Emanuel

LOL On target. The point in behalf of 4K adoption. Anyway. Bitrate is much important than apparently seems. Especially if your target is a bigger screen. And for certain 8-bit hassles for sure. No one here is in love with low bit depth. It is much more to try to survive with. There's something some of you tend to neglect. High-end is done with well-fed crews, lots of resources, etc. Which means to make poorer the scope of your communication because your audience becomes wider and you'll need to reach a much larger group of people to pay the bill of your investors. Most part of these viewers with no much more than basic visual literacy. I will only give you an example though. Who from here knows José Padilha, the guy who made the last Robocop and the most recent Netflix series Narcos*? Have you ever seen his Bus 174 masterpiece? (the guy weren't born inside the mainstream) - E :-) * as producer, the first two episodes as director

For some reason, Ursa Mini is 3x the weight of the other... (and so on)

Reason why the external 4:2:2 recording route is the best option available to avoid 8-bit banding. No matter the allergy of a bunch towards low bit depth. This will never happen without new hardware which depends on other variables. Go figure, when the new 4K in-camera from Sony overheats... Packaged in their mirrorless full frame form factor, versus the much smaller BMPCC's sensor size. Apart the fact, Samsung is the only one to enable H.265 acquisition for the simple reason they have no high-end to protect. That is, if we want a solution for real, get that one your hands can reach. If we want a realistic approach, of course, other than wishful thinking on forums.

Of course, variables count. We can't live without them. The same way there'll always be higher bitrate if we change from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2, obviously. On that test, can the difference between codecs, bitrate, etc bring the "whole" difference there? As sunyata wrote three times, maybe. No trouble to second it. Why shouldn't we? What do we have here? Two different teams pretending to themselves their shirt is prettier than the other side? Your loved doll (higher bit depth) is not less mine. Who can say differently? Who would go from Alexa to 8-bit? C'mon. My beef is with the misconception only 10-bit is the miracle to save your footage from 8-bit banding. This is inaccurate. Countless examples going to the big screen since film has been replaced there (no one is saying it beats film or you said someone said). Dogma falling down? Is that the problem? Something different to believe? And that test fits the case. Beyond 4:2:2 vs 10-bit (a less careful reading has brought your light approach and carefree misinterpretation on the topic of the discussion), with higher bitrate, yeah, better codec and so on. Beware, the devil is in the details. In behalf of the topic here, ML hack proves these capture devices can top other than the crippled 4:2:0 offer. For some reason, they don't implement it in their more affordable line. OP and article's point. Very accurate BTW.

Ah man of pictures, I see the craft is in your veins after all. Perfect entry. My hat :-)

WOW now you quote directly from the other thread. So, are you bringing the other discussion finally, once again? Why? The other thread was not enough? What happened there for so much fury here? What 'screw ups'? Without the context of my words? When I repeatedly mentioned we were speaking about banding, not exactly grading? When I even wrote why I had written "the-real-difference"? With no mention of other posts, examples you didn't give a damn, I see. What's the beef here? Ain't you used to read the manuals till the end because you've already guessed the rest of the lines? Instead, your first post on topic was rather embarassing and there were three people to explicitly remind you how pointless you were. Your contribution to the discussion was what? To mention those variables? Do you want the bicycle? Take it. Be happy! On the rest, I can even guess you think the same about my own but quite frankly, I find your tone full of you, with the syndrome of superiority. Your last line doesn't let me down, speaks by itself. I'm sorry. PS: And as we can see, you've edited now your content for some reason, isn't it? I can just conclude this personal crap has no place, not even via PM. So, I invite you to personally visit me whenever you'll be in Europe. But before let me know your names, please. I find it pretty fair, correct?

To laugh is healthy, man. I also got (and not a fake) one when you tried to explain the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 with a monochromatic sample (nice try to decompress with that Marcie one haha) If you say so because you refer to import to here that discussion out there, it is pointless. Remember? You wrote "maybe" three times in the same line. It seems some people (and this is not addressed to you, man of the renaissance) have some trouble to accept the opponent may agree with us in some way or another. Or have hard chance to publicly accept they are as much ordinary as the others. Because our egos make us to believe we are in some higher superior degree because some client has decided to sign the check to pay the hours spent at the front of the computer when we actually post in some ordinary forums. We all suffer of such need of love. Everyone in the same boat. From there to conclude some variables as codec, bitrate can be more useful than specs on the paper, it is not hard when our egos let us settle them down.

No. That statement is inaccurate. You've disagreed, true. But, far away to be me to be emotional on that. You've just started to discredit that test (not even mine) because didn't serve your higher bit depth claim. "Baseless assertions" were not mine, pal. My "holier-than-thou" expression as you say now is written in some other (figurative speech) context and in some other thread where here you kept going your crusade over the messenger. We, me and other posters of your side, were even capable to conclude it there. Not exactly agreeing to disagree. Go there and take a second glance on topic. There's much to read.

So, let's put the personal stuff addressed to my PM box (I am waiting for your time in my mother language) and be on topic now. Your post's topic, though BTW. Chris Nolan and Spielberg or alike then, humm? With an exception, Ed (Ed, my fellowman, no more pro-tests this time, your self-esteem can not deny ; )) And the rest of the world...? Frankly, my brother, how old are you? No, it is not a personal question (I doubt you'd privately reply anyway LOL), it concerns the subject matter. Age, experience, whatever, anything related counts to understand the way the audience here (in this case, you) should particularly be addressed to.

Mate, so you decide to be my tutor and correct my nonstandard English? LOL C'mon, give a break to your own sanity for your own sake. Yes, it happens people to have some other mother tongue. Your point is? I guess I've just started to repeat myself. We had crossed each other in some other thread earlier today, isn't it? Let me see, the discussion let you move it to here?! ;-) For the sake of your spontaneous invectives, who wrote "the single credible authority on cinematography"?? You : P And don't be disrespectful with EOSHD or you are with every single member used to post here. Go figure if someone would dare to subjectively criticize your own. Ad hominem atacks are a very dirty sport to begin with. They tell a lot about the quality of the man behind an alias. My name and background is in my signature. Yours? Who is the man I have now the commission to chat with? Be a gentleman to this community and reach me on my PM box. You can try to send your message in my native language in order to clear up the things a little bit to me... haha

Should I call you dude too? Very well... hey dude, no clue on your age but something I can tell you even if this can sound too harsh. No pun intended. I am used to eat cinematographers at breakfast. For twenty years now. :-)

YOU say so...

?

I see you want they may pass 10-bit 4:2:2 and go straightforward skyrocketing : D Sony mirroless has one solid advantage, though. Before NAB next year. About 2 kilograms below ;-) - E :-) PS: Some of these preditions are hilarious but one I think we can pocketly dream about. http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36195

Sure, I see banding is your main concern on your testing... Her neck is revealing!

Jokes aside, that's correct. Figures say too little, at times even to those used to handle them. Some other time, they correspond to marketing. To others, they serve as show off. Just when you have some improper annoyance as banding, you pay attention to the significance and extension of their role.

You said it is "not as conclusive as I would like to" based on apparent conclusive stuff. Actually, it is not (as my previous post allegations can detail). At least, we can agree on the sum up, very well. But please don't tell me I don't much like sunyata's test. Even though, his failed introduction as me and other two posters were able to point out. When finally served for something worthy (you call it better, I would say complementary entry), it is welcome and taken as valid. Except it doesn't touch the other one nor the points observed. The only remark in your behalf is exactly the complementary nature of those other variables beyond the basics 8-bit vs 10-bit dichotomy. And when I see people to still pop up to underestimate 8-bit, I just see the need to reiterate it. And your point now is? :-)

PS: In any case, if you want to "blame" the codec or bitrate for the bigger difference, be my guest. I don't see where this doesn't match the discussion. Your 10-bit request is far away to be mandatory to kill banding. You just need the right balance of some variables. If you read what I'm used to post in these boards, that fits perfectly the equation. Let's not stuck up in our own likings and pay attention to facts with an open mind instead. 10-bit is just a number as any other.

No, no. Others, who? I've just seen someone saying inaccurately the comparison was done with uncompressed 4:2:2 when actually it was ProRes (COMPRESSED) 4:2:2. Another one who is trying to convince the other side with "I don't know" (his exact words) and after one bet and three "maybes" in the same post (only because internal 4:2:0 was recorded simultaneously) ...and you come here to tell me so as some scientific truth?!! Oh c'mon, man... I am not a child, my friend. - E :-)

I guess that example posted up there proves exactly the contrary.

Have you followed the basic example I posted up there? (I mean, the A-B-C case). That's the whole point. In any case, I bet the new BMD cameras will stop the usual whining on 10-bit like a savior mantra. HDCAM was 8-bit 3:1:1 and all that began the replacement of film for digital. Anything higher is better, yes, but the difference can be pointless or of lower importance when you're able to rid off banding when necessary. No need for an Uzi to hunting birds. PS: IIRC, it was ProRes and not uncompressed. The comparison is still worthy.

sunyata, read the post of Karim... :-)

Symbols. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340174-new-4K-iPhone-6s-can-edit-4K-video-in-iMovie-on-the-phone&p=1986574974&viewfull=1#post1986574974

Very true, on 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0... those figures mean color! In any case, don't forget we're speaking about banding, not exactly full grading...

Who said 4:2:2 is more important than 10-bit? The difference between 8-bit 4:2:2 and 8-bit 4:2:0, it is more significant for your grading. Much different statement. Of course, for certain type of grading. No mention of raw or alike where even 10-bit is short by default. People too much focused on the 10-bit holy grail tend to forget ; ) But, banding was the topic (hence my "the-real-difference" of my post; numbers help but like machines need i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n :-D) : http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106562 Speaking of math, let's see with a very simple case: 1) 100,000; 2) 1,000,000; 3) 10,000,000. Where's the bigger difference? Now, take these figures as bucks and your single expense as any number between 100,000 and 1,000,000. Which step will make the whole difference? Here goes your single example on pictures, posted and reposted more than once: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9355-canon-announces-development-of-8k-cinema-eos-camera-and-120mp-dslr/?do=findComment&comment=105935