Mokara

How so? What will probably happen I think is that there will be a new generation of processor for the a7SIII which will place it on the cutting edge as far as video is concerned. Then, some time later, the same processor will be introduced into the mainstream a7 series, which will be the a7IV. They certainly will not want to introduce the next generation video capabilities on the a7IV before the a7SIII since it would make the later somewhat irrelevant if they did. The a7SIII will come first I think. Of course it is always possible that an a7IV might come first, but if it does it would be pretty similar to the a7III, and that seems somewhat pointless to me unless the a7SIII is delayed even further than what we expect. They had better be using a more modern processor in the P950, the P1000 video is held back by the old processor in it (they appear to use older parts in their Coolpix line, unlike the other manufacturers will comparable products). I wish they had used the Expeed 6 in the P1000, rather than the old Expeed 4A they actually used. Why would you use a 5 year old processor in your latest products? The mind boggles. Are things really that tight at Nikon?

20 mpixel raw is more like 35-40 MB, assuming 16 bits of data per pixel. The camera will be writing to the card while filling the buffer, but at some point the buffer will fill and frame rate will drop like a stone. That apparently happens at around 1000 frames. You don't need to have a full 1000 frames worth of RAM available. Some lesser amount will be enough since data is being sent off to the card while the camera is still collecting data. The cards may be able to sustain those write speeds, it does NOT mean that the camera can actually deliver data at that rate. The way it works is that raw data is written into the buffer as a data stream, it then undergoes some processing and rearrangement into a form that can be saved, after which it is written to the card. The bottleneck is usually that middle step, so even though you might have a superfast card, you are still limited by the processing power of the camera and the physical size of it's buffer.

The specs say the buffer is 1000 frames. That is a lot, but not unlimited. That corresponds to ~50 seconds at 20 fps, which is more than you will ever need shooting stills. After that you will be limited by whatever the file write rate is. To have unlimited raw stills at 20 fps you would need a card write speed of ~ 800 MB/s, and somehow I rather doubt that the camera is capable of doing that.

That is probably because a a7IV is on the way, likely mid 2020. I expect it will show up a few months after the a7SIII.

Probably because the amount of data the camera has to handle is too large. They don't do these things for no reason, it is usually because of limitations in the hardware. Well, with stills the raw data is going into the buffer, so it does not impose a resource drain on DPAF. When the buffer is full the fps will drop by a lot. With video there is a constant requirement for compression (there is a 1:2 compression ratio for RAW as per Androidlad's specs), so there will be a difference.

Since they want it to be a flagship camera there is no point in releasing a half assed upgrade just because. The S models do not sell in large quantities, never have, so an upgrade has to be significant compared to the competition if it is to sell at all. The basic problem Sony have is that in order to get that big competitive upgrade they are going to need a new processor, or at least some way of wringing more performance out of their existing processors. Until they have that solution in place they are probably not going to upgrade the camera. In a way it is similar to the basic problem Canon had with their cameras for the longest while, where the video encoders in their Digic processors were not competitive enough, resulting in them not being able to provide video performance comparable to companies like Panasonic and Sony for many years. Which of course caused the mistaken belief in consumers eyes that they were deliberately "crippling" their cameras. Nothing could be further from the truth - no company makes inferior products compared to their competitors versions in a particular market space on purpose - there is always a reason, be it inadequate technology or to implement cost savings.

The 48 mpx sensors are older and consequently probably perform less well. Resolution is always important. You can make an image softer in post if that is what you want, but you can't recover resolution that has been dumped due to the sensor design. The "sharpness" setting in cameras is simply a debeyering parameter. With 4 separate inputs per pixel you potentially can calculate the true color of a pixel more accurately after debeyering than what would otherwise be possible, hence less color error at edges (in other words, less halo effect), which in turn would increase the color resolution of the sensor. You would not need to turn down sharpening in camera as much to avoid color artifacts at edges, basically a better raw image to work with than conventional sensors.

48 mpx will require a lot of processing, which will translate into heat, which will translate into no 4K120. The sensor he listed has a quad beyer structure, which means that pixels are arranged in groups of 4 same color filters, unlike the conventional beyer filter. So, even though it is a 60 mpx sensor, it acts like a 15 mpx sensor because of how the filter structure is arranged. No, it has groups of 4 pixels that behave like 1 pixel when it comes to gathering light. Debeyering would not work with that system, unless it treated the sensor as a 15 mpx sensor. So your stills would be 15 mpx resolution. It is basically a modified a7R4 sensor with a different beyer filter arrangement so that it acts like a 15 mpx sensor. The sensor readout would be pixel binned (which you can do without problems because the binned pixels are all the same color) and then processed as a 15 mpx image using normal deyeyering. Because it is based off the existing sensor (just with a different filter) it comes out as 15 mpx rather than something else like 12 mpx (which would require the design of a completely new sensor, increasing cost)

Unless it is a connection that is nearing the end of it's working life (which is probably what is happening in your case, hence why it works in some devices and not others), the problem is software related. And if it software related it is absolutely the fault of the OS.

The simple solution is to not use Apple products ;)

That is kind of not really the point. The advice to buy the cheapest SSD no matter what is the problem, not the T5 itself, because they are NOT all the same. If you used an adapter and plugged a QVO in, you might end up with an unexpected issue down the road. If people are not aware that there IS a difference between various SSDs, they may be in for a nasty surprise at some point depending on how they use it. Things like the T5 are intended as portable external storage for laptops and similar systems, not cameras. It is just a matter of time before Samsung moves over the cheaper QVO setup in those devices when subsequent models come out. They will do it because it will allow larger capacities at a lower price, and it would not significantly impact performance in the applications the device is intended for. But hey, if providing warning of the very real limitations of some SSDs is something that should be denigrated and suppressed, more power to you. It is enough to make your Ninja crap out when shooting 4K, what do you think those devices use for storage?

OT, your history is incorrect. The American war of independence was a just one front of a broader global conflict between Britain and France. The battle of Yorktown was the deciding battle, but it was actually won by the French, not the Americans. Half the troops there were French regulars and it was the French naval blockade that was the decisive factor in the battle. If it was not for France, America would still be part of Britain. There is absolutely no way the US would have won without the very significant help the French provided.

There is no invention involved. You need to be careful, not all SSDs are suitable, it depends on what technology is used in any particular model, especially more recent low cost high capacity drives which are intended for PC use. They are intended to replace hard drives in computers, but they come with a compromise. Just because they have a nominal write speed of ~500 MB/s does not mean they can maintain that for long periods of time. And if recording time is an issue for you, then drives like the Samsung QVO models are not suitable. They will be fine if you record under the cut-off time, but their write speeds drop like a rock when they go past that.

SSDs come with different technologies. Some of those cheap ones will throttle with sustained writes and are NOT suitable for recording video, even if they are fine for general PC use. There is a comparison between Samsung EVO and QVO drives here: https://www.pcgamesn.com/samsung-860-qvo-review-benchmarks-qlc-ssd Basically after about 6 minutes of continuous writing, the QVO drops from 520 MB/s to 80 MB/s, which obviously is not going to be good if you are recording high bandwidth video feeds.

Maybe you are the one like your ex GF. Believing that Canon would remove a function from a base consumer model so that people would buy high end extremely expensive professional models instead is ridiculous. Yet that is the theory being pushed as the most likely explanation, instead of the more obvious one of cost cutting on a low margin product. But hey, if common sense is not your thing, more power to you. No doubt your ex found that just as frustrating as I do.

Why would anyone here care about costumer support? Lol

What it does is greatly reduce debeyering artifacts, specifically when it comes to small objects, such as leaves. And that DOES make a difference. Not in talking head scenes (which involve large objects where resolution is not an issue), but in anything involving natural history or travel type content where the scenery itself is the object of attention. Even on a 65" 4K screen, 4K is pretty clearly insufficient for a panel that size when it comes to that sort of scene.

I think this deal refers to their manufacturing capability, they will probably still be designing chips.

I disagree with that. I have a 65" screen, that replaced a 40" panel. One thing that was immediately apparent was that at the same viewing distance the larger screen filled the field of view to a greater extent, creating a more immersive experience. It made a real difference in the whole viewing experience IMO. Going from HD to 4K meant that pixel resolution was about the same, so there was no falloff in overall IQ as a result of the larger field of view. In fact I would like an even bigger screen than the 65" one. But that would need resolution to be 6K or 8K to maintain overall IQ. So, until the cost of those panels comes down I will stay with what I have now. An 85" 8K screen would be nice though, just prices today are out of the question, lol.

The problem with VR is not just the resolution of the entire view, it is the resolution of the viewing device itself that needs to be higher. The problem is the screen is right in front of your eyes, so even 8K is not good enough for that (although a lot better than 4K of course). Until we get those ultra high resolutions VR is not really going to be a thing, the displays we have now simply are nowhere near good enough. And of course, you are going to need the cameras to match that, and that is not going to be realistic in the foreseeable future. Not for Harry and Sally, but it definitely makes a difference for natural history or travel style content. Presenting a story line is completely different from creating the impression that the viewer is actually physically there. Different types of content has different emphasis. Not cinema, but that is not the sort of content it is meant for. I think it would be extremely difficult to shoot cinema in VR format anyway. The application of VR is best suited for content where you want the viewer to feel like they are physically there. If you are making a nature documentary or a travel piece, then VR is potentially very powerful, provided you have the hardware that can handle it. However, we are still in the infancy of genre, sort of like being back in the silent film era in terms of sophistication. There is still a long way to go. I have played around with the headsets, also some basic VR cameras as well. The potential is obvious once you have used those things, they are clearly game changers for many types of content. The big problem of course is that the technology we have today is nowhere close to what it needs to be to provide the sort of quality that is needed to become mainstream. That is a long way down the road still unfortunately.

Again, he is missing the point of things like 8K. It is not the large objects that benefit, it is the small objects and the overall immersiveness that results from it. Being able to see individual pixels has nothing to do with it, it is the ability of the available pixels to define small objects discretely and realistically on the screen that is important. For example, when shooting video with a typical camera you will get inaccurate color at edges due to debeyering. This results in the dreaded halos everyone refers to as sharpening. The way to avoid that is higher resolution displays (and cameras). Alternatively you could sacrifice resolution in the name of color fidelity (what we do when turning the "sharpening" parameter on cameras all the way down), but then your fine detail becomes blobs. That is why 8k is important. It is not the ability to discern individual pixels, it is the ability to accurately present small objects (which are much larger than individual pixels, and you most certainly CAN see them). You want a screen to covers a substantial portion of your field of view for an immersive experience, and for that you need high resolution, otherwise fine detail mushes up.

Lol....the reason he has very little black support is not because he is racist, it is because he is gay. The black community may be generally supportive of many liberal policies, but LGBT tolerance is not one of them. They are conservative when it comes to that. Sanders has not been accurately diagnosing the problems in America, he has an unrealistic view of what they are and how to solve them. The policies he proposes have zero chance of getting through congress, he knows this, yet he pushes them as his platform anyway because that is what his supporters want to hear, instead of solutions that might actually work. He is great on the sweeping gestures, but short on exactly how they will be accomplished. People like McConnell and Pelosi get to where they are not because of some secret wisdom, but because of a combination of patronage, the seniority system and bullying. Congress is set up that way, and that is the basic problem. The backbone of their support are a bunch of people not much younger than them, and they hold power that way. Their ideas have nothing to do with it, it is all about entrenched stagnation and not rocking their particular boat. There are plenty of younger folks with newer, fresher and more relevant ideas in both parties, but they are shut out because of how the system in congress is run.

He did not rape her. She just thought he was going to. Nobody gets convicted for rape because someone thought they might do it. They actually have to do it. What he allegedly did was common assault. From the description it was obvious that they were engaged in the sort of inappropriate horseplay that drunken people do. No matter how upsetting that is to the victim, that is what it was. If they really wanted to sexually assault her they would have done a lot more than that. The same number of people who support Sanders now supported him then. The only reason he was reasonably successful last time around is that the activists who support him dominate in a caucus system (same thing holds true in the Republican contests btw, just in the other direction). In states that had primaries Clinton was usually far ahead of him in support. The only state in 2016 that had both a caucus and a primary was Washington, so we can use that as a gauge of the disparity between a caucus contest and a primary contest. Sanders got 73% in the caucus and "won" the state. However, the state by law holds a primary as well, and when that was held, Clinton got 53% of the vote. The same sort of disparity was likely true in most other caucus states, meaning that the system was heavily rigged in favor of Sanders. His real support was such that he should never have come that close to the nomination. He was held in contention purely by the caucus states, he would have been thrashed if there had been primary votes in every state. The same thing is true now. People like Sanders get the left wing activist vote because of the demagoguery he indulges in, but the real support in total voters in an open poll is a lot less. In a general election he might beat someone like Trump, but it is NOT because people support him, it is because people see him as the lesser of two evils.

There is nothing to indicate that Buttigieg is racist, other than you not liking him. Sanders has been saying the same thing for years, so what? It still pushes the right buttons with a certain demographic just like Trump does with his certain demographic. To follow people like that you have to abandon objectivity and pragmatism, and instead follow a cult of personality. No other view is acceptable, only theirs. You start losing brain function at around 40, there is a steady decline after that. When you get into your 70s that loss is significant, which is why most people that old are not nearly as sharp as they should be. In 70s you begin to see real problems with the onset of conditions such as dementia and the affects of other degenerative diseases. Intellectually people are in their prime in their 40s and 50s, that is when most great work is done. Very few people peak in their 60s and no one when they are older than that.

Obstruction, RICO offences (those are very broad), offences relating to security, election law violations, corruption, etc. There are a lot of things he could get charged with if a prosecutor puts their mind to it. Even though the alleged victim does not claim that he raped her, only that she thought he was going to? WoW!!