, so the Pocket’s spectacular D-Log2 figures cannot be extrapolated across its complete 20mm to 120mm shooting range. So the honest conclusion is still that DJI’s 20mm D-Log2 implementation completely and utterly defeats Luna’s current I-Log implementation in this particular lab test. That is not the same as saying that one complete camera system completely and utterly defeats the other. Sometimes all the technical blah blah blah is extremely useful. Other times it is worth close to zero and can even contaminate the evaluation, especially once people have already been told which image is supposed to win before they look at the actual footage. At that point, the chart is no longer informing the eye. It is replacing it ; ) Take another look at the real-world comparisons above. The difference is certainly not “complete and utter” there. In fact, the Luna’s 8K image often appears to resolve visibly more fine detail than the Pocket’s 4K, particularly in the comparisons of tele shots or whenever the image is cropped and magnified. That may not be attributable to pixel count alone, since lens performance, sharpening, noise reduction and the complete processing pipeline all play their part. Even so, whatever the precise combination behind it, the visible result is there, and in some of those shots the result may even go the other way, depending on what each of us values in an image. In these comparisons, the Luna’s additional resolution is not merely a spec on paper. So I think we are not very far apart on the measurements themselves. We simply disagree about the amount of territory those measurements allow “completely and utterly” to occupy ; ) E. :- )

Unfortunately, not everyone cares. - EAG :- )

Have you actually shot with it? Sharpening, noise reduction and the other image-processing settings can obviously be set to the minimum ;- )