KnightsFan

I just downloaded the H264 version. I haven't had time put it on my 4k TV, but what I find amazing is that the fine grain is noticeably softer on the 2k intermediate version compared to the 4k and 8k, even visible on my 1080p monitor. In your final side by side comparison, the fine grain on the table in the foreground is GONE by 2.5k! A minor point though is that 70 mbps isn't really enough to show extremely fine detail. If the bitrate isn't high enough to contain all the data, the high frequency detail gets smudged first. That's not even as high a data rate as Sony's famously weak 4k codecs! And ProRes LT will almost certainly have worse spatial resolution at these rates. None of that is to disagree with your overall point. Past 1080p I really see diminishing returns on the story impact, though I do see technical differences even on a normal viewing such as this.

I like being able to hide the screen. I use the viewfinder 90% of the time when taking photos. It's nice to be able to protect the LCD from scratches, and from sweat when you press your face against the camera. The little LCD showing the "film type" is really cute, and seems to have the unique function of showing an easily recognizable icon for the picture profile you're using. Brilliant.

Otto mentions this in his post. It is very curious. If anyone has a hacked NX500, it would be fun to investigate further.

Thats a good idea. What strengths do you see in the E2 over the F6? Rolling shutter will probably be better, better high frame rate options, and of course it is smaller and lighter. Maybe better battery life as well. Do you have any idea how timecode will work on the flagships? A long time ago, either Jason or Kinson implied there would be an adapter from the camera to allow a further stacking of their existing COM-BNC timecode accessory on top of that, but i hope that there is a simpler way.

I'm jealous! At this point I'm just hoping some second hand E2's go on sale as people get their flagship models.

Yes, but in my opinion (and that of many people) "having a resolution over 4000 pixels wide" isn't an original ingredient that you can patent. It is too broad, and too obvious. And you can't patent something obvious. Maybe if Red had patented Raw compression on images "exactly 4000 pixels wide" it would sit better with us. Here's another example: Is it fair that RED's patent covers 16k 120 fps compressed raw video, when they can't do it themselves and certainly couldn't when the patent was filed? Perhaps. But they did say that they removed cDNG because of legal issues, without naming Red specifically.

Thats the crux, how "specific and particular" does a recipe need to be to be patented. Red's patent is incredibly broad, like instead of being a recipe for a particular burger it is like a recipe that encompasses all burgers, not just the one RED makes. It even knocks down formats that existed before Redcode was invented--just because apprently ">4000 pixels wide" is a specific recipe ingredient. Blackmagic will likely reintroduce the cdng raw video they were forced to remove for legal reasons. Z cam probably would, they are currently making a "partial debayer" raw, likely because bayer raw is currently illegal. Sony obviously wants the patent gone, they tried to appeal it before, likely for their cameras that require an external unit (fs5 price range and up, i suspect.)

Haha good point! But to be fair to my silly conspiracy theory, apple was the first company that had a vision for smartphones and made them take off.

Or... What if Apple wants the IP related to the Hydrogen and its holographic cameras/display, and is willing to buy RED just to get that? Or is planning to use this patent fight as leverage for a settlement?

Yeah, that's really what I meant. It wasn't a well organized thesis-and-supporting-argument structure. This latest episode seemed to sort of wander about, pointing out various contradictions, etc. without really tying it together for us. The original mini-mag video was eye opening about how simple the parts were. The one about Redcode really delved into the patent itself. This was sort of an hour long personal attack on various people without a real payoff or conclusion. I'm not a patent expert either. But in my googling, patent definitions always include an "invention." What exactly did Red invent? I'm sure Red also has patents on Redcode. I don't think anyone is questioning Red's ownership of Redcode specifically.

I see your point, but I don't think that's quite analogous. I think a more accurate analogy would be if Coke and Pepsi were actively in a "sugar race" to find new ways to add more sugar to their drinks (in an imaginary world where it's scientifically difficult to add more sugar!), and then Coke patented any drink that had a 50% sugar content or more. Pepsi has already had the concept of 50% sugar for decades and has been racing to find a way to do it, but has to give up on their goal because it's no longer legal--even if they were using a completely different sugar-injection process than Coke was. Red didn't patent an exact recipe, they patented a cap on specs in the middle of a spec war.

Pretty much*. Red's patent is for a video recording that matches all these criteria: - 50% green pixels, 25% red pixels, 25% blue pixels - 24 or more FPS - 6:1 or higher compression ratio - Greater than 4000 pixels wide Obviously, Red didn't invent any of these ideas. There are no special algorithms. It's not like they invented a compression algorithm and patented that. Many of us believe that the patent was likely granted by bureaucrats with no background in digital video who were overwhelmed with technical terms and thought that Red had actually made something new. What exactly is the intellectual property in this case? Everything in Red's patent already existed, sensor and processor technology just hadn't gotten to the point of making it 4k yet. And keep in mind they didn't patent their 4k technology, they patented the concept. It would be like if the first person to invent a car that goes over 100 mph was able lock everyone else out of making 4 wheeled gas powered vehicles that could go over 100 mph. More specifically, Moore's law has been accepted for decades. Resolution wars were already a thing. We knew processors would get better, we knew sensors would get higher resolution. I would argue that it was "obvious" that techniques already in place for HD images could be applied to 4k images, which would invalidate the patent. As an analogous question, do you believe that Sharp should be allowed to patent the concept of an 8k television simply because they were the first to make one? *Edit: and to clarify, I'm not saying Red is evil. I blame the patent office.

There's a difference between voting with your wallet and spewing hate. I don't really see much of the latter here, but you don't have to look hard on the internet to find comments about RED with more vitriol than useful information. We can disapprove of RED's practices AND keep it civil at the same time, which I think is what @Emanuel is saying. RED is hardly the only company whose strategy is to create a mythos around their brand. They are certainly not the only company to patent everything they can, whether or not the average person would consider those patents valid. And I guarantee they're not the only company that can be found to be lying if you comb through all their forum posts from the last 15 years. Let's certainly call out bad practice when we see it, but be civil at the same time. I also found this episode to be a lot less damning than previous ones. Because to be honest, I'm not concerned with whether RED makes their own sensors or not, or when exactly they invented Redcode. I honestly don't care if someone inaccurately remembers when their company created something. I think the patent should be removed for being obvious, the technicality of when Redcode was invented it might be what overthrows the patent, but it's the obviousness of the concept that makes the patent seem wrong.

I don't know anything about these lenses' performance specifically, but AF in cine lenses as a good thing (if it doesn't compromise MF ergonomics). Extra versatility is always welcome. I'm just waiting for someone to pair an internal lens AF motor with a wireless follow focus wheel that behaves the same as current wireless follow focuses with external motors, but with fewer wires and no extra module requiring a power supply.

I'd take inexperienced people too, we'd all learn and become experienced together. I'd be out writing/shooting/editing every day after work if I had a crew. But more in the spirit of the thread... I shoot narrative short films and web series. I'd probably take a Z Cam E2 with cards and batteries, maybe a few Sigma Art Lenses like the 18-35, 20mm, 40mm. Honestly I'm pretty happy with the Nikon AI lenses I already use, and will probably continue using them on all future cameras, but a couple faster, wider lenses would be useful. I'd certainly take a Glidecam vest as well. I think even given the choice, I'd take a small camera over an Alexa with huge cine lenses--though naturally if I was to sell the Alexa/Master Primes and keep the change after buying an E2 I'd do that.

Last I checked, Magic Lantern doesn't compress beyond the magic ratio of 6:1, so RED's patent wouldn't apply.

I agree. I read that C5D article when it came out and noticed that sentence as well, but since it was not mentioned in the video interview, and there wasn't a paragraph dedicated to it as a generational breakthrough in FF video specs--in a tiny camera body, made by a lens company--I assumed it was poor phrasing. It's always a good idea to include sources when talking about specs that seem too good to be true, we don't want anyone to happen on this thread from a casual google search and think that we are sure it has 4k60 or 120 because we read a poorly worded sentence somewhere.

I think that is not correct. I think it means it has 4k and hd, and up to 120 fps in hd. If it did 4k120 that would be headlining everything. back when we had a video of the menu system, 4k only went up to 30.

I must have missed that. Where did they confirm 4k60?

It's a nitpick, but it's not exactly worse rolling shutter. It's that two shutter speeds are measured simultaneously, so the motion blur isn't natural. It's just like overlaying a shot with 1/48 shutter with a 1/200 shutter; the motion blur is like a "half frame" compared to the rest of the image, because you only get a blur from the 1/48 version. There is also a Low Noise mode, which uses a longer readout time to get more precision and thus improve noise at the cost of rolling shutter, which doesn't have the motion blur artifact, but does have increased rolling shutter. I was just going to ask how the F6 related to Zaxcom's patents. I wonder if Zoom and/or Sound Devices plans to challenge the patent, like some other companies we talk about a lot here.

I think the z cam WDR mode uses two shutter speeds, instead of two gains. Thats why you get strange motion artifacts. It also has dual native ISOs in additionb but no simultaneous dual gain.

It depends on the project. You can't create universal rules, because as soon as you do, it's open season for everyone to try to break that rule. Like if you try to define film genres, someone will make a crossover. The only real rule is that you need to be able to watch your own work and evaluate what feeling a tool creates in the specific case of your project. But anyway, here are some examples off the top of my head: - In Children of Men, there are amazing long takes that show the real-time unfolding of events. Slow motion would be inappropriate as it would eliminate the realism. - Thor Raganarok uses extreme slow motion at a few key moments to show look like a slightly moving 2D image, like a comic page brought to life. It's a montage use, where we've got Led Zeppelin, popcorn, and are ready to groove with the movie. - In Leone westerns, like Once Upon a Time in the West, I don't believe any slow motion is used. Instead, the actors move slowly as they feel out each other's defenses in these drawn out duels. And then it's over in the blink of an eye. Slow motion would take away from the blink-and-you-miss-it tension, and would sacrifice that overwhelming tension for visual spectacle - Hacksaw Ridge used a lot of slow motion in battle scenes. I thought it was a bad choice, as it turned this terrible, violent war into a Hollywood action spectacle. The story is about a pacifist medic, and instead it's like "whoa! look at that explosion! that dude is flying! Yeah, action movie!" It looked cool, but was at odds with the movie's theme. - Action movies almost always use slow motion for really cool set pieces so we can better see the effects or action. Terminator 2, when the frozen terminator explodes, is a good example. It's entirely about pacing: A single slow motion shot to wrap up an intense action scene, a moment that tells you to breath after you've been holding your breath.

I don't know that slo mo is ever cheating when used in a project. If it looks good and creates the feeling that you want, then use it. If it is repetitive and boring, don't use it. Like with any effect, it can spice up a shot, or get boring with over use. It is only really "cheating" when over used in camera tests. If i shoot 90% at 24fps, a review that is shot 90% in 60fps doesnt accurately review that camera for me.

Yes, if you're into that kind of thing.

Its talking about the phone's screen. It's an 8 bit screen with FRC to simulate 10 bit. I dont see anything about 4:2:2, but since most screens are RGB, 4:2:2 would be a downgrade from the average screen.