markr041

Please disagree whenever you think it right! But, no, hype is the absence of information, not the intensity of the promotion. I like enthusiasm. So, if someone said (correctly) - this Pro Res RAW retains 23% more color information in a smaller space than existing codecs!!! I am fine. I am happy if they put that on balloons launched over the Eiffel Tower and/or had it said by a basketball celebrity has-been, or put it subtly on signs in the backgrounds of blockbuster movies (23% better!). That's promotion, not hype. But just saying Wow, we have new codec - from Apple. No other info. That's hype. And anyone waxing enthusiastic about this announcement in the absence of information on why it is an improvement...(although having more choices is better ceteris paribus, having a new choice which is no better is not better ) Again, I am one of those who can actually use this new codec right now, so I actually care what it does for me and others. I thus read the announcement, and have no clue as to what this codec does for us that we cannot do now. I am not locked into anyone's "system" either. I use Pro Res HQ to shoot and edit. So, what's so good about this new Apple product? This is not an anti-Apple question.

Hype is promotion without information. Which is what we have now. It separates serious forums and YouTube videos from those of marketeers. Do you know why having this new codec improves on anything we already have? I love ProRes HQ, and shoot with it. It works well in Resolve and Vegas Pro; I do not need Apple's system for Pro Res to be a good codec choice. But what does Pro Res HQ have to do with Pro Res RAW? I can shoot in Pro Res RAW or Cinema DNG or Pro Res HQ, so I am not asking the sensible question because I am "left out" (really, you question motives?): why we should care about this new codec if we can select any codec we want? And, again, if Apple was so good-hearted as to want to "serve" their users, why have they always withheld support from many much-used codecs, including other flavors of RAW? If this new codec is not an improvement, what else is this but an attempt to keep their existing users from exiting (which is different from making their users happy)? So, in what way is this new codec better than what we already have? Are we next going to wax happy if Apple decides to design their own proprietary versions of AVCHD or X AVC?

Fine. I won't quibble with you on what "fool" implies. But - so is ProRes RAW better than the open CinemaDNG Raw or not? Do you know? If it's not better in some way, what's the point? why the hype? Apple could just as well as made their software work with CinemaDNG for their users who would like to shoot RAW.

So what exactly is better about Apple's so-called RAW compared with CinemaDNG RAW? The cameras named by Atomos that can take advantage of ProRes RAW already can use CinemaRAW - same resolutions and frame rates. Is this just the same thing with a proprietary component so that Apple can fool people into thinking they need to buy Macs?

Don't forget - the Sony FS700R (that old thing) can now also record in ProRes RAW in 4K DCI 60P and 4KDCI 120P and 2K DCI 240P! (so can the FS5) using the new upgrade of the Inferno.

Yes, but we learn from this one example that such "comparisons" need to be completely described as to settings. I think we would notice if a 24P action video was shot at 1/800th shutter even if we are completely skeptical about the concept of motion cadence. And, to maintain a 1/50th shutter when the aperture is at F1.6 (!) and the ISO is high as in log gamma would require one heckuva ND filter - 32X? I know of no such thing that attached to cell phones. On the ARRI, you can close down the aperture a lot. I think the comparison was faked. I have left a comment at the video site, inquiring about the shutter speed issue.

I am skeptical of the post, but...you underestimate this company, which actually targets cameras to the high end. For example: https://www.broadcastbruce.com/product/z-cam-s1-pro-cinematic-vr-camera/ Their 360 VR camera, the Z Cam S1 Pro, sells for $14,550. Their forthcoming 180 VR camera sells for $3,000. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1389667-REG/z_cam_k2501_k1_pro_cinematic_vr180.html And their Z Cam V1 Pro sells for $31,000 http://store.radiantimages.com/product/zcam-v1-pro/ The Z Cam E1 (still supported, with batteries and new charger available) still sells for $249 - that is the outlier.

I didn't see a movement difference either - but the real point is we don't know what he did for the shutter - if he did something, he is hiding that fact. If he did nothing, it suggests the 180-rule is bogus. A scientific principle is you don't reject established theory with one badly-documented experiment. I would love it for the 180-rule to be wrong, since neither action cams nor cell phones can easily adhere to it and it would eschew the need for ND filters on serious cameras. Hardly likely.

I don't have a post, but I watched that video. How does one achieve the 180-degree shutter rule on the cellphone in bright daylight? In the screen shot of the cell phone, the shutter speed was 1/800th for 24P. The cellphone has no ND filter and in fact no aperture either - so it is wide open in sunlight. If the "motion cadence" at 24p with a 1/800th shutter is ok, something is wrong. Somewhat off-topic, I do not see any log gamma setting for cell phones in Resolve Studio (unlike for Slog or Vlog. etc.), so it is not clear that ACES or Resolve Color management can be used with the cell phone clips. Nor is the LUT he used designed for any cell phone log gamma, leaving aside color space.

You can power both the camera and the Shogun Inferno from one battery attached to the camera in the case of the Sony FS5 - the regular-sized camera battery (made by Swit) has a D-Tap, so you can power the Shogun from it with its supplied cord. That really reduces the weight/size. A similar D-tap arrangement for our mythical small recorder would work fine.

You mean no recorder, just a 10bit 1500 nits monitor that is capable of HDR? That would be useful too. Indeed, separating monitors and recorders may be the point of this thread.

Two more test videos: 4K 10bit 422 HDR (HLG):

I appreciate your comments, as always. But look at the picture in the first post - that is a pro with a big camera on which is mounted the Shogun, and the guy is not using it to view, let alone focus. It is just being used to record. That picture is from an Atomos sponsored video. Gimbal mounted rigs also do not need big monitors. Big rigs and big monitors do not need to go together. A lot of video involves cameras being mobile while shooting. ENG does not use big monitors either, but ENG uses big cameras. Yet some of the cameras they use can benefit from the quality that only an external recorder provides. The latest advances in AF are going to make manual focusing and manual lenses less desirable for many uses, so big monitors less relevant. But 4K, high bitrates, and HFR are increasingly important and those are features that only, in many cases, external recorders can give us.

I think it is inappropriate to say what is needed for "good" results. But in any case the smaller you can make the rig the more flexibility you have for where and when you can shoot.

Ok, we all agree give us a 5" Inferno. And for some, just the recorder like the Atomos Ninja and the Sony external recorder (big and ridiculously expensive).

You still don't get it: for handheld speedy shooting we need small and light. Saving power means smaller batteries, again, small and light. I in fact prefer small batteries and thus buying multiples. Plenty of good videos are shot without external monitors. And there are videos that cannot be shot with big rigs. So, let's have choice; you do what you do with gigantic batteries and monitors on big tripods while others move around.

This is silly. Why? Because for those like you who want a big screen, there are big screens already available. What is the point of arguing that you need a big screen? I am sure others like big screens too. But, not everyone is you, or them. I can focus perfectly well on a 5" screen, so can Philip Bloom - there are focus aids for manual focusing, from pixel-level to magnification, to color outlining. In fact I can manual focus well on a 3.2" screen too, with these aids, if the screen is sharp enough. If my post was to advocate banning 7" screens, your pleas would be apt. I am just pleading for another choice for people.

Ok, got it. But the cameras we are talking about that have special capabilities through their ports do not have lousy screens (they could be better, but they are ok). But an extra 7" screen? The recorder/screen is almost bigger than the GH5, weighs almost as much as the FS5, and of course is totally ridiculous with the RX0! The point is the cameras I named have perfectly adequate screens. External recorders are not for "most" DSLR, Mirrorless camera, but just a very special few.

Your comment can be interpreted two ways: 1. a screen is a must, and why bother getting a recorder without a screen. Or 2., why bother with a screen. ??? Every camera has its own screen; we do not need another screen. And as my post indicates, the screen is not that useful.

With more and more cameras providing increased capabilities for recording via their HDMI or SDI ports, the value of external recorders has increased - the GH5 provides 4K 60 422 10bit only via HDMI; the FS5 provides 4K 30P RAW, 4K DCI 120P from RAW, and 240P 2K from RAW; the EVA1 also has increased capabilities like 240P 2k output; and the tiny RX0 provides 10bit 422 4K via HDMI. But we only have 7"-screen recorders, which are absurdly large even for the bigger, but still portable cameras. On the EVA1, for example, the Shogun Inferno looks ridiculous, adding bulk and imbalance, as the attached photo shows. Please, (anyone) give us a 5" recorder with the capabilities of the Shogun Inferno, or even better, a smaller recorder without any screen - the battery life will be better and overheating will be less of a problem. BlackMagic? Convergent Design? Atomos? Video Devices? Sony? C'mon. I actually do not find the Shogun Inferno screen useful even for shooting for HDR - if you go into Atomos HDR mode, the screen becomes very dim and almost impossible to see in bright light. I basically just use the waveform (which is useful, but that does NOT need a 7" screen).

Yes, I was positively surprised. I thought it would be 60 Mbps, given there are so many other compromises made. The GH5 is "only" 150 Mbps for 60P.

It's a pdf file that gives all the specs. We are talking video, right? there is no "raw" video for the M50. And there is no "bitrate" for raw stills. Now you are confusing me! MPEG-4 AVC / H.264. is the video codec (which is what you said), and the bitrate for that compressed long GOP codec is 120 Mbps for 4K 23.98.

Try this, which has the link in it. https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/eos-m-series-digital-cameras/eos-m50-ef-m-15-45mm-is-stm-kit Go to Specifications, and then see the link to the Full Specifications. That first link was blocked on my computer too, even though I was looking at it!

MPEG-4 AVC / H.264. 120 Mbps long GOP for 4K 23.98. https://downloads.canon.com/nw/camera/products/eos/m50/specifications/canon-eos-m50-specifications-chart.pdf

Original downloadable 4K ProRes HQ Slog2 Clip from the RX0 and Shogun Inferno: The 'Original' clip is downloadable (do not download the '4K' clip, as it is the Vimeo recompressed version).