Don Kotlos

5DIII has better 1080p. Its RAW

The only info comes from an unknown source at Canon but states: "reworked circuitry and design to dissipate heat for the 4K recording” http://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-1d-c-is-different-than-the-eos-1d-x-on-the-inside/ If that is the only thing that came from Canon, then Andrews' point about 1Dx being 4K capable is correct even if that meant overheating or more noise. Now that source might have been wrong, but nowhere did Canon claim otherwise. Maybe at that time point they could charge more by introducing a new camera than a paid firmware upgrade. Market is all about perceived value, and a replacing X with C did it.

I believe the fixed cable is only in the preproduction model that Andrew has.

I can definitely relate to that. The shutter sound of the A7* series is even worse than their ergonomics. If Q wasn't double the price of the A7rII I might have given it a try, cause as nice as the files from the A7rii might be, shooting is no fun. But for a similar shooting experience to the Q, I believe the X-E3 with the 23mm f/2 might be a good alternative for those on budget.

It depends on the distortion you got but the following video should be a good general guideline. Now I know you don't have audition but you can get a trial version if it is an one time thing

Every now and then we have this discussion. I think many underestimate how difficult is for a camera company to establish itself and expand in the world market. From what I understand, Terra has been in great demand. There is a HUGE market just in China for it, and maybe I say maybe most buyers there are actually putting their cameras to work instead of just shooting vlogs on youtube. Now that being said, if you need a camera that shoots RAW at a low price point now with very good support and you are closer to the US than China, blackmagic Ursa mini might be a better choice. In any case, there is plenty of very nice looking Kinefinity footage for the ones that are willing to look:

In principle RAW should be data directly off from the A/D converter. But that is hardly the case for most manufacturers since there is always some level of processing, usually selective noise reduction and gain for each channel. I would say that RAW data right now refers to just non deBayered data + some metadata. Log space just means to calculate the log (or other log like function) of the high bitdepth pixel value before you conform it to a lower bitdepth in order to maximize the information that is captured in the lower part of intensity scale. So for example lets take 12 stops of light captured from the sensor and processed with an 12bit A/D converter: stop 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 if we were to scale that into 10 bits we would have these values: 0 1 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 We just lost two stops of information in the shadows... So a log version of the original 14bit data, scaled to 10 bits would give: 0 85 171 256 341 427 512 597 683 768 853 939 1024 And that results in no loss of dynamic range by spreading the values for each stop equally across the bit range. Of course things are a bit more complicated since the log function that is used has to take into account the sensitivity of the sensor, the color calibration and so on. For example you might want to assign more values to the midtones which most things are anyways, and less to the highlights.

While I haven't noticed any digital noise over the microphone hiss from my H1, I found the Tascam DR-100mkIII to provide excellent results! I tested with the low noise rode nt1a and I was surprised at how good the internal noise was. The built in mics were pretty good as well. I know it costs 4 times the H1 and is double the size, but if you care about quality then ...

What rule, what exceptions? I am trying to explain how it works. What you perceive as dynamic range in typical daylight conditions is much higher than what your eyes can detect in an instantaneous moment. I can go into more details if you want, I am a neuroscientist specializing in vision The problem is when you capture the footage with limited dynamic range and then on your monitor you look at the sky, you see a large white patch with a contrasty line between the clouds which you have never observed in reality. So while most monitors cannot produce more than 6-10 stops of dynamic range, capturing the dynamic range can be useful for example if you want to hide the hard clipping of the photosensors as Mattias said. Of course putting 14stops in an 8bit file can lead to all sorts of other problems such as loss of tonalities or artificial looking footage (most HDR photographs). The large dynamic range of sensors is most useful during night, as is for our eyes since the rods can be slow to adapt at times...

The wikipedia article is lacking some detail and references. There are two kinds of receptors in the retina: rods & cones. The cones are the least sensitive and carry the color information, and the rods are monochromatic but are very sensitive. During daylight conditions most rods are saturated & most of our vision depends on cones. At each instantaneous time point they have a contrast sensitivity up to 1000:1 or 10 stops. But for longer time periods that ratio can increase dramatically. So during the few seconds that we enjoy a scene looking either the sky, the foreground or the forest we can have a much higher dynamic range. And this is how we perceive the whole scene. In the night (scotopic vision), our cones rods come into action and can offer an instantaneous dynamic range of up to 20 stops... So in few words, while the dynamic range for a moment is small, in reality (longer times) it is much higher. Your brain is really good at masking this adaptation process. Think of all the eye movements (saccades) that you need to make when you look outside your window and how much of it you actually are aware of.

Don't know about that, I find rocks far more stable About 10^-12 fps.

Now officially released. https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/

Nah, it is how colors are interpreted from the RAW files. Default settings for Sony sucks. Same for video. Thats why your profiles can produce nice colors. Try this for RAW stills:

That is because on one hand you have color professionals and on the other people that don't even know how to use picture profiles. Once you know what you are doing, PP offer the most flexibility in terms of color in any consumer camera.

I believe you will need one more couch for the upgrades. Cause yeah $40K isn't enough

Yep, we are going to be looking in the shadows for something

Latest rumor (SR2): "The interesting thing will be that is will house the worlds first full frame RGBW backlit stacked sensor. Giving us around 68% better low light performance over the original a7s sensors. It will also be capable of 4K 4:2:2 10bit color and 4K 60p but only at 8bit 4:2:0 full sensor readout. These are the things I am mostly sure of." http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr2-some-early-unconfirmed-a7siii-rumors/#disqus_thread Might even see it today.. Nah just a $40K CineAlta

At least theoretically the 10bit linear RAW cannot have more than 10 stops of dynamic range compared to the ~11.5 stops of the 14bit file. But yeah even the 10bit raw files can have excellent color. Next stop, clog!

On the contrary, I love the clean layout in the back! If it were to me I would even remove more buttons. Good thing it isn't I guess

Here is some downloadable desqueezed 6K in prores : http://www.43rumors.com/world-exclusive-gh5-firmware-2-0-high-resolution-anamorphic-downloadable-footage-crftsho/

Yep that's why we need the hevc files so we can test what works and what doesn't. Resolve also doesn't use HW decoding while FCPX does. No Pascal there so we need the CPU support.. I don't expect much difference in quality. The intraframe highbitrate codec should offer an advantage in high motion scenes (waves) , heavy grades or low light shots. Both are 10 bit.

Your method is capturing the lag pretty well. Is there a ~140msec lag on the camera LCD as well? That agrees with the GH4 delay in one of the video posts up in the thread, but it is not just an HDMI lag, is a general lag in display.

HEVC doesn't play But yes I agree it will be nice to see whether the new Kaby Lake CPUs with supposedly hardware decoding of 10bit HEVC actually work.

@Andrew Reid Do you think you can put in a word to the Panasonic team for baking in LUTs? It will be amazing for quick turnaround projects, with much better color control than Cinelike or picture profiles from Sony. Not that they haven't made an excellent product as is...

"It's a focus wheel" "The sensitivity can be adjusted" "and then this one (the wheel on the bottom) for ISO" "Can it be set to adjust other parameters?" "Yes" "Currently only for Canon?" "Yes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewZJ_GW1tn8