Z Cam E2 will have ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FPS in 4K??

[webrunner5]

I would imagine if we blow up Any footage that big we will see something from just about any camera. With YouTube compression silly stuff does happen. I think we need more "proof" as they say.

[Emanuel]

Vimeo for the matter : ) But the point could be some other though.

Something people don't really care and I see too little anywhere.

 

Some stuff holds further processing pressure to next generations to come included, some others don't. That's make such a difference! : )

I'd dare to say the difference imposed by high bitrate or, for example, raw vs H.265...

Let's speak it openly and very frankly, H.265 is a delivery codec, not designed for acquisition. Let alone bit depth...

 

E : -)

[webrunner5]

We have to remember H.265 is Not a Codec. It is a Compression Scheme. Big difference.

[Emanuel]

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

We have to remember H.265 is Not a Codec. It is a Compression Scheme. Big difference.

Right. Thanks to correct me : ) I mean, the compression scheme based there as much as raw is, when not uncompressed but finest compressed, as for example REDCODE file format is in the distinct variants. Big difference : -)

The bit rate addressed to data savings goal would be pretty irrelevant if only not when the result is a compromise.

As hinted above-posted, lower bit depth doesn't help either when a higher end is mandatory.

E : -)

[Emanuel]

Thanks for your like added, Don @webrunner5 : ) Still back to topic BTW, the problem is not exactly when there is a compromise, but when such necessary ingredients compromise quality a way further. Rather than preventing a solid post production usage range. Here's why raw or/and bit depth are priceless indeed. Without mention bit rate (E : -)

[Andrew Reid]

11 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

We have to remember H.265 is Not a Codec. It is a Compression Scheme. Big difference.

Where are you getting this idea from?

[Alt Shoo]

The footage looks good to me even with the “awareness” brought to my attention. Idk the pixel peeping thing has become increasingly exaggerated lately. I totally understand that DPs and Pro Videographers may have some concerns about subtle image errors, but it’s also well known in these circles that the vast majority of viewers, even users for that matter, aren’t really concerned. 

[austinchimp]

On 7/21/2019 at 12:57 PM, Jonesy Jones said:

Could you point out what you’re seeing? I don’t see it. I’m watching on an iPad mini. Not a big screen but not a small phone either.

Footage looks beautiful to me.

Just watched this and I agree I'm seeing lots of weird artefacts. In my view there's something strange going on in the compression somewhere. I own a Z-cam e2 and while the image certainly isn't perfect, I haven't seen anything like this in the footage so far. Maybe he's applied some stabilisation in post? It also looks to me like it's exported at a very low bit rate.

[zerocool22]

55 minutes ago, austinchimp said:

Just watched this and I agree I'm seeing lots of weird artefacts. In my view there's something strange going on in the compression somewhere. I own a Z-cam e2 and while the image certainly isn't perfect, I haven't seen anything like this in the footage so far. Maybe he's applied some stabilisation in post? It also looks to me like it's exported at a very low bit rate.

Yeah, Its not pixel peeping at all, I cannot unsee it, its all over the place. It looks like the people are about to warp into another dimension.  Tested on different networks and different devices. But other Zcam video's dont seem to have this problem, so I figure this user must be doing something wrong. Not sure what exactly. 

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Where are you getting this idea from?

 

OK it is a Computer GPU Codec.  It is not a video camera Codec per-say.

[Emanuel]

I understand compression method is the best way to call it. People vulgarly call it codec as I did above : ) If you can have distinct bit rate ratios, you'll have more than one to literally define it or in a more lato sensu, a variation of them. Not really sure if we should call it in a single form, anyway. I don't see anything wrong to be hair-splitting with use of words or concepts. I think this is coming from my legal academic background at first sight : -D

You our Odin @webrunner5?

I don't think that Computer GPU codec vs video camera stuff applies as excuse to put Andrew to rest ; ) Even though as previously said, H.265 is merely designed for delivery, not acquisition : -)

[maxmizer]

It seems clear to me that it is not the camera that has those serious problems, but a bit of inconpentence in post ...

[Emanuel]

Even though, a set of stronger and more efficient codecs designed for acquisition would not hurt at all... ; -)

[Andrew Reid]

8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

 

OK it is a Computer GPU Codec.  It is not a video camera Codec per-say.

A codec is a codec. Job of a codec is to encode (hence the name) an image. Compression is a form of encoding an image. No need to separate the terms.

H.265 is a codec, simple as that. Not helpful to say it's not a video camera codec when it's used in video cameras. It has hardware acceleration on a GPU. That doesn't make it exclusively a computer GPU codec. Stop reading what ever you have been doing, because it's a load of twaddle.

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

I don't think that Computer GPU codec vs video camera stuff applies as excuse to put Andrew to rest ; ) Even though as previously said, H.265 is merely designed for delivery, not acquisition : -)

It's designed for delivery and acquisition... Acquisition of high resolution with small file sizes, especially on smartphones, and delivery of the same. Makes no sense to say it is designed for only one part of the job. If it is doing something it isn't designed to do, it's doing it pretty well. Like H.264, these things aren't designed with just the decoding and streaming side in mind, they are designed for acquisition and encoding in a device as well.

[Jonesy Jones]

4 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

A codec is a codec. Job of a codec is to encode (hence the name) an image. Compression is a form of encoding an image. No need to separate the terms.

H.265 is a codec, simple as that. Not helpful to say it's not a video camera codec when it's used in video cameras. It has hardware acceleration on a GPU. That doesn't make it exclusively a computer GPU codec. Stop reading what ever you have been doing, because it's a load of twaddle.

My understanding was that codec was a derivative of “COmpression DECompression”. So the video signal needs to be compressed and then decompressed.

It is also my understanding that some codecs are compressed/decompressed in a way that is more suitable for cameras and editors. And some are more suitable for video players. The trade off being that the smaller files that video players handle more easily are more taxing to compress for cameras and more taxing for an editor to decompress and edit on the fly.

[Emanuel]

That's exactly my understanding, Jonesy, as well.

 

H.265 as H.264 successor, I see it as designed for delivery or suitable as you wish, even though, H.264 had been successfully used for video capture in most affordable devices as you Andrew accurately mention, so I follow and agree with your point too, no matter what : )

As Niels Bohr wisely told us, a vulgar truth is a premise whose contrary is a falsity when a deep truth is a premise whose opposite is also a deep truth ; )

ProRes which was previously designed for post processing, is the finest example as useful acquisition tool and popular professional video capture standard today : -)

 

 

[gethin]

it looks to me like there is artifacting in there due to time warping. I suggest it was shot at a lower framerate.  

[drm]

3 hours ago, gethin said:

it looks to me like there is artifacting in there due to time warping. I suggest it was shot at a lower framerate.  

That might very well be the case. I suppose if they filmed in 24 or 30, then tried to slow it way down in post, that might cause some of those problems. Although, I saw a short film that someone posted on here earlier today from the E2 and I see problems all through the shadow areas in that footage, but I didn't the temporal type problems. I would really love to see some of that footage straight from the camera  I like the idea of being able to shoot 4k/120 or 4k/160, even if it is at weird sizes, so I wish them the best.

[austinchimp]

2 hours ago, drm said:

That might very well be the case. I suppose if they filmed in 24 or 30, then tried to slow it way down in post, that might cause some of those problems. Although, I saw a short film that someone posted on here earlier today from the E2 and I see problems all through the shadow areas in that footage, but I didn't the temporal type problems. I would really love to see some of that footage straight from the camera  I like the idea of being able to shoot 4k/120 or 4k/160, even if it is at weird sizes, so I wish them the best.

In my experience (I haven't had much time to really stress test the camera) there are problems with horizontal pattern noise in the shadows, and underexposing is a recipe for trouble. The dynamic range is definitely not as much as the Ursa Mini 4.6k which I used to use. Still a nice image though if you expose it correctly.

The high frame rates above 120fps also suffer from pretty bad aliasing.

However the weird warping and flickering in that video is certainly something done to it in post, or else his camera should be returned as faulty.

[zerocool22]

Yeah the warping could be post issue from warp stabilizer, but the noise fpn pattern, looks like some weird denoising algorithm going on in the camera. (Just speculating though)