KnightsFan

@kyeWith that software, does Resolve have to be in a specific layout? For example, if I undock my curves window, can it still find the curves and adjust it, or does it rely on knowing the exact positions of various buttons on screen? Does it work with an arbitrary sized window or only full screen?

I buy used whenever I can: cameras, lenses, microphones, cars, clothes. Mainly to do my part to reduce waste. I sell or give away anything I've upgraded away from, unless it's absolutely unsalvageable. So a nice perk is that often I don't lose much value. In fact, with 2 out of the 3 cameras I've sold, I actually profited from it! In both cases I bought and sold on ebay, which is what I almost always use.

Never heard of it. It's a good idea, there are a number of ad hoc locking connectors out there including for USB, would be nice if they could standardize and gain traction. The other side though is that software standardization for network AV isn't there yet. NDI has some promise. Yeah, the difficulty of finding an affordable 5.1 receiver for my home theater shows the limitations of digital longevity. Only way these days is with HDMI passthrough, which means finding a receiver that supports all the image formats you want. It's ridiculous that every time you want to upgrade your image you need a new sound system. I think anyone serious about audio should stick with analog mics for the reason you mention. Digital mics are a little bit like fixed lens cameras. However, I do think there is a user tier where they make sense and will continue to grow market share. Right, but you're talking orders of magnitude more expensive than consumer gear. If you're buying Rode Wireless GO-tier--which is near the quality tier I expect for this Tascam unit--it will be much more reliable to record at the TX. I trust a $150 recorder. I don't trust a $150 wireless set. In terms of what's technologically possible, recording at the TX in extremely high quality with very high reliability is quite affordable. I can extrapolate quite a bit in terms of how early digitization would help the consumer market. If my shotgun mic recorded onto an SD and sent wireless to a mixer for monitoring, suddenly I don't need nearly as good of a boom pole or booming technique to avoid cable rattle. I'm not saying that's a good pro workflow, but the benefits are pretty tangible for the rest of us.

The problem with USB audio for widespread use is it's limited to short cables. There are workarounds, but it gets complicated once you get to 5+ meters. XLR cables can easily be 10x that length. So XLR is better unless you know that the DAC is always going to be right next to the recorder. As far as non-USB digital audio goes, it would be interesting if we saw some uptake of RJ45 ethernet ports on cameras along with the necessary standards to carry video and/or audio. Those have (flimsy) locking connectors and longer run distance, plus there's a POE standard in place. But as of right now, the only universal standard for digital audio in the consumer world is USB. AES would help pro audio, but would be useless for most consumers still. @mkabiI think we're heading in the direction of putting the DAC (digitizer) in the mic housing like you are suggesting. Certainly the consumer world is. The Sennheiser XS Lav Mobile and the Rode VideoMic NTG are examples, and then there are a couple bodypacks like the Zoom F2 or Deity BP-TRX that are moving there for the wireless world. I think putting the DAC in the mic is especially beneficial for consumer products, because it means that the audio company is solely responsible for the audio signal chain. However, for the foreseeable future, if there is a wire between the mic and recorder, then analog via XLR to a DAC inside the recorder has no downsides compared to digitizing on the other end. If we're talking wireless it's a different story--it would be better to both digitize and record on the TX side, but that's a legal minefield. Also, the reason lavs get away with thin cables and 3.5mm jacks is because they have short runs. You can run unbalanced audio from your shirt to your belt, not 50m across a stage.

The NPH scene don't look like CG characters to me

I imagine when it says 4k30 oversampled from 33 MP, it means that 4k60 is a crop mode--assuming the rumor is from a reliable source in the first place. Although if Sony does make it 4k30 max camera now, it will be an interesting data point in Canon's resurgence of hybrid mirrorless cams.

In addition to the new Z Cam model, Accsoon announced their own product which seems better designed physicall. Rather than needing to mount it somewhere, it is the phone holder. It has a NPF battery sled, and I'd assume that means it'll charge your phone simultaneously, plus a cold shoe on top. I also see some nice locating pin holes on the bottom. Z Cam though has the benefit of controlling compatible cameras with a USB cable. Would be nice to combine them and get the physical design of Accsoon with camera control. It would be cool (and not that surprising!) if Accsoon made a version that could receive a wireless signal from their CineEye transmitter in addition to HDMI.

I think this is great news. The more we can do with generic devices like smartphones that can run 3rd party software, the more creative options open up to us. Some purists are married to using large sensors to get "real" depth of field control, but I say that once it can be simulated to the point of not being able to tell the difference, we'll all be free to use smaller, lighter gear with fewer expensive accessories. Will this camera be indistinguishable from a full frame camera with a 50mm f1.4? Probably not--but it's getting excitingly close! I'm not an Apple user as I don't like their closed ecosystem, but good for them for pushing a little farther into pro imaging quality with iphones. Yeah since apparently it's physically impossible to make a ProRes encoder that is smaller than a Ninja V.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, afaik neither Video Hummus nor I mentioned anything about what look we preferred, except for the statement (not by me) that the last 0.02% of quality wasn't that important. No, that's not what happened at all. You said you wanted ProRes in a small camera via a bolt on accessory, I said it makes more sense to want ProRes in that small camera via firmware.

@kye I think you should be clearer when you are talking about properties of the codec, vs. properties of the camera. Not having a GH5, I'll take your word that the internal recording is over sharpened vs. the uncompressed output. However, Z Cam (for example) provides sharpening options that are used with whichever codec you are on, all the way down to None which is genuinely blurry compared to any other camera I've used, including Blackmagic cDNG or ProRes. These are minor details in the firmware, from an implementation perspective, that you are suggesting we solve with huge amounts of extra hardware. I'm saying let's vocalize our desire for these options to be exposed as internal settings, rather than vocalize our desire for a separate company like Atomos to come up with their interpretation of what good quality means. The difference is that the hypothetical we're talking about--good internal recording options--is entirely possible via simple firmware changes. The reason they aren't included is to sell us something else, whether it's a higher end Panasonic camera, or Red locking out compressed raw to sell you their brand.

I think the question is whether its still called "raw" if it's been scaled, and as a separate question, to what degree scaling individual color arrays before debayering is better or worse.

But what you're saying in this topic is that you'd like a 3rd party to make an HDMI recorder, putting you in their hands for recording format instead of the camera's. Unless you're envisioning the external recorder space getting large enough that there is legitimate competition with a variety of different options. Why not wish for camera companies to allow for more flexibility in choosing codec, and higher quality instead of adding a whole extra layer of compatibility, accessories, and specs. Remember when Panasonic added 10 bit to the G9 years later via firmware? Remember when hackers added compressed raw recording to the 5D3? Or when Blackmagic made a pocket camera that shot ProRes and Raw at a fraction of the price of contemporary DSLR's, without fans and heatsinks? My sarcasm in this topic is because, in my opinion, wishing for small external recorders is a roundabout solution that would also encourage the implementation of bad internal video. I'd rather pay $100 for firmware that unlocks pro video formats, than $600 + batteries for a recorder even if it's the size of a battery grip. This is the exact reason I hope for the Octopus cinema camera to turn into a real product, or why I'd like to see cameras running vanilla android or Linux OS's. Getting on my soap box here, but the migration away from standardized computers (both hardware and software) to dozens of different devices running proprietary firmwares is a harmful trend.

So you're saying that if I transcode a ProRes file to H.264, you will 100% be able to tell which is which in a blind test?

GoPro makes a camera the records 4k60 for hours on end while enclosed into a waterproof case with no external heatsinks, at under half the weight of the Ninja V. I'm sure it's quite possible to build a screenless recorder smaller than the Ninja V.

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.