Emanuel

LOL I'm sorry to disappoint you when I can't neglect the benefit of higher bitrate 4:2:2 even if 8-bit...

Part II?

Well, you have higher resolution with the new Sony's toy. Bit depth also known as color depth, though, has several variables indeed. But, noise? I guess BMPCC is noisier. And haven't you had trouble with aliasing/moiré going with FF? I've found all the footage I've seen very disturbed, even if barely, with such issue. Haven't you?

But, for that, they shall run it in much higher bitrate... Upcoming post-focus feature will happen. And I hope for 4K/60p as same as DVX-200. S35 won't happen, I bet. But, have you used the speedbooster going with the GH series? You'll reach the same optically.

I guess you'll find it, though. Have you also shot in FF? Or mainly S35? BMPCC shows moiré, anyway... How have you felt the difference coming from much higher than 8-bit? Why a7RII instead? Stills worth the trade?

And haven't you found aliasing/moiré with such setup?

Why not detail all way down?

PS already included by editing in my previous post.

The Man of the Renaissance is not wrong when says it depends on the priorities, of course. But, tell me where the announced a7SII goes where the a7RII is unable to offer? (that is, apart the 8K stills / 5fps burst as bonus for mere 200 bucks of difference for the 42MP higher density) Full pixel readout in FF? But you have speedbooster option, if so. The same applies on the lowlight department. Noisy higher ISOs mean too little, as the last footage released from the new prototype of Canon easily proves it. Aside the fact the difference is nickel-and-dime. Much because of a newer BSI sensor tech. 399 hybrid phase detection AF points is a way more efficient than only 169 contrast (slower too) detection AF points. Even overheating, once it is not coming from sensor but processing, it can happen a negligible difference if any, with the a7SII, because of downsampling has more impact on the a7RII, but I doubt of importance. Even rolling shutter won't be much better, considering what we've seen from the older sisters. Actually, the apparent advantage for lowlight performance you gain going FF on a7SII, without mention the speedbooster option available shooting with S35 (on a7RII) but not in FF, you'll end to lose it with rolling shutter. Last but not least, the native 800 ISO for S-Log2 on a7RII is much more interesting than 1600 on a7SII (S-Log3), with no mention the PITA of 3200 for the old a7S (S-Log2). And let's not forget the color accuracy issues on such sensor (a7S).

a7RII is a much better deal... :-) You can always use 4:2:2 8-bit going externally in both anyway... ;-) LOL OK, apart my jokes, I think you're safer with the most interesting hybrid offer from Sony...

Color other than banding is a different story. In any case, it is very possible the reds of this 2015 version may end much more accurate, following what happens with the most recent offer (a7RII).

AFAIK they warn for overheating in the manual as same as happens with the a7RII. At least, that's what I read. The heating comes from the processing, not from the sensor, or the external recording wouldn't be the only solution (when triggered from outside).

Well, the sensor is somehow much larger than 1080p and we are used to see lots of artifacts with slow motion footage coming from DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.

LOL OP is just extrapolating from there as far as stationary industry of today concerns on features we know they could be interested to deliver in benefit of lightweight acquisition and they don't. Despite the fact the most recent mirrorless 4K recording solution in-camera (provided by Sony) overheats. Especially Canon when arrives to the professional market with their Cinema series. Who brings the discussion to this industry is the OP, not the article. From the same point when there's substance, it is possible to extract a diversity of routes. The science of reflexion, learning... follows the rule. We can try, at least. OP just had a postmodernist attitude trying a deconstructivist* approach, very welcome everywhere. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

In fact. But, let's not forget it is 1080/60p...

The article is addressed to the still photography market. OP is just bringing the discussion to the motion picture realm, once D90 started the HDSLR movement, with the explosion after 2008 when Canon launched 5DII. They weren't ready to even dream about the revolution they started to. There were workarounds to have manual control for video in a FF camera. Manufacturers such as RED felt the competition and publicly reacted so. Low budget DSLRs became a target. Canon designed their C-line. Shooters had to find hacks to extract the best of their capture devices. Why? (OP's point)

If you say, I trust your word :-) Some of them then : D To me, what counts is the stuff which makes me happy with. No VFX has gotten to disturb my sleep. Literally. Yawn in movie theatre became one of my specialities...

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.