anonim

Ajouter à la liste d'envies... envy

Maybe just those of owners P4k who need to learn and exchange information about it went outside and started to shoot with them? Whether it is best way of usage and really motive of interest for camera - is, at seems, matter of preference. Those who mostly enjoy in comparison and debating about specs and values, simply and inevitable eventually migrate to new theme for their main interest.

Yes, but I think before anything it means Canon will place a price at level of newest C-type camera line. It looks to me as finally proper, open and fair strategy - to give everything what/how is possible from their side (at least to that flagship model) to both lines without crippling anything, but also without any compromise regarding price. Who wants movie quality plus best photography may choose photo camera-form, who needs all of movie making adds can choose camcorder body. If it so, I like and cheer such strategy very much mostly because of its openness. Who estimate photo camera body as advantage for usage, and could afford 5-6000 price and get the best possible with Canon quality and reliability - why not? Of course, expecting number of such is very debatable. Regarding announcing, as far as I see, there's no anything important for film making but two words - 8k and IBIS. In it I see evolution of recent trend war of announcing as in advance as possible - with logical goal regarding blocking competition. Announce that something is under development stadium, even without any notion what exact implementation is target (especially without any sign of when it could be finished) becomes today way of using perception of time as profitable material. Which is very interesting argument for Jean Baudrillard-line of thinking.

I think that everything starts with inspiration as motivation - so, my suggestion would be to watch tutorials about manipulation and effects in 3D space done with Fusion, Nuke, Flame (how to change background, tracking components, even how to make enough visually suggestive simulated 3D objects from 2D images via projection maps etc). Although great and best for fast 2D effects, AE is not as much suitable for proper 3D, but has tone of ready made templates, great plugins. Also, for everything higher than several layers/intervention, nodal structure or 'tree' becomes more and more suitable. So Fusion for obvious integration with Resolve, Nuke still a bit more if you really plan to get a job into big industry players, Flame if you like to feel yourself as noble and elite member as it could be. UI logic of Flame is for me pick of the software aesthetic. Of course, there's also powerful Mistika, but it becomes, I'd say, nowadays more exotic than really differentiated. Besides, I found that nodal thinking in accomplishing 3D tasks is the most interesting encounter of logic and creativity in all software's usage. (If you wish to happily lost your mind in endless possibilities as, say, top chess players - than go into cosmos of Sidefx Houdini.)

Just to mention that I noted it (sometimes I record for enjoy most perspicaciously witty comments when I'm faced with them :) Thanks.

I mentioned it earlier - particular problem of usage OLED in cameras is simply different heating level, but in simulation of discussion forced in this liberal 100% biased thread there's no reason to insist on anything, except for fun - what is, of course, also nice, at least for me But this is strictly technical quote to add to your benevolent contribution : „While OLED displays do not require a backlight, a variety of other electrical components may be placed in various locations beneath a display. These components facilitate the operation and function of the electronic device. Some components of an electronic device that may be beneath an OLED display include processors, radio transmitters, batteries, speakers, cameras etc. Some of these components draw current and may warm during use. Some components, such as a processor or radio transmitter, may get particularly warm during use or extended use. As a result, portions of the display may also warm due to these warming components beneath the display. Moreover, because some components may warm more than other components, some portions of the display may warm more than other portions. Heat may affect characteristics of emitted light from OLEDs. In addition to accelerating aging, the color and brightness of light emitted by OLEDs may be affected by the operating temperature. The brightness of some OLEDs, particularly red OLEDs, may decrease as operating temperatures increase. Over time as each OLED ages due to use and temperature, images shown on parts of the display may appear different from the intended image. Controllers may make changes to compensate for such shifts in brightness and color. However, color and brightness shifts may occur differently across a display due to unpredictable use of each OLED and the components beneath each OLED.“ As addition, one of the solution could be using of some sort of thermal sensors which open another problem of powering (and that's possible what BM engineers do right now being ashamed for their incompetency from our address).

I knew it You really have unbeatable argument, so why not use it as often as possible, in spite of little bit of sad impression being associate with deep frustration and loneliness?

I really got it and agree (who would not) - it would be much better if/that Pocket cameras have 1000 nit screen. But here I see two moments - first, it becomes discussion in absolute terms, and to my logic I find it ok just if BM is used merely as represent of all camera makers. Because there's no any better screen anywhere in comparative camera world, actually it seems that BM has the best one quality at the moment, and surely quasi revolutionary the biggest. Every camera that I had was unusable 3.x inch screen in daylight, and seems that it is trend to be continued with so called beasts and monsters. Second, I think it's no so easy to comment all engineering tasks without being extremely high specialized in every of aspects (including mutual dependency) of their multi collaborative work. As everybody know better than me, camera is now highly sophisticated computer, heat dissipator and transmitter, optical instrument, net of different wired and wired protocols, field of chips etc - so it is easily possible that any mm more in body size (battery wise) makes the whole out of balance, especially when goal is to keep it "pocket". Third, I can comment Grant Petty even professionally, but I'm afraid that my CEO here will send me again Amy Winehouse as lovely gift

It's not a question about powering just screen but powering balance in system as whole. And it's hard for me to see why it is question addressed to camera maker that made still one and first breakthrough to 5 inch screen in comparative cameras world. OLEDs are much more sensitive to heat (here from inside camera processes), especially regarding more pronounced danger of burn-in images. Really, why BM engineers didn't use respectively the most expensive and more vulnerable screen technology two years ago, found a place for NFP 9900 battery, why they didn't consider electronic viewfinder, hinge-on screen and find at the same time way how to protect themselves not to be criticized why body is not more boxy? Maybe answer is that they just wanted to keep price at 1300$ P4K level with 60p 4k RAW, USB disk writing, full HD 5 inch extremely sensitive-accurate screen, slot for CFAST card, invention of n in house brilliant codec, give free Resolve, free firmware anamorphic updates, with well founded strategic idea to sell bigger quantity for lowest possible comparative profit margin - and not to fulfill all our dreams?

I guess they think as I wrote - screen is bonus for 1200$, average 500-600 nit, even 1000 external monitors are not so common. But it seems they actually robbed so many of us for 1200$ with their black magic that even not give best and more power hungry screen at the moment. And what rests than to use non-offensive paraphrase: surprised Blackmagic haven't considered superior common sense attempts from you, instead of my weird Alcatel-level one.

Pocket 4k is camera from 2018, when standard for comparing was, I guess Iphone 8. There's no reason to be so offensive. I'm not your enemy.

Or Canon DX III for 7000$ camera. Or Pocket 4k for 1200$ . Or next cinema beast Canon R5 for how much? Well...

I don't know - I have Alcatel from 2012 Apple promises a maximum brightness of 625 nits for the iPhone 11 and screen contrast ratio of 1400:1. We measured 644 nits of maximum brightness and combined with the not so dark blacks, the contrast ratio turned out 1500:1.

I quoted that :) https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_11-review-1993p3.php Nevertheless, it's not look so cheap solution - but, as we say here: from your mouth to God's ears Let it be!

As far as is written Apple promised that mighty iPhone 11 will have 625 nit screen. Actually, BM screen is around the same max nit value. Anything less than 1000 is unusable on sunny day. Also common sense type 2 may say that 5 inch screen on hinge doesn't allow enough comfortable (or not at all) usage of HDMI, audio, usb, power connectors - it obviously could be made, but for the price that some other type of usage must be severely sacrificed. Of course, having suggest potential arguments of common sense type 2, I'll also wish that screen has 1000 nit. But it seems to me that BM treat screen as not too important bonus addition. Iтt could really be matter of preferences - wouldn't it be actually better if there's not any screen, and instead of it just box as Z-cam: even without it, price is 800e different. They choose to put screen, as step toward casual and travel shooter, or shooting on tripod in interiors - they might choose also to cut screen for easier rigging and gimbal usage, but it might be solution for new addition to Micro-type line. At any case, if there are obvious logic argument for any side of proposed solution, I simply can't call any as lack of common sense.

It could be much more than 40$ - something about much more power needed for such monitor that make out of balance in total for all components. I escaped of buying 2200 nit monitor because of very high consuming power vs other of 1000 nit. It could change whole circuit concept started for cooling, distributing power for other tasks etc. At least we can see how great it might be 5 inch monitor, it seems that others still don't think at all about it in their bombastic announcing. And not strangely, first who may give us step further in that direction, is again from m43 camp, i. e. Sharp. I'm pretty sure that BM unique philosophy exactly is not to cripple anything - but, contrary, being in constant rush to be the first to give everything they at the moment have in operative disposal.

Thanks. Since I asked question, just to note that, of course, all that points I had in mind, calculating and testing - as much as I know everybody here know about UW and extremely fast lenses in m43 camp. To sum up practical usage, I'd say that all of points belong to easier/more pronounced way to get some special effects. I could also put 5 analogue points that, contrary, can m43 do with easier/more pronounced way to get some other special effects, regarding rolling shutter, easier manipulation of DOF vs ISO for focusing, special macro usage, distant shooting etc. - but I'd not to go far away from topic. My point was that m43 cameras/lenses combination are today totally capable to achieve identical result as FF cameras at the most demanding movie making tasks. I mean, without any any compromise. But for the 2-3x less money and less clumsy bagage, what is important for me in particular. I'm assuming that nobody here is in love with camera, including me. My sole interest is how to convey mine ideas in art form of movie without compromising them technically, concerning modern field standard - but for the less money. That's why I make accent to the price that seems maybe banal, but, luckily, today could be crucial to be disscussed. In that regard, for some of mine ideas for the project I desperately need proper parfocal zoom - and at the moment I can get both Dzofilm zooms of range 10-70 for less price (3100 dollars) than one Fujinon that even is not FF (neither Tokina's nor Sigma's)! If you need similar zoom at the field - and this is much more important and frequent demand than effects of bokeh used as, say, in Anderson's Master - you have to pay at least 12000euros/dollars That's I call logic argument for stance that, actually, m43 (mostly) or APS-C (less complete and more expensive in concerning offer) are formats where lies money to be spent (of course at user base that being target with dslr-form or similar video/cinema cameras, and that probably is best represented here in EOSHD) - and that's what, sadly, imho in their marketing projections understand just Blackmagic and Chinese companies, (I hope Panasonic also) probably Fuji, but, again, in lesser degree and ready potential at the moment.

If idea for GH6 is to exist (it seems so surely) at the moment it has to be already in phase of testing/resolving what final specs they want to incorporate in it or cripple from it. But, as I wrote, imho, all of the main Japanese companies lost their mind - I mean, proper market estimation/orientation. World is moving toward more democratization and more creative appetite from mass willing to be more distinguished from mobilephone users, where close-to-cinema-quality video-for-all is nearest future and the most potent market with money ready to be spent - but people nowhere are not becoming richer, just low middle class could be more numerous. Instead to approach closer to that market as Blackmagic and Chinese companies more recently try, biggest Japanese companies (Fuji is not so big) choose to compete toward niche-ization and higher profit margin per one camera. Panasonic already doesn't know what to do with unsold EVA1, selling of FF line is, as expected especially for first steps, disaster, they lost their pace with GH5s... which is so pity, as they didn't already found great formula with GH line. If all of them proceed to be so stubborn (covering loss with profit from other divisions those who have it), next we will again have topic with 1 million views and comments about new iteration of, say, BM Micro as best selling and best targeting model in spite of reliability issues, and endless talking about specs of others while truly buying them just by few. From my modest experience to the date, that include just range from all m43 cameras to C200 and Ursa 4.6k, I'm really curious to finally know and learn (honestly and seriously) what explicitly is comparative advantage of FF dlsr-form camera over m43 GH6 or Pocket type and cappability for video or movie making, at the current moment of their sensor sensitivity evolution, existing of plethora of brilliant low light lenses, and even cheap proper cinema parfocal zoom lenses? Maybe one percent cleaner image while all are trying to escape from oversharp images putting Pro Mist filters as relief? To spent 5-6000e or so for what as better, otherwise non-achievable result? What I'm missing?

Great, thanks! Do you maybe know what architecture use Kinefinity or Z-cam?

Probably shame on me, but I have to admit that I see m43 as quite enough and the most capable sensor for getting comparative advantages at the moment - for concerning user base Although, I could compare my own shooting experiences with just two proper cine-cameras: Canon C200 (marvelous) and Ursa 4.6k (great but clumsy) - sadly, never touched any ARRI or RED, but I'm expecting better days... But, if I understand well, first of all we yet don't know too much about EOS R5 (from experience dubious) implementations of specs (but I read that new DX3 write raw at 2500mb). Second, it'll be above 5-6000e without rigging, without professional audio solution, without ND, etc... so bare trophy to show other who (think) is the boss Third, at the moment of this all-guns blazing Billy the Kid seeing the market, (say) Kinefity Mavo's will be three years old or mature.

Oh, I don't think that Panasonic feels comfortable about selling of GH5s.

I am talking about successors of cameras that founded EOSHD as truly user-base of aspiring indie community who actually will buy it, not just blabbing and salivating about specs. Problem exactly and indeed is: they are more and more becoming as trophy items, not a really achievable tools for targeting market. I have no problem with it, but just look at results of your voting list about actually used camera here.

...that understanding is also sort of comparative inventiveness. But - writing to external USB disk? Inventing own property brilliant RAW codec? (Even Z-cam keep evolving it also.) Plethora of open protocols? Establishing another type of connecting to external monitor - as Z cam? Come on...

Imho nothing special but to put the price way way lower. They all share and could use pretty the same technology. With 5000-7000e price range of bodies and 2000+e for lens, regarding their logical targeting market - well represented here in EosHD - it seems to me that they all lost their mind or fall in self-obsessed narcissism, looking just to each other - who has the most pompous announce and spectacular advertising. And watch how Blackmagic and other more flexible and more inventive newcomers eat their market.

It would be so nice if they could make some joint venture or so deal with Blackmagic. At least they share for the moment some influential ambassadors. It seems as that, for some reason, they are not allowed to put at least one 10bit (24p) recording option. Having IBIS that now reach gimbal level but with more natural movement, being best waterproof in a whole with lenses (plus not so extremely expensive underwater adds) , Olympus could be very special and unique tool for indie's just with base 10bit solution.