Cary Knoop

The content may be (predominantly) displayed on 1080p devices now but obviously content providers make footage not just for viewing in the present time only.

10 bits of data obviously can resolve more than 8 bits but just because you output 10 bit does not guarantee it will be any better. When photons fill the well of a pixel a particular value is read. The AD bit depth is no measure of the accuracy of the value. Compare it to using a bad lens, if the bad lens can only resolve 2M pixels having a 36M pixel camera is not going to do you any good. By the way raising ISO above base ISO does not reduce noise as you seem to suggest. There are basically four kinds of noise due to: 1. The discrete nature of light ("the less light the more noise") 2. The limited efficiency of the sensor to trigger an electron to react to a photon ("% of photons not catched by the sensor"). 3. The noise of the sensor ("temperature and other things"). 4. AD quantization error. In addition while noise appears at all luminance levels more or less evenly (except for item 1) for rec 709 or 601 like outputs it appears stronger at lower levels because the output is converted from linear to gamma curved output.

10 bits as opposed to 8 bits does not give any guarantee of better quality video, it depends on the noise floor. You can sample those pixels on the sensor with 1000 bits of resolution but it won't do you any good, it is limited by the noise floor. It is the same as with sound, you can record at 16 or 24 bits but if the noise level is not low enough 24 bits does not gain you anything. It seems we simply have to agree to disagree with it because you think what I am saying is wrong.

10 bits per channel only has a benefit if the noise floor is sufficiently low. Otherwise we just have more random bits which can be easily reproduced by simply dithering the signal from 8 to 10 bits. And like the others stated the bit depth of a signal is not the same as the dynamic range. However it is a limiting factor, if you want a full dynamic range of 14 stops you need a noise free minimum bit depth of 14 bits but you can certainly compress it to 10 or even 8 bits.

These all sounds great however more importantly is there a dynamic range improvement and is there an improvement to the noise floor, if not it makes the whole 10 bit thing not more than a marketing gimmick.

GX85 outputs video levels but the camera does record out of range values so when you have a high contrast recording most of the time you need to bring values back into legal range to prevent clipping or crushing.

Make sure you run the latest firmware versions: Metabones should be at least 2.5 but preferably 2.6 (this version came out today!). Panasonic GX85 should be version 1.1 not 1.0.

That is not true. Grain is ill distributed noise. What makes resolution in film are tiny film particles. Grains are an order of magnitude larger and obscure those particles. I think the better option is to apply Gaussian noise.

While I occasionally add noise to video I never add grain. I must say I am not getting it, what is the point in degrading picture quality? Grain is just badly distributed noise! It's like adding vinyl scratch sounds or tape noise to digital audio recordings. But, to each his own!

I don't think that is a good idea. It is far better to set an accurate white balance directly from the sensor data than to set it after the information is debayered, chroma subsampled, noise reduced, anti aliased, sharpened and compressed.

I think it is undermining to have two incompatible stabilization options for the MFT system. For MFT to survive Olympus and Panasonic should compete but also work together to make products that are compatible beyond mere mount compatibility. I believe this will strengthen the platform.

I am glad YouTube takes this up and commits (again) to open source solutions (Needs VP9 for HDR)!

You do not need electronic contacts for IBIS to work, you could use the Mitakon Zhongyi or even a generic speed booster and then enter the focal length manually.

Why? I find it very practical if I need to adjust the height of the camera after the tripod was setup.

Of course if that is your preferred taste then you should continue doing that. But I would not equate that look with 'film'. I suppose you are not a technicolor fan?

Great, his clips are always entertaining! Kai is back but now without Digital Rev!

Agreed, although the GX80/85 is currently discounted heavily and has in my opinion a better color than the G7 and has no time limitations (in the NTSC region) so that may be a good alternative. Here are some shots made by the G7:

Very creative!

Sorry but that does not make any sense to me. If we look at the scope it is clear the black levels are wrong:

I think your black levels are way too high.

These are big accusations! It is not fraud if they have a genuine claim to the visual content or if it was a mistake. What is the visual content that is claimed?

You stated that you did not use any songs but the copyright claim by UMG is not about sound but about visual content. I would tipple check the visual content before you go ahead and dispute the take down. Some locations/buildings/iconic sites may have a copyright as well.

John, after your comment I did some testing with various sharpness levels and I have to come back to my earlier opinion. I think you are right about the sharpness I am going to settle on -4 from now on.

I think there is no need, they have to sue you if they want the video removed not the other way around. Here is the process for a Content Id claim and a DMCA notice: https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals

Obviously if you want the name removed from my posting I have no objection, I am just trying to help not to give you any headaches. However after some time the owner/administrator of this form no longer allows any updates. I would contact the administrator and ask him to update my posting, I certainly have no objection to that. < removed by request > Unless the artist actually sells the rights < removed by request > merely licenses to sub license the content. That means the original owner is still the rights holder. < removed by request > explains here the process and the preferred way of handling it. Instead of disputing the claim they prefer you take an alternate road: < removed by request > That is not unusual, for instance AdRev has a similar mechanism. YouTube does not remove footage by themselves, they are instructed by the rights holder if they issue a take down request. However you have the right to dispute it but at that point it becomes a serious matter. If you are sure you are correct and the claimant is wrong you should dispute the take down and YouTube must reinstate the video unless the owner sues you within a given time frame. If they do not your video will be back and your strike will be removed. I have disputed claims before on historical recordings where Content ID was misidentified but it never came to a point of suing. The rights holder is required before they issue a take down to have a real person listen and verify if the claim is valid and always the issue was resolved.