tellure

Just watched Max's video linked above, he says "no screen dimming whatsoever". Thank god. Now if they could just add picture profiles via firmware..

Does anyone know if the A9 still darkens the screen when recording 4K video?

I've taken my gimbal in carry-on on several US domestic and a couple international flights without any issues.

I'm personally a big believer that autofocus will eventually reach the level of sophistication that we can use it with as much artistry as something like color grading. It's pretty obvious that as the improvements that have only existed in the stills world make their way to video, and as we get more and more powerful CPUs we'll be able to do a whole lot with AF that we can't now. Here is where I see it headed over the next 5 years. Add your own ideas! Touch focus as a standard feature, with accuracy up to dual-pixel AF standards More control over touch-screen focus, e.g. touch to set new focus point, then drag to set the transition speed, then release to start focus transition Way better tracking of selected subjects (people and otherwise) Full Eye-AF with tracking (shoot full frame at f/1.2 with tracking!) [existing stills feature] Automatic tracking priority of a memorized subject [existing stills feature] More artistic AF options. e.g. Different curves for focus transition speeds; so you could have a quick pull to get close and then a slower adjustment as the fine tune focus is nailed, or the ability to set a buffer range for allowing an auto-tracked subject to go out of focus before the system tries to get it back

No kidding.. can't wait til I can see what I'm shooting (and touch the screen to autofocus). Speaking of which, has anyone confirmed whether the Sony A9 has the screen-darkening problem? The new gimbal looks great. Honestly I don't have a big issue seeing the screen with my H2 + A7R2 combo once I tilt the screen out a bit, but that increased visibility would be nice.

iphone 7

After a bit of googling.. you can turn off the "Default SCALE to frame size" in Edit --> Preferences --> General, but there doesn't seem to be any option to turn on SET to frame fize by default. Note that this setting only seems to take effect on new projects created after the setting was toggled, not existing projects. Having Default Scale to Frame size turned off does help though because then content which is higher than the output resolution will show up as zoomed in, which will remind you that you need to set this property on every clip you put on the timeline..

This solved it! Thanks very much. Guess I need to find out where I can set this as the default.

So here's what happens when I follow these steps.. again apologies for this insanely noob question.. there must be some obvious step I'm missing here: 1. Create new project 2. Create new 1080 sequence 3. Add 4K clip to project 4. Drag 4K clip onto sequence 5. Get the following popup: If you answer "Change sequence settings" then you now have a 4K sequence, which is not what we want (we want to have a 1080 sequence). If you answer "Keep existing settings", then now the clip is 100% at 1080 and zooming in further will show lower resolution, as shown in the original image I posted above. So neither of these is allowing 4K source to be scaled down 50% as you describe. What am I missing..

Weird.. my understanding was that if you have a source that's way higher res than your output res then you should be able to scale to higher than 100% and still not be going beyond the source resolution. if not, then how do you zoom in on a 4K source for 1080p output and retain the resolution?

First off apologies for such a noob question here.. I posted this in another thread but that seems to have died and it's been driving me nuts.. Basically the problem is that my 4K content (or higher such as stills) is not outputting the full resolution it should at 1080p. I'm sure I'm missing some really obvious setting here.. but what? Would love to get some help from the experts here. Below is a visual explanation of what I'm seeing.. I have a 5168x3448 source image (sequence) which I have scaled up to 200% in the clip settings. Should have lots of resolution in such a high res source for 1080p right? Then why am I getting jaggies? 1080p output h264 file on the left, source image on the right in Photoshop. Sequence settings and clip settings shown below, along with the output render settings. Also, when I drag the image sequence clip onto the timeline I get the "This clip does not match the sequence's settings. Change sequence to match the clip's settings?". To which I answer "Keep existing settings", since I want to keep my sequence 1080p. Again sorry for the super basic question.. been googling for a while and still can't find the right fix

Sorry for the related but not quite on-topic question.. I've been shooting 4K for a little while and this is my first project where I'm outputting 1080 so I can crop/zoom/etc. but I'm having a lot of trouble getting the full resolution to come through in the output. Would love to get some help from the experts here. At first I thought it was something with my 1080 proxies being used on the render but when I did an even more basic test with a new project using high-res stills only (and no proxies), I still get low-resolution output when scaling up the source image. I'm sure I'm missing some really obvious setting here.. but what? Below is a visual explanation of what I'm seeing.. 1080 output h264 file on the left, source image on the right in Photoshop. Sequence settings and clip settings shown below, along with the output render settings. Also, when I drag the image sequence clip onto the timeline I get the "This clip does not match the sequence's settings. Change sequence to match the clip's settings?". To which I answer "Keep existing settings", since I want to keep my sequence 1080. Sorry for the super basic question.. been googling for a while and still can't find the right fix

People who want to can still spend the time mastering manual focus pulling and achieving a more organic and human feel to their shots. But we'll probably be able to get much closer to that with great AF tools. IMO the highest order creative choices with focus are simply choosing what to focus on and when to change focus. There are tons of us that would love to explore all the creative potential of those choices more easily without needing to master manual focus pulling. Just like a great colorist can create a unique look (like the awesome grades in your videos kidz), but those of us who only have so much time can use or tweak an existing LUT to get something close to the look we want. Speaking of getting different styles from AF, I think we'll eventually see a time when you can set focus pull styles and tracking profiles the same way you can set up LUTs and picture profiles in your camera, not to mention lots of more powerful features that are only in stills-land right now. We've started to see the beginning of this with being able to set the AF transition speed (AF drive speed) and AF tracking sensitivity (AF track sens) on newer Sony cameras. Eventually we should be able to get stuff like: Eye-AF with tracking during video (shoot full frame at f/1.2 with tracking! Different curves for focus transition speed; so you could have a quick pull to get close and then a slower adjustment as the fine tune focus is nailed Automatic focus / tracking priority of a memorized subject the way you can for stills (A6300 stills example). It just needs more development time and processing horsepower, but seems totally achievable given the current arc of technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_Bj-w0fj-0

As an A7R2 hobbyist (not pro) my number one feature for a new Sony camera is touchscreen focusing combined with excellent AF / object tracking. I do a lot of gimbal run-and-gun and it would be huge to be able to focus easily on the fly. It would also be a godsend when shooting handheld. I was shooting a friend's wedding the other week and trying to focus pull on a couple dancing.. continually moving towards and then away from you with no predictability, well it was well beyond my abilities. Even with focus peaking and a lens with a good focus ring (24-70 2.8 GM). Sure I could spend many dozens of hours trying to master that skill.. or I could try and get better at the many other aspects of this art form, and still be able to use focus creatively with a good touch system. Similarly I could have learned how to use an old-school steadicam, but instead technology has advanced enough that I can buy an excellent gimbal for a reasonable price and then focus on the creative aspects of composition, camera movement, and subject blocking instead of focusing on how to keep the camera steady. I wholeheartedly agree with wolf33d that once video AF is reliable enough and has enough creative control options we'll see lots of pros using it, just like most do now for still photography. Hopefully that future will be soon.

Good question.. I heard it a while back from someone I work with but I can't find any hard evidence of it. Here's a thread with a bunch of YouTubers discussing how compression / bitrate seems way better on highly popular channels: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/_lKUidz08Ts If I get some time I'd like to do an experiment to test that premise by downloading that Lana Del Rey video via one of those websites, checking the bitrate, then uploading it to my own channel and then downloading it after compression to see if the bitrate is different from the original. Incidentally here are VEVO's channel guidelines and they don't have mention anything special about bitrate or compression (they even limit the max bitate to 50mb/s). Doesn't mean they don't get a benefit of YouTube using lower compression / higher bitrate on preferred channels I guess. https://www.repostnetwork.com/blog/2016/10/06/vevo-specs-best-practices/

Wow great video (and song), thanks for posting. The grain is nice but could be a bit more organic IMO. I agree the resolution of the grain comes through well though. I would say most of that is probably because it's a commercial account which gets higher data rates / lower compression than we can get as free YouTube users.

Sorry meant to say apparently Mac *better* scaling (certainly looks better when I check out the Apple retina displays in the Apple store).

A note about scaling in Windows 10 - it was on by default when I first hooked up this LG 4K monitor and I couldn't believe how bad it was. Everything, including text, was really soft and I thought I had some kind of driver issue. Turns out Windows scaling just sucks and doesn't even look as good as native 1920x1200 on my ancient Dell 24". Apparently Mac has a scaling (Mac has always been better with fonts) but if you're a Windows user I would not recommend relying on scaling.

The LG 31MU97-B I mentioned is 10 bit BTW. No affiliation, just a fan.

Still a big fan of the LG 31MU97-B I picked up a while back (open-box on Amazon for $700). Fonts certainly are small at native res but so very sharp. And the screen space is insane.. huge timeline in Premiere, full 1080 preview in a nice 1/4 of the screen, and of course just browsing the web I can have two or 3 browsers side-by-side in full res. http://4k.com/monitor/a-review-of-the-lg-electronics-ips-digital-cinema-31mu97-b-31-0-inch-screen-led-lit-monitor/

The moonlit shots with the camels were great, nicely done.

Yeah I'm loving the LG 31MU97-B. Fonts certainly are small at native res but so very sharp. And the screen space is insane.. huge timeline in Premiere, full 1080 preview in a nice 1/4 of the screen, and of course just browsing the web I can have two or 3 browsers side-by-side in full res.

I can understand that since it's a function of how fast the sensor can be read, which is hard to do faster in an already overheating package. What I can't fathom is why they STILL darken the screen and still don't let you override it like they do with the overheating. I shoot lots of short clips, so hell yeah let me have a super hot LCD while I'm shooting so I can at least see what's on the screen. The screen darkening still drives me bonkers on my A7RII. I have messed up tons of shots because of it.

Canon 70D with dual-pixel AF or Canon 6500? Touch screen to rack focus.