KnightsFan

With each of these videos, I'm reminded why I support open source, standardization, and collaboration. @Andrew Reid, I'm glad you wrote this despite being under substantial threat. In my opinion, this Jinni Tech saga is not getting the press it deserves, and I only hope it isn't because people are too afraid to say anything. RED should be given a platform to respond, but should not be able to sue away negative press.

Don't get me wrong, i love 4k. I always shoot 4k, religiously maintain fidelity throughout my post pipeline. I'm the guy who mixes in 5.1 despite the fact that virtually no one watches my content with 5 speakers. I am just saying that, given finite money, I don't think it is worth doubling the cost to get 6k over 4k, and I don't see any other tangible advantages of the P4k at the moment.

Version 16.0 is out of beta, final release. Version 16.1 is now in public beta, with new features above and beyond what 16.0 brought (and probably bugs, since it is a beta).

I understand why higher resolutions are better, and where to see them, but here's my experience: I know 0 people who own a 4k computer screen. I own a 4k TV but never use it in 4k because I have 0 4k movies, my blu ray player only supports 1080p, my internet won't handle a 4k stream, and for gaming it maxes out at 4k30 which is too low a frame rate. 100% of the Apple desktop computers that I have seen, were at universities or studios--Mac as an operating system has <4% market share, and a lot of those are laptops. The actual number of 4K+ iMacs out there in use is miniscule. Very few of my friends actually own desktop computers, for that matter, they just use laptops and phones with HD screens. They would benefit from the bitrate increase of streaming 4K on their devices, but for vast swathes of rural America, the internet bandwidth simply doesn't support 4k. I get that a lot of pros need 4k or 6k to stay ahead of the competition. When making content, you make it high enough resolution that the top tier viewers are satisfied, even if only 10% see it in 4k. But the reality for me is, 4k is not a display format yet. My work has only ever been shown in local theaters, festivals, and bars, and none of those venues had 4K display capabilities.

@Shell64 also they sell hardware. Control consoles, keyboard, and playback cards. The consoles and keyboard are optional, but the card is required to get a 10 bit or hdr signal for monitoring, so pretty essential for a serious coloring setup.

I have heard good things, yeah. The og pocket and 2.5k were also a joy to use from an interface perspective. Blackmagic's software is really their strong point, both in camera and for post. The menus on modern cameras are absolute nightmares, with a billion options that make little effect on the image, and no effect on the story.

Wow, this thread spiraled quickly. Usually it takes at least 7 pages for the politics to hit full stride. I can't. It's still a while before 4k is truly mainstream. I know very few people with 4k screens, and I know no one who regularly watches 4k content. I know in select communities 4k is old news, but from what I see it's still a minority. You can make the argument that 6k is "future proof," but by the time I want to shoot in 6k, we'll have 3 more generations of cameras to choose from. From my perspective the P4K has no downsides, and half the cost. Unless, of course, the real world reviews and footage is vastly different from my expectations--if it turns out the P6K inherits the minimal rolling shutter from the 4.6k G2, then that's a good place to start making a case--but it seems unlikely. What I dislike about the new Pocket series in general is it does not seem very easy to rig up. The battery life seems poor, and an external battery would block the screen. And I don't like DSLR-style grips, which either get in the way of a follow focus, or make it hard to balance on a gimbal. I'm still hoping for an update to the Micro, but it is more likely that I'll have to turn to Z Cam when/if I upgrade from the trusty NX1. What I love about both P4K and P6K is that they really set the bar low for price by stripping away complex systems that I don't need for video, such as AF, IBIS, and EVF, while adding a lot of simple things that are crucial, like full size HDMI and timecode.

I create proxies with ffmpeg. I wrote a simple script to batch files. If I use hardware encoding and decoding, converting 10 bit HEVC to 1 Mbps H.264 proxies takes just a few minutes per hour of footage. When editing, I manually swap proxies and online media in Resolve using the "Re conform from bins" option. Slow motion footage usually doesn't reconform properly, so I leave conform lock enabled for slow motion clips.

Really cool technology! Actual projections always have much better integration with lights and reflections than green screens. One of my favorite lighting scenes is the tower in Oblivion, where all of the lighting was "ambient" projected off of a 360 degree projector screen. Though of course that wasn't motion tracked or 3D. As awesome as this technology is, though, from an enjoyment standpoint, I prefer to shoot on location. It's just so much more fun than being stuck in a studio.

@mnewxcv Sensors usually have a number of different readout modes with different resolutions, noise levels, and RS values. Samsung might be using a different readout method for HD on the NX1 and the NX500. 120fps requires a readout under 8.333ms, and Samsung might have just made all HD framerates on the NX1 use that same 7.9ms mode, for whatever reason. The NX500 can't do 120, so there's no reason to use that readout mode at all. BUT... Tbh I am not sure whether the DVXuser test measured the NX1 HD in all frame rates. We'd have to dig through the thread to find out. It's possible that the NX1 has 7.9ms in 1080p120, and 20ms in 1080p30.

I haven't seen anything specifically about rolling shutter on the NX500. So take this with a grain of salt... The NX500 4K is a 1:1 crop, unlike the NX1's full pixel readout. Rolling shutter is likely proportional to the crop size, since it's the same sensor. That would estimate to be ~19.3ms for UHD. (NX1 reads 3650 vertical lines in 32.6ms, NX500 reads 2160 vertical lines. 2160/3650 * 32.6 = 19.3).

The HDMI spec has no control over whether the data it carries will be perceived as a color image by human viewers. You put HDMI formatted data in one end, and get HDMI formatted data out the other. So you're right, you can take 3 UHD 12 bit raw frames, and package them as the Y, U, V channels of a single 4:4:4 color frame. It wouldn't look right if it was plugged into a TV, but as long as the Atomos end knows what to expect, they simply need to interpret each HDMI frame as 3 Raw frames, and processes accordingly. (Apertus has been doing just that for years to get higher frame rates out of their cameras.)

The e2c (and the e2, to some extent) has features aimed at live streaming. They have ethernet ports on the back, and the e2c even supports POE. Much simpler to stream with than any dslr or cinema camera. No accessories required.

You should always expect that beta software has bugs, and will crash at times. "Beta" usually means that there are serious bugs that the developers know about, but have not completely fixed yet. If you use it, make sure you have backups of all your projects from Resolve 15 so that you can roll back in case of disaster. You have only yourself to blame if you lose work after relying on beta software. That said, the Resolve beta 6 has been stable for me so far.

The E2C has a completely different sensor. It has less DR, worse RS, more noise, and lacks higher frame rates. No mention of ProRes on the website, so if it isn't available yet it's pending Apple's approval. And it uses Canon batteries instead of Sony ones.

Same here, I want a future where everyone works a tiny bit, and spends the rest of their time of stuff they love. Problem is, a company would rather hide 1 person working 60 hrs/wk than 4 people working 15 hrs/wk. If you're that 1 person, great, you'll get a raise. But the other 3 are out of luck. On our current path in the US, automation and efficiency will hurt a lot of people while driving up GDP and corporate profits. The irony is that in the long run, this will be bad for those same companies, because people won't have money to pay for their products. The economy requires that money circulate. If it collects in one place, everything collapses, even the person holding all the money.

Fair. The P4K and XT3 are significantly cheaper as well.

That's half the issue. Of course people don't like subscription models in general, but if you are paying that much money, you expect it to be reliable--or at least more reliable than the significantly cheaper competition. Premiere is still slightly faster to edit than Resolve. It's as if Resolve's UI has a few milliseconds of lag, and overall the UI is a bit clunkier with less customization. But the time saved from not crashing makes up for it, and Resolve is still improving at an enormous pace at no extra cost. Exactly! A lot of people use Adobe because clients require it. Rewriting muscle memory is doable. Convincing clients is not so easy. It's slower to change the paradigm than to make a better product, and hopefully Blackmagic realizes this, and is in for the long haul.

The E2 has ProRes as well (and 8 bit H.264, fwiw). ProRes is either pending Apple's approval or already available on the other models as well. Raw should come at some point. I don't think all the specs are finalized for the upcoming models, true. The E2 itself has no forced crop in any mode. You can turn on a Super 16 crop if you want, though I'm not sure all the framerate and resolution options for that mode. Are you sure the FF and APS-C Sony sensors they are using have those capabilities?

I'm pretty sure the E2g is already available, you can order on their website, and several people on the fb page already have it.

Those results are certainly against conventional wisdom. However, the A5100 is HD, whereas the GH5 is UHD. The GH5 should gain another ~stop of DR if it was downscaled to HD, putting it above the A5100 in this test. Noise reduction and/or sharpening could play a role as well. The article says "[the a5100] performs slightly worse than the GH4." Not idea what picture profile, nor could I find any measurements of the GH4 on its own that weren't taken down after the method change. Perhaps noise reduction gives the XT2 a lower value also? Interestingly, the XT2 and XT3 match when downscaled to HD, maybe equalizing the NR done on the 4k image. I'm sure tweaking camera settings would make different values, on all the tests done. I wish they were more rigorous in documenting what settings were used, though in recent articles it's been better. Certainly true! That's why I'm in this topic in the first place, to get a crack at the non-test chart footage you have so kindly uploaded Anyway, apologies for going off topic.

That's what I've been saying: someone should make a camera that records audio from a USB audio interface. Lossless multi channel digital audio directly from the quality preamps of your choice, no post-syncing required.

As long as they say how they are measuring, changing the method is more confusing than inaccurate. I don't know of any other site that has nearly as extensive a list of "objective" DR measurements for video mode (and I say "objective" with quotes since we are trying to verify to what extent they are accurate). It would be great if we had a couple other sources to compare against. I appreciate it Taking down the old figures is a good thing. Pushing forward with inconsistent, uncontrolled tests would have been the bigger mistake. Downsampling increases SNR. That's what they are measuring: the contrast ration between signal clipping in whites, and SNR = 2 in the shadows. So while you can argue that SNR isn't a "true measure" of dynamic range, it's what C5D decided to document. Downsampling and noise reduction could both give falsely high ratings using C5D's method (depending on how you look at it), which is something you have to keep in mind for sure. But both would come at the expense of resolution and detail, which is something we can judge from other tests. Again, it would be nice if more people did lab tests, maybe even measuring in different ways, so we could compare results.

That "someone" was me. I compiled a list of every DR rating I could find on C5D, and found the only inconsistency was with one Sony camera. I contacted C5D about it, and they said that the measurement differences were due to one being UHD and the other UHD downscaled to 1080p. The discrepancy was consistent with the difference you'd expect from downscaling. In my list, I included links to the articles I got the DR ratings from. I encourage anyone to look over the list and double check--that's why I posted it in the first place. I'm happy to post it again. Until you check my work, saying "he claimed were consistent, which it probably wasn't" isn't justified. I asked people to help me expand the list, and am still happy to do so if anyone is interested in actually figuring out the degree to which we can trust those DR results, rather than say "it probably wasn't" without looking. A few years ago, C5D changed their test methodology, and edited their past articles to remove the numbers that reflected their old methodology. However, other sites (such as NFS) still quote the old methodology and have old chart images, but if you follow NFS's links you will see that the C5D articles have been edited and those charts have been removed.

You shouldn't be getting duplicated frames unless your shutter speed is actually slower than your frame rate. You should be able to shoot 1/38 shutter with 24p just fine. So that's probably not it. You didn't transcode the footage at any stage, did you? If you are 100% sure of the camera settings, 23.976 fps with 1/38 shutter, then my guess is that there is something wrong with your computer playing the files. If you can upload an original clip from the camera, we can verify. Edit: Is your footage interlaced? Could it be a problem with deinterlacing?