KnightsFan

Yes, it would have handicapped H264 since it's double compressed, so if H264 introduced the massive losses you say, then it would be even more apparent than if both had started from a clean source. The attitude that H264 is seen as a delivery standard and is therefore not for capture is what annoys me. It reminds me of people who think that a PL mount automatically makes a lens produce professional images. Definitely once you go to ProRes HQ there is nothing at that bitrate for H264. But to get back to the topic, I think we agree that, with the right encoder, H264 is identical to ProRes. So doesn't it make more sense to wish for better encoding in cameras than for a bulky accessory that you have to buy separately, mount, power, and connect up? My entire point is that wishing for a small, external recorder is wishing for a workaround to a problem instead of wishing for the direct solution... I mean if you're talking about products that don't exist, just wish that Panasonic licenses ProRes in the GH6.

So you're saying you'd rather test an individual camera's encoder rather than the codec itself? In which case, like I said, I'd rather buy a camera that shoots the way I want internally rather than bolt an external recorder onto it.

That's why I specified All-I at the same bitrate.

I'll shoot some ProRes HQ, convert to H264 with equivalent specs, and post them as a blind test. Does that seem like a good comparison?

No, I'm not interested in cameras that can't shoot the format I want internally. You won't find measurable differences in quality or usability between ProRes and H264 All-I at the same bitrate, so there are plenty of smaller, cheaper cameras that hit your criteria for a decent codec internally.

It is a puzzling decision, particularly since Red has an interchangeable mount with an existing user base. Changing standards typically hurts consumers who have to buy a whole ecosystem. That said, the low price on the Raptor compared to DSMC2 suggests that it's less about milking consumers, and likely has something to do with licensing deals or whatnot with Canon.

There's a picture on the Newsshooter article Well, can't say it's in my budget range, but it's a nice look into where sensor tech is going. 8k120 means they're reading all ~36mp in just 8ms--is this a glimpse at the end of jello cam? RF is an interesting mount choice for an A-cam in cinema. I'm not opposed per se. I think we should move away from massive, heavy, manual-only lenses, but in order to be an effective replacement it's necessary to have features to leverage lens' builtin AF motors. It should be like having a builtin wireless FF motor inside each lens, with all the features you'd expect from a pro FF kit.

Before getting too far talking about ergonomics, I find that most cameras in the price range have fantastic image quality, so to me that isn't a major consideration. No doubt the images from this camera are phenomenal. I shoot almost exclusively narrative, typically with a crew of 1-4 people. The big issue for me is that this is a 5 lb camera that is 8" long. It wouldn't hamper every shoot, but I've been in situations where that camera wouldn't fit, or would have been wearying to carry for an entire day. I did a comparison between an NX1 and a C100 on a few shoots, and found that for every scenario, the NX1 was simply easier to use, and the C100 is only 3 lbs. All that is to say that an Ursa Mini is not my ideal camera shape. I can't comment much on low light not having used it, but on some night shoots I'll be pushing my ISO way up even at f1.4. So anything with a fixed 1600 (which is really 800 pushed a stop digitally) would be lacking in some situations. I do think that I would rather get a P6K than an Ursa Mini 4.6k even for its new price of $2k. But that's just my opinion as someone who hasn't used either one, would be nice if some owners chimed in as well.

Seems like most people don't visit the sub forums, you might get more responses in the main forum. Without having used either camera, and assuming you're sure it doesn't have anything wrong with it at that price, here's my two cents. It would all come down to how controlled a setting you typically shoot in, and how big your crew is. That's a large camera, meaning support equipment also needs to be sturdier--tripod, gimbal, crane, car mounts, etc. It'll go through more batteries and storage. If in a studio, it may not be a problem, but on a 10 hour location shoot that's a lot of extra stuff to bring, compared to a BMMCC. Those 4.6k sensors aren't known for being great in low light, so you'll also perhaps need more/bigger lights. So if it already matches your production style, than that's a great deal to jump on. However, if you're one-man-banding it on location, consider how it might affect your workflow.

The rolling shutter halved when CineD switched from 12k to 8k. My guess is they are using a lower bit depth readout for sub-12k, which allows them to get higher frame rates in those lower resolutions.

I'll be "that guy" and point out CD's DR comparison actually shows the 12k slightly ahead of the 4.6k. In Braw, they measured 12.1 stops on the 4.6k G2 scaled to UHD. Downscaling the 12k to 4k gave a SNR to 12.4 stops, with a note that there is more data under the noise floor than the 4.6k has. I'd argue that the 4k-normalized number is better for comparison, because if you're looking to maximize SNR in 12k than obviously the 4.6k won't even compare. Worth noting though, they showed that the 12k only does that well shooting in 12k and downscaling in post. Shooting 4k in camera produced only 11.3 stops.

@newfoundmass USB audio is an existing standard which, if implemented in cameras, would let people use USB mics, but more importantly they could use mixers and completely bypass camera preamps and ADCs. And it would open up to a whole range of audio devices, like MixPre's, Zooms, or even desktop mixers from Behringer, Tascam, FocusRite, etc. That would streamline a lot of types of shoots.

An open standard already exists for USB audio interfaces.

My ideal solution would be if cameras could accept USB audio interfaces, then using a MixPre or Zoom F4 and pipe the audio in digitally from there. I think this Tascam unit is an important first step, as to my knowledge it's the first third-party digital audio connection to a consumer camera. Edit: I'm fairly sure the Octopus Cinema Camera supports a USB audio interface, but I'm not confident that camera will ever materialize into an actual product unfortunately

That would be nice, but I assume if they had 32 bit float it would have been prominently mentioned in the announcement.

That's amazing! We'll have to see if Fuji and/or Canon are willing to open their digital interface to other audio manufacturers in addition to Tascam. The prospect of using something like the Deity BP-TRX set with direct digital input from the receiver into the camera could eliminate the need for an external recorder for me--particularly now that Deity has licensed backup recording on the transmitter.

Assuming sharpness is the main property you're looking at, The simple/theoretically-correct-but-not-really answer is, look up the MTF chart for your lens, and you'll see how many line pairs per mm your lens resolves at any given distance from its center. Multiply lp/mm by the size of the sensor in mm, and you know how many line pairs your lens is resolving for the entire image. Example: if the lens resolves 100 lp/mm, then the FF lens resolves 3600 line pairs across its width, and the MFT lens resolves 1800 line pairs over its width. Even with this simplified view, it depends on the MTF curve of a specific lens, which also depends on the aperture you're shooting at. The complex answer is that the MTF chart doesn't show the whole picture. It's a 1D representation, but lenses project 2D image. And it might be different at different focus distances. And it varies from lens copy to lens copy. LensRentals' Roger Cicala has a number of great articles about this topic. So really the best way to answer is to take the lens in question and run some tests with the cameras and lens in question.

Without revenue, there will be no reviewers who test enough different models to have a meaningful opinion. The best, most unbiased reviewer in the world can't provide a meaningful opinion on the Z6 vs. S5 unless they've tested both. Professional reviewers are invaluable due to their experience with many different models. I understand the dislike for people who spend more time reviewing than using gear (see the Gerald Undone topic), but there isn't enough time in a day to both review every camera and lens released, and also have a career as a videographer. No one should listen to only one source before buying. I'd always recommend both general comparisons by pro reviewers who have an overview of everything out there, and specific reviews from pros or enthusiasts who have used a given model regularly for real work but have only owned a half dozen cameras. I'm not defending all of the practices of paid reviewers/shills/influencers. I'm just saying that reviewers who have actually used every camera out there are very useful, and that no one will be able to do that without it being a near-full time job with a revenue model.

My first thought when reading the announcement was, "if Fuji didn't exist this would be right up there with the (terrible) APS-C offerings from Sony and even Canon." I think if it were cheaper it would sort of make sense, but $1k is way too high when the XT-3 is not much more. Same with the Z6, but compared with the S1 and S5. And the problem with a direct Z50 clone but in fashionable colors is that it doesn't appeal to anyone with price or quality, who wasn't already interested in the Z50. A higher or lower quality/price bracket would have been more exciting. But you're right, maybe the weekend photographer crowd who doesn't shoot video will buy it up. I hope it works out for Nikon, I'd love to see a serious, higher spec camera from them either in APS-C or FF, and if this is the way to get funds, then good for them. Overall though I am not optimistic about this or Nikon's other releases.

It is funny to watch channels reviewing gear, when their main use case is making the review videos. I think Linus Tech Tips is the best example, where they have entire videos about building workstations to edit their videos about building workstations. Credit where it's due, it's not a bad business model, and in Linus' case they're open and honest about it. Actually I'd say the same about Gerald, who has said in a few videos that his primary use for his gear is sit-down corporate interviews. He's said in a couple places that he's not a "cinematographer" or a "vlogger." I think the guy does a good job presenting information. If I want basic information about a camera or mic he's reviewed, I usually watch his video. I wouldn't try to get any artistic ideas from his videos. I think that's where you should position yourself with your channel, Andrew. I've always liked/agreed with your opinions on color. I think you're at your best when talking about artistic use cases and reviewing gear from that perspective. We don't need you to compete with tech gear reviewers, just talk about what you're good at.

Nice work. Crazy that there are companies charging money for editing software without proper color management. Glad you've got a solution available.

"We don't need no thought control" -Facebook, unironically Lol, I saw this story earlier. Roger Waters may be a prick himself, but he's our prick and we love him for it. I really want to see this proposed instagram ad now. Do you think they'd have a little choir of wannabe Instagram models singing "We don't need no education" or would they go with the bigger picture album theme of how (Instagram) fame drives people crazy/turns them into fascists? Actually I hope they were going to use the verses. Whichever marketing genius was going to make an ad out of "certain teachers who would hurt the children any way they could" or that their "fat, psychopathic wives would thrash them within inches of their lives" certainly has my respect.

Yes, Canon makes the 4 million iso ME20F-SH, for just $20,000. The other options I can think of are: A7S3 - probably best option Sigma fp - smaller and lighter Other FF cameras (S1, Z6, A73--all seem about on the level of the A7S2 from what I've seen). Z Cam E2-F6 - no screen or EVF, but heavier Ximea and other machine vision companies make camera modules that might be closer to what you want, but I don't know how their low light is and they are likely pricier since more specialized. Many of them are available in monochrome which increases sensitivity. Another option might be to get some faster lenses and/or noise reduction software? Low light consumer cameras use very good (and very aggressive) noise reduction to get their results, which you might be able to achieve in post with quality software and whichever camera you choose.

ZRaw is an example why not to make a new Raw format. No support in Resolve, requires a plugin to work in Premiere. Now if Panasonic added Braw that would be amazing!

To offer the counter argument, I always shoot H.265. With a Ryzen 3600 and GTX 1080, I edit 4k 10 bit H.265 for every project and only get dropped frames on Fusion composites--which incidentally drop frames on ProRes as well! Fusion's integration into Resolve is still wildly inefficient. In side by side comparisons on my camera, H.265 outperforms ProRes HQ, at <1/7th the data rate. Side note, I was talking to someone on a shoot where they estimated 24 TB of footage (Redcode). That's going to cost them $650 in hard drives for one copy, $1300 to have a backup. If I were shooting it, I'd shoot 100 mbps H.265 and needed $300 of drives. For that extra $1000, I could get top of the line graphics card--okay, maybe not during the great GPU shortage--to cut through the footage easier... and if necessary I'd use proxies. I've saved $5k+ of hard drives in the last four years by shooting H.265 instead of ProRes, and come out with better quality as well. That said, the Braw files that I have worked with also had a fantastic quality/size ratio, so I would certainly consider Braw above any flavor of ProRes.