GiM_6x

@ Shell64 A codec is a set of rules, I do not think you can have high-quality or low-quality codec licenses. Once you have to apply these rules (which are mathematical calculs), it should be irrelevant if 720p or 8k, if 12fps or 240fps... Finally, you have it or not.

Yes, POLITICS. . . marketing. . . But technically. . . There is a HUGE quality difference between what the sensor record and what you monitor on the LCD / Viewfinder camera's screen. So huge, that you did not need much processing power "locally" (on the camera) just to view what the sensor (camera) is doing. I am "hardware" (PCs) and I can cram in less than a 1/2 (of a small) camera's battery size a "storage module" which can record at 24+ GB/s, meaning that you can record the direct output of each pixel (cell) from a large sensor to high FPS, and into a big size of few GB (I can cram easily 8GB as now commercially available). The SoC of the older Samsung NX1 had 2 PCIe bus channels not used (2x or 4x), and they could write - year 2014 - at least 5-6 GB/s, or even double in RAID 0. And you can have "pure" sensor output, 12-14-16 bits, at sensor pixels (cells), or down-sampled (aka some processing) to a "normal video" format (2k-8k. . .). SO, if you DO NOT WANT any of the "HDMI Clean output" or the "8-10 bits JPG or x264 / x265" inside camera, you can have easy INTERNAL RAW at its most basic level, with no any "fancy" processing, except a little for your camera's display. Any PC's software will do a post-processing of this RAW data to acheive what you want: that color science now included in camera's BIOS (so maibe each manufacture will do a "conversion" soft) and a video file type for any NLE software. It is true that some want only JPG / MP4 (sure, local processing, slower), some want only RAW, but some want both, now this is the easy way to choose what you want. When I went for stills RAWs instead of JPG - meaning post-processing - I lost interest for JPG. With this processing choice in mind, I prefer RAW for video too, so no x264/x265 or what-ever else codec. Sure Samsung could make a MOD from NX1 - theoretically, but financial (I'm retiring this year) I cannot "push" it. Just my 2 pennies.

That's for real big movie makers. Starting ar around 10-12 k$, but if you "upgraded" to full specs, over 50 k$ on it. https://apple.slashdot.org/story/19/06/04/1332234/apples-top-spec-mac-pro-and-pro-display-will-cost-at-least-50000

This is very bad. 15 years ago I obtain from a US educational entity, a presentation about intelligence of China people vs US people. On short, due to its immense population, China had / has more intellectual genies than all US population. This new "type" of Chinese wall now built by the United States (Trump administration) is creating an immense economic war that will have its short-term consequences. Chinese were already building one for the internet, so the "data exchange" is already affected, starting from personal level (also very important) all the way up. But since Chinese labor is cheaper, this is also part of the intellectual forces, and I suppose the United States may not accept that millions of Chinese can come to US "to realize themselves" (for the same "security" reasons). So in the long run (5+ years), China may come out more successful and will dominate the IP of the whole world... Am I missing something ???

The TYPE 2230 is smaller than SD card. How about 1630 ? Sure, bigger capacity, bigger size, but you will have both spped and capacity for a video RAW, a TRUE VIDEO RAW, not a "rawish" "codec RAW".

You are so RIGHT. That is why I do not understand why manufacturers do not access "industrial standards" and keep creating more or less toys regarding the "memory media". The M.2 "memory card" is an SSD in a container who is smaller than the SD (and expanable up to 3 times longer). How about an RAID, this can rise to over 30GB/s with 4 "memory modules" of M.2, and this is already enough.

RAW is not about compressed or not compressed. RAW is about not losing the "original" or "initial" quality, and once restored from container or compression, you have exactly, BIT by BIT, the same information. If you apply the same "RAW" procedure ten times, at the end you will find exact the same info. If it is a codec with quality loss, after ten instances you have a degraded info. If you use RAW, it means no quality loss. And "true" RAW can be and it is compressed, more or less. Then there are some codecs with the name "RAW" with quality loss. They should be named "rawish", or "rawishly" or what ever, since losing quality is no more RAW.

With the "marketing" promotions - what we are dealing with right now - we start to lose words meaning. If you accept this "kind of RAW" as a loss way to record video, it is up to you. Will you accept me saying you are a FAT GUY since you have more than 5 lbs? What ? This is MY WAY to say you are beatifull ! Who am I ? I am the best marketing guy in the galaxy, you have to believe me that you are FAT! No one else can contradict me, right ??? !!! Andrew, I appologize for this OFF-TOPIC... Mea culpa! But we need to respect the words for what they means - if we want to understand each-other!

Compressed it is OK, almost evrything is compressed these days. Quality LOSS - aka you cannot recover the original info after de-compression - this is something else (a kind of jpeg!). And it is up to you to accept an "quality loss RAW", which by itself is a contradiction. Myself I accept a "regular" codec with quality loss. This is what I can aquire with my faboulous income (working in IT hardware, photo/video being a hobby). I will NEVER accept a so-called RAW if you lose quality, call it anything but RAW and I may embrace it gladly.

We have 2 (= TWO) types of RAW. One is as "technically" meaning, full info with minimum processing, as in photo / still RAWs. Other one is "commercial" or "marketing" way to name a codec !!! Maybe a better codec, as "ProRes RAW" can be vs. "ProRes ONLY", but still with quality loss compression (see white papers for ProRes RAW). Which, being compression with quality loss, it is no (technically) RAW anymore, it is just the name. I will accept any so called "RAW" as a real RAW only if by compression there is no loss of original stream and by de-compression you recover the original info 100%. If a loss compression, it is not a real RAW, it is just a codec with the name "RAW". There are "M.2" memory cards (SSD), smaller or bigger than an SD card, with over 20 times the write speed, exactly what you find in a computer, or external recorder (as Atomos - but packed in a "SATA" container and not "M.2" container). They were available more than six years ago when I had one in my PC. Just think, if a manufacturer want QUALITY in recording, be it a photo image or a video, the best solution was / still is, to use a speedier recording media. Forget SD "next generation", or other similar "memory cards", this one do EXIST from many years ago !!! We have photo-cameras with continuous 3-5-7 fps RAW recording unlimited time, 20-30-40-50 Mpixels !!!. With an M.2 card, 20 times quicker, it become 60-100-140 fps RAW unlimited, or maybe to say it right, a real video RAW could be already available. Lets split in 4 to jump from 4K to 8K, it becomes 8K: 15 fps (Fuji be there !!! ), 25 fps !!! end even 35 fps or more in 8K. THIS is VIDEO RAW ! Q.E.D. Let see who will be the first, and how. ATOMOS have it (SSD) inside, but really missing the lane speed. If paired with Z who give it by HDMI (what speed ???), and will record it avoiding the "ProRes RAW" loss compression codec, it might be. I did not count each device, interface maximal performance to be SURE it might happens, but as an ideea it looks doable. Lets hope!

I have the NX1, so I know that some real time encoding exist and with good results (even from 2014!). I follows the news (I am kind of a "rat-pack" for science-technic news) and recently Dell 7730 with the P5200 is able to do real-time processing 4k, any kind !!! Fully configured, last spring and without P5200 (not available that time) was in 8-10 thousand dollars (and yes, WITH a Xeon processor!). (I worked to an engineering-consulting company and with Dell desktops, Xeon 4 cores @ 3.6GHz, were able to real encode some marketing files from digital models. FHD, not 4k...) https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/5932-the-dell-precision-7730-could-be-the-fastest-performing-mobile-workstation-available-today P5200 is also 10 bit video card, some HDR available if a proper monitor (laptop's display is only 8 bits, external one needed). At 100% is the real-time processing, so with this video card problem solved. Other competitors, Apple and HP are very close by with theirs computers. I just wait to win a lotery (I play two) so I can buy one, since to process my NX1 4k h265 files is really a pain, minutes encoding for seconds video (well, on an old 2012 laptop: i7x2.8GHz, SSD, nVidia...).

I am surprise this encoding topic do not have its own thread. What I can say, is not that someone have computed how much you can (or want to) compress in 100MBps or 240MBps, but how much processor power it will need for real time, be it 4k30p12b444, 8k or else. Just encoding 4k24p10b422 on Atomos external recorder get it hot with a "light" encoder as ProRes. Think that with a h265 it will be hotter, at lest the processor, also at this bitrate the quality should be exquisite. For a "light" encoder (or maybe RAW) the problem is to be able to write that info somewhere, as direct to an SSD, so a better encoder is a solution. While I welcome a such encoder, it will take time to have it in prosumer area. Being in hardware IT, a computer powerfull to do it real-time will cost few thousands... just itself, and it is many times bigger than a camera. Reduce it to a photo camera size and will cost much-much more, if available soon. How many can edit "real-time" an 4k stream on his/her computer (no proxy) ? How long it take to have a POST rendered on a 4k video ? Do not forget that sensors get bigger (definition) and quicker, but only few "pro equipment" (I cannot say "camera") are able to record 1080p at high speed as 1000fps or more, and usually for very short time sequences as seconds... We looks like kids wondering some technical miracles, and yes, they will become common in... a... while...

Hi Andrew, this rumor and details should be presented in perspective. I means, the NX1's sensor was able of 4k 240fps, IN LAB SETUP, and in year 2014 or even before. By LAB SETUP, it means you cannot have it in a "camera size", even thinking to a large format camera. BUT, NX1 itself was able only 30fps. What was missing? A very powerful processor. This is valid today for any pro-consumer camera, how many are able to do it, aka 4k 240fps? Can you hold it on your nose or on your shoulders? This new 8k sensor (7680x4320) with 71.93fps, does not have an 4k (3840x2160) output yet in the leaked specs but it could be 4 times quicker, so 4k @ 280 fps, well 16% quicker than the one in NX1. I can't have a smooth playback on 4k on a "normal" laptop (i7, 16GB RAM, 250GB SSD, nVidia discreet graphics) just few years old, I have to have the playback direct from NX1 on HDMI :-( . . . 8k, let me. . . hope. . . maybe in 10 years will it be in a "convenient" package not pulled in a trailer.

I reply to my own reply. . . two steps above. I did find physical contrast filter for cameras, from a company which give no details (explications!) and show only 100% transparent (?), but in specifications were details as for an ND filter with up to x5. All other contrast filters were in software. It is true that an ND filter in certain conditions will increase contrast, but only in certain conditions and not generally! Some other layers as UV / IR / bit yellow / bit red / CPL could hepl. So, I presume is not a filter to use very often and probable usefull only when a lot of light available. Anyway, I will remember this trick, but most probable will use software to cheat the nature and have more vivid images!

Theoretical it should not change, the optical formula is afocal (as for every lens...). But as with any lens, it will have an maximal angle to accept, and if the original lens exceed it (as for close-up focus or for a zoom to wide range), the image will be affected and somehow "limited" on the strech side which will diminish. So, it depend, if a very good adapter for that lens - no changes, else if it is somehow at limit between the lens' angle and what adapter can acomodate - might afect limiting the final image who is streched.