fuzzynormal

The codecs are developed independent of the sensor hardware. A company could build a 4K sensor that only used 10 steps of dynamic range. Another company could build 4K sensor that shot 20 steps. They could both use the same codec for their video. How they implement that codec in their hardware is the thing. In the meantime, the codec must be licensed with hardware manufacturers and software developers paying a fee.

Correct guess.

While true, I welcome this particular technology push as a marketing tool. I also believe they're doing this for the simple reason that making sensors with more pixels is a ton easier than making a sensor with better dynamic range. Simply: It's cheaper and gives them some marketing clout. Like the "megapixel" wars, the numbers will matter less as it all equalizes across competition. When that happens IQ will have its day. Especially as pro and enthusiast photographers start using video as a means of non-stop stills shooting. Those customers are demanding and IQ matters. They're not going to settle for 4K if the IQ is inferior. It's all moving forward and I'm cool with that.

Indeed. That's kind of a strange assumption. Anyone that's been using a variety of digital cameras should be more than well aware of the IQ between different sensors.

Hardly an old wives tale. It's hard science. PAL and NTSC have to/had to use a frame rate that synchronized to the alternate current that powered the televisions. Now that analog is over, that old tech problem isn't much an issue for editing, as you can use whatever frame rate you desire (I still wouldn't mix and match frame rates that can't be equally divided) ... but if you shoot 60p under artificial light in a country that doesn't use 60 hz power line frequency, you gotta do as you suggested: adjust the shutter to match the frequency of the power supply. It all kind of goes back the the AC/DC feud between Edison and Tesla.

What this guy said. Read it. Believe it. Comprehend it. Out of all the variables needed to make good motion pictures, gear is such a small part of the equation. I wish there was less fretting about equipment. With all this modern technology it's all good enough to allow incredible creations...so create. Or, collect, I guess. I know I'm guilty of just wanting some new "thing" just because it's cool. I have a weakness for collecting gadgets. But the fact is we all have better imaging power in our hands than most film makers did in the 60's and 70's. The bigger question is, what am I going to do with it?

This is going off topic, but from the online discussions I've seen, what some folks don't seem to fathom about the whole resolution debate, when talking in the context of a film like The Hobbit, is the characteristics of perceived resolution when the frame rate increases. The faster the frame rate, the more that particular series of still pictures are viewed as more RESOLVED and lifelike...even if the pixel resolution is IDENTICAL and shot from the SAME camera. Everyone seems to focus their discuss pixel resolution, when it (I think) is about the aesthetic issue of slower frame rates. This is an overlooked cinematic effect that shouldn't be ignored on-line, but too often is. (Professionals get it though) Look, here's a straw man for ya: "Oh, I like films shot on the Alexa!" people argue, "It's so much better than everything else. So organic and "pure." Well, yeah. It kinda is, but are you enamored with the cinematic look of the frame rate or the actual image resolution? I suggest it's both. If you shot 60p on an Alexa I guarantee you a film purist would take one look at the result and be horrified at the "videoness" of the image. Shoot the same exact scene at 24p on the Alexa, play it back, and the film purist would instantly feel more comfortable. Aside from all that, just watching a film shot in 48p, then played back and displayed at 24p will certainly alter the perceived cinematic aesthetic of the film. It will present different visual characteristic. At 24p you'd be watching every other frame of a 48p shoot and that's all it takes. Watch the footage at it's initially shot 48p and it starts to look more "video/electronic" (and thus less cinematic) to the human eye. You got a camera and monitor that does both 25p and 50p? Shoot 50p and put the clip on a 50p timeline and then on a 25p time line. Watch the difference. Or, shoot a horse race at 50p then shoot another at 25p and go look at the perceived change of the image. You'll see in a hurry it's not an issue about resolution that's altering your idea of what it means for an image to be "cinematic." ...and I'm not even getting into motion blur and shutter speeds, which also greatly alter the perception of moving pictures. Long rant short: It's not just about the resolution.

The workflow to do editing involves an intermediate step, sure, but I did plenty of proxy editing in the mid-90's (imagine a computer not powerful enough to handle 29.97 640x480 video) and proxy edits are not that big of a deal. I'd rather do proxy cuts than spend 10K on computer hardware. If you do proxy editing you would't need a RAID, really. In FCP, for example, you'd simply ingest your media in a proxy low res format and do your entire edit. When it's finished you'd load in your high res clips and then reconnect the files for a 4K video. Anyway, point is, it might seem like a big deal to accomplish if you haven't done it before, but once you've pulled it off, you'd realize it's not too difficult. I actually did a documentary edit this way two years ago because loading up hundreds of hours of 1080 422 prores was too much data...so we just cut it low-res.

This should be my future camera...or I should say my future camera is one that shoots 60fps (I'm an American) with 5-axis stabilization. (can I hope for 4k?) I can't tell you how vital that feature set would be for my run 'n gun work. Oh, we're so dang close...!

Indeed. Also, as you say, a video camera is a video camera. It's built to do certain tasks quite well and that matters. I have a client for which I shoot travel footage; exotic locations, 12-16 hour days, all run and gun. This camera will get the job done for them easily and with greater quality than what they're using now. As such for some assignments it's an easy decision. The gear fits so I'd use it.

Which is why one begins to wonder if teams like those that made the DBolex are going to be the future business model for those of us that are hobbyist/enthusiasts?

I recommend shooting with the aperture wide open for a more romantic look. Seems like the subject matter would benefit this style. Also, I'd suggest shooting everything at 50fps, and then edit in 25fps. This way you can make some shots slow-mo if you wish. Slow motion motorcycling looks awesome. You need ND filters so when you're outside you can get the proper exposure. If you're shooting a shutter of 50 with a f2.8 @200iso, you'll most likely need two 0.9 ND filters on a bright day to get a proper exposure. Previous post are good advice regarding the audio. For all that's holy, do yourself a huge favor and work VERY hard at getting great audio. You won't regret it if you do. You will if you don't. I use a wireless lav on my main subject at all times when shooting a doc. It's easy and gets clean sound. If you can't do that, consider hiring someone to run a boom. Shotguns mounted on the cam? Just not a fan of that, but better than nothing.

I work almost every day as a freelancer. I do stuff on lots of different gear. Still, I would like to have 4K. And when I do I'll continue to work almost every day as a freelancer and do stuff on lots of different gear...

Gotta job tomorrow or else I'd go check it out. Intriguing machine, this.

This raises a bigger question about market health overall. And it's legitimate. Elsewhere on the forum you can find a discussion about the digital Bolex. A lot of folks believe that it's not technologically advanced enough to be successful. However, I begin to wonder if smaller enterprises like the crew that built the DBolex might be heralding the future of the Enthusiast/Hobbyist market? When image technology is so advanced that most consumers are satisfied with smart phones as cameras, then what's left? And is that piece of the pie better suited for more nimble/smaller businesses? 15 years from now I imagine all portable technology is going to be able to produce incredibly high resolutions at wonderful detail in low light. Then what? It'll be interesting to see who's still here as a manufacturing business and what they're offering. In the meantime, I'm off to go shoot on my 1080 machine.

You figured it out. Buyer beware. What someone does with their money is their problem and their decision. How they're influenced is their responsibility no one else's.

It's touched on in Andrew's article.

From what I understand, depending on sensor circumstances, yes.

Good point. On the other hand, even if it is obvious bias, so what? No one is entitled to the "truth" on the internet. Sorry to be cynical, but with most things on the web you have to assume skepticism. Your course of action is wise. Take issue with disagreeable words, dismiss the review(er), and then move onto someplace else. Now, about that camera: I still maintain it's a strong niche product with great value for end users such as university film students.

Yes. http://nofilmschool.com/2013/12/digital-bolex-d16-review-part-2-comparison-test-blackmagic-pocket-si-2k-mini/

It is, but the internet being the internet it amusingly doesn't always work that way.

I guess the short/simple answer being that 4k capture with a 1080 post-production-down-conversion looks great.

I don't know what it's like in Europe, but here in America, Panasonic's upscale cameras are not readily available in retail outlets. Not only are they absent from the "big box" American retail companies like Target, WalMart, etc., but they have limited display space in actual camera shops where the enthusiast's spend their money. In my city, San Diego, there are 4 reputable camera stores that cater to the hobbyist market. None of them sell the upmarket Panasonic cameras. A few point and shoot cams on the shelves of the consumer stores, but that's it. Fuji has a bigger presence here than Panasonic. Bad sales are not for the lack of good product, IMHO. They just don't have the penetration in retail. From where I'm sitting, it's all on the sales distribution regarding the bad numbers. It's not the feature set. I'm going to disagree with Atkin's assessment. Correlating bad sales to the product features might not be the actual causation. That said, I don't expect Panasonic to go away with their product line anytime soon. Because I believe that, I just bought two Panasonic m43 cameras and four m43 prime lenses. I expect the cams to easily get 4 years of use for the gigs I do. That's a fair investment. The lenses should have life well beyond that as other companies continue development of m43 camera bodies that support 4K video. If you want to be a "glass is half full" kind of person, you could even rationalize that these numbers might be good for Panasonic's development. If the m43 camera division needs to grab headlines because of slumping sales, perhaps really unleashing and pushing the video capabilities of their sensors will be a useful tool; mixed with proper marketing and dealership.

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/12/digital-bolex-d16-review-part-1-first-impressions-pre-order/ Joe Marine's of NoFilmSchool recent 2-part review of the Digital Bolex seems not very skewed in favor of that camera. In fact, it's a reasoned balanced opinion, I think. Personally, I like the idea that some folks had an idea and made it happen with "Kickstarting" support from the filmmaking community. I also like that they developed a camera for 16mm lenses. So many American university are full up on 16mm lenses going unused. This camera is near-perfect for those programs. I'd go so far as to say that the RAW workflow is a nice parallel to traditional film production. That's good for students. Learning footage discipline is a worthwhile skill.

It might appear someday as a hack on cameras like the GX7. You never know. At least I can hope. And, of course, Panasonic is hitting the market with a 4K camera this year that (from what I've seen with my limited wisdom) may share the same sensor as the GX7 and GM1. The point being that 4K is happening in the marketplace. More important, it looks like it has a chance to be a big deal in the consumer market -- because of companies wanting to upgrade/sell 4K monitors. As you know, the consumer market is where the DSLR/M43/Mirrorless products are. As such, adapting them to a useful workflow is important. It'll happen fast.