tugela

Nope.

With the focus assist light I have had mine focus on things in pitch black. You do need to be selective on your focus point in low light however, you need to pick something that has a contrast difference to anchor on, or it won't do it.

In silent mode the A7 is shooting its frame as if it was a video frame, rather than the way it would if it were a still frame, hence the rolling shutter differences. If your shutter speed is 1/60 sec having a mechanical shutter or not should have no impact on the presence or absence of rolling shutter. When you shoot in stills mode the raw data goes into the buffer and then gets processed later, but when shooting in video mode the raw data goes directly into the image processor hardware. It is fundamentally different. This is one of the reasons why cameras like the 5D series (and other Canon DSLRs) can be hacked the way they are. The video in those cameras is assembled in the buffer as if they were stills, so you have discrete frames to with. In Canon's video cameras you probably can't do the same thing since the data goes directly into the dedicated signal processing hardware of the Digic DV processor, and there is no discrete raw frame to intercept.

One more thing, regarding rolling shutter. The NX1 has none when shooting 6K stills at 15 fps either. So obviously the argument you are making regarding the read speed of the NX1 sensor cannot be correct. The difference between video and stills burst is how the data is processed. For video the NX1 is likely treating the data as a serial stream and processing it as it arrives. That would go in two phases, firstly debeyering and scaling to generate the pixels and then the processing to generate the compressed frame. If the processing step is rate limiting then for a 30p frame the time required would be 1/30 seconds, or 33ms (this probably also sets limits on the bit rates btw). Rolling shutter would have the same value as a result, since the pixels are being streamed in serially. This is what is happening with UHD. For FHD however, the raw data is assembled into 1/4 of the number of pixels. Since there is 1/4 of the data to be processed, the frame can be assembled in 1/4 of the time, in other words 8.3 ms. The rolling shutter measured for 1080p is 7.9 ms. That means that rolling shutter is determined purely by the processing time in the NX1, which in turn means that the maximum frame rate the sensor is capable of is well in excess of any of the frame rates available in video in the camera. Since the image can be processed in 8.3 ms in 1080p, it means that only 1/4 of the available processing time is being used at 30 fps when in FHD mode. If you use all of the time available you should be able to do 120 fps, and we see exactly that mode present in the NX1. On the other hand if you look at stills, burst mode assembles all of the raw data in the buffer first, then (at a later time) processes the data into the image. In that sense it behaves like a global shutter and you see little or no rolling shutter artifacts. What all of that means is that the NX1 has to be reading the sensor at speeds greater than 120 fps. The marketing dude you referred to is Jay Kelbey, who has given a number of interviews about the NX1. He seems to know what he is talking about and clearly states in all of them that the camera does full sensor reads at 240 fps. Apparently it is used for object tracking in the camera, and has a dedicated hardware block in the processor for that purpose. He also says that the engineers prepared 28 mpixel videos at 240 fps when they were debugging that function. Since both UHD and FHD are processor limited, it implies that the camera cannot do more than 30 fps in UHD, or 120 fps in FHD. In order to shoot at higher frame rates the processor has to be improved in some way, either by a later generation faster version, or by overclocking it.

That is the nominal specification for a sensor available for general sale (not necessarily the sensor in the NX1/500). Presumably those specs are based in conjunction with the capabilities of the associated processors, which in turn determines the nominal specification. Components usually can be run well in excess of their nominal specs, especially considering that the power requirements for the sensor are half of what conventional sensors running at half the read speed require. Plus, that applies to 12 bit data, not 8 bit. So you have quite a bit of room to run the sensor well beyond the nominal specs, which is apparently what they did in debugging. The NX1 does a full sensor read without line skipping/binning at 60 fps in FHD (we know this, because otherwise light sensitivity would decrease in FHD relative to UHD, and it does not), so obviously the sensor can be read fully at least at those speeds. Not to mention 120 fps, which is also supported in the camera. It is not reading only parts of the sensor, it is reading all of the sensor and at least up to 120 fps. What the camera can't do is process all that data in UHD mode, hence the frame rate limitation and rolling shutter issues. The DRIMe V/s processors are not mentioned on that site for example. What other people can buy is not necessarily what they use in their own products. As I said before, live view is not RAW.

No, those modes were used for debugging. 240 fps would be 8X the data load that the current 4K format handles. HD can be done at 120 fps, but at reduced quality, so the processor is choking on the data somewhere between 60 and 120 fps. My guess is that the thermal envelope limits how much they can push the processor. It probably could handle higher loads if it had external cooling however. And if you stuck the sensor/processor in a pro camcorder (where the thermal envelope is greater) it would likely be one of the most capable cameras in that segment as well.

The sensor can do full reads at 240 fps, so it isn't an issue with the sensor. The reason for higher fps not being enabled is almost certainly because the processor can't do it or becomes unreliable due to bandwidth issues. The sensor itself is capable of doing 6K and any fps up to 240. What comes out of live view is not RAW video. It is uncompressed, but still processed. It will still be 8 bit 4:2:0.

It will start out at MSRP, but likely rapidly drop through price reductions and specials, such as the 7DII did. Solid stabilization and focus/exposure aids are more important for Youtubers than superfast autofocussing. While some might use this camera, I don't think it will be in common use in that market segment. Personally I am more interested to see what the video performance of the G7XM2 is like, since it has the new processor in it. That will give some indication of what Canon HD video will be like for the next 2 or 3 years. The G7XM2 is probably capable of doing 4K btw, although it isn't enabled.

Purple (and sometimes other colors) fringing is frequently caused light scatter on the sensors. It is typically problematic on high density sensors.

Just make up something similar and quote from your own "book". The viewers of your production won't know any different and you don't have to worry about any copyright nonsense.

How much revenue did you generate from those countries, or interest in presenting the video in a formal setting? I think that was sort of his point. Most of that downloading went on because people had no access to the video at all outside of that. The distributor doesn't have overhead either? The point is, distribution through physical locations is inherently an expensive affair.

That was kind of my point.....you have to figure out how you are going to market your production within the context of all the file sharing that goes on. What has happened to the porn industry over the last decade or so is an excellent study, since they have experienced these sorts of issues for some time already, and have figured out how to live in the new paradigm. Those that didn't went out of business. That is how the world works.

Most of the ticket price you pay at a movie is for overhead. Relatively little is going back to the producers in the form of revenue.

I think that piece is rather overestimating how much money those movies really could make. The 5% estimate of how many downloaders would pay for it is more like 1%. If it was a mainstream movie people might be more inclined to pay to see it if they could not pirate it, but if it is a movie they never heard about outside of a few reports from film festivals they would be far less inclined to spend money on it. Whenever you undertake a business venture the first thing you have to do is figure out how you are going to monetize it, or at least fund it. I assume that the guys making these small movies do the same thing (or they wont be making movies for very long). It is not necessary to generate revenue from the movie itself, you would have to do it up front or you will lose. Downloading digital work through unauthorized mechanisms is a fact of life in the modern world, and you have to work around that. In the music industry the most practical approach is to regard the recordings as a form of advertising to make the audience aware of you, and you then generate your income through live performances. Obviously you can't do that with a movie. Realistically the only way to generate revenue then would be to skip the film festival scene and distribute through traditional means so you get your money ASAP. That is a choice producers have to make, deciding what is more important to them. Money or recognition. If it is recognition they want, then they are going to have to get their funding up front and write off what happens later.

Grain and noise are not the same thing. You can't add it. What you are adding is a digital artifact, and when you apply compression you have the potential to add ugly artifacts.

Lol, a touchscreen makes a huge difference. Infinitely better than having to muck around with some sort of joystick. If you look at Canon's corresponding camera, the 7DII, the price has plummeted like a rock since release, so 30-40% drops are not unrealistic if a camera doesn't sell. It all depends on how much demand and competition in that sector there is.

Some never learn that lack of detail is not resolution. Its just how it is. Your greens are now brown though. So the color is wrong.

You can only get moire if the slats are being resolved. The XC10 doesn't have moire in those shots because it simply isn't resolving the detail that is there. That is why it looks like a uniform sheet of color rather than actual slats. The XC10 footage in that youtube video looks like it is out of focus anyway, so operator error might be plausible in that instance. Most XC10 footage that I have seen posted on the web has poor resolution. I could accept the argument that individual clips here and there may be due to operator error, but when they are all like that then it has to be the camera. No. Panasonic have better processors than Sony, which is why the GH4 could record 4K internally whereas the a7S (which are of the same generation) could only do it externally. Sony are the ones playing catchup.

You forget, physical pixels have a beyer filter in front of them. The final image you see has pixels that are a combination of information from adjacent physical pixels in order to reconstruct color. The most accurate image would be one reconstituted from an oversampled sensor. Information is summed from an oversampled sensor, so although the physical pixels are smaller, the net effect is not too different from larger pixels in terms of noise, especially if you are using something like a BSI sensor.

The reason the XC10 isn't showing moire in that clip is because it is not resolving the slats at all.

It means that you can operate the camera powered from the USB port. By image they are referring to the video recording. It means that you can run a signal out through the HDMI to an external device and record to internal memory at the same time. Not all cameras can do this.

Sales/support overhead. Costs are different in different countries/regions because of that.

People shooting events/weddings are probably not going to be using a mass consumer camera (at least I hope note, if they are actually pros and not amateur posers) Remember, this camera is essentially Sony's Rebel.

There is. It doesn't say "Canon" on the name plate.

I suspect that the "noise reduction" is mostly a consequence of downsampling, which is why the camera is clean up to a certain ISO, and then degrades rapidly after that. So getting rid of actual noise reduction might not do anything except in low light. The sensor can do it but the processor probably rapidly overheats at higher frame rates. The production specs would have been set based on what would result in reliable operation without damaging the processor. Manufacturers in general will not allow operation modes that will likely result in warranty returns, even if the equipment is capable of doing those modes in the short term, because that will cost them their profit margin and more.