Ideas for the camera industry

[IronFilm]

Oh! He is the same guy as those light tests, I remember reading those, thought it was interesting too. 

But when it comes to the modern GH5S (and some other cameras) it seems he is lacking in his assessment. 

[BTM_Pix]

27 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Oh! He is the same guy as those light tests, I remember reading those, thought it was interesting too. 

But when it comes to the modern GH5S (and some other cameras) it seems he is lacking in his assessment. 

I remember the row about the GH5s but it just petered out as I recall and he did respond to some of it in the comments.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/04/27/panasonic-gh5s-ebu-assessment/

Did Panasonic ever rebut it or the EBU modify the assessment ?

[IronFilm]

Maybe Canon too closely follows this principle, only putting in features they know know consumer will pay for (which is greatly overestimated by us forum goers) :

http://firstround.com/review/its-price-before-product-period/

But if so, I'd expect Canon would more aggressively price their cameras lower? Well, I guess they do that with their Rebels!

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I remember the row about the GH5s but it just petered out as I recall and he did respond to some of it in the comments.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/04/27/panasonic-gh5s-ebu-assessment/

Did Panasonic ever rebut it or the EBU modify the assessment ?

I have an awful lot of respect for what Matthew Allard does, and I love the Newsshooter website, but damn... it is so disappointing seeing him trying to defend Alan's clear mistakes even when presented with the evidence. (it was like Matthew didn't even read the comments before responding?! I dunno)

Unfortunately years of expertise and accolades doesn't always automatically equal correctness or universal knowledge. 

[sanveer]

Alan Roberts highlighted a Fundamental Flaw with the entire industry. Namely, that even if you're a spotboy for the BBC or any of the big names in the industry, your findings or observations are irrefutable by anyone, almost like being engraved in stone. It also applies to Newsshooter.com. They and Alan Roberts tested the dynamic range of the GH5s, and the difference is 4 Whole Stops. Either one, or both parties are on something. I would wanna have some of it, but it may make me like them.  

I encounter many of these self consumed fuddy duddies in the various industries that I work in. The only way to deal with them, is to drive them completely mad, till such time, as they shoot themselves in the foot. Again, and again. One has to make an effort for the world to realise how ludicrously overrated and exalted they are. And one mustn't be kind with them. It's for their own good. It's helping them retire with dignity. Before they become inconsequential. 

[BTM_Pix]

57 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I have an awful lot of respect for what Matthew Allard does, and I love the Newsshooter website, but damn... it is so disappointing seeing him trying to defend Alan's clear mistakes even when presented with the evidence. (it was like Matthew didn't even read the comments before responding?! I dunno)

Unfortunately years of expertise and accolades doesn't always automatically equal correctness or universal knowledge. 

I know enough to know that I personally don't know enough to pick apart Alan's work to any meaningful degree 

I'm surprised that Panasonic haven't pushed for a change though if on the basis of Alan's testing they are being excluded from what would be a bit of a coup for them to have full EBU approval for the GH5s?

Ditto the EBU themselves if they have erroneously excluded a camera that would be a viable budget option for its members who, we must remember, are all state funded public broadcasters  and therefore accountable for spending public money.

I'm playing devil's advocate here and I must stress I have no bias towards Alan Roberts or even a dog in the fight when it comes to that particular camera but I'm surprised that with a company like Panasonic on one side and an organisation like the EBU on the other that there would've been a more formal review and, if necessary, an amendment to the report.

Certainly something more formal than comments going back and forth on an internet page that just seemed to peter out.

Does anyone know what became of the guy in that thread that said he was going to contact the EBU about it?

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Maybe Canon too closely follows this principle, only putting in features they know know consumer will pay for (which is greatly overestimated by us forum goers) :

http://firstround.com/review/its-price-before-product-period/

But if so, I'd expect Canon would more aggressively price their cameras lower? Well, I guess they do that with their Rebels!

This quote sounds so much like Canon:

 

Quote

How to combat feature shock: Beware when your R&D team wants to add a feature but can’t articulate its value to a customer. Instead of cramming tons of features into one product, practice restraint. Separate your customers into buckets depending on their needs, values and WTP. Then tailor your products differently to each segment. Essentially, you want to sort features into different groups and create packages or bundles that appeal to each.

“Curb your instincts to please customers by giving away too much value unless people will pay for it. This will maximize the potential of your new products,” Ramanujam says. “And get comfortable with the idea of giving your price-sensitive segment only basic quality and service levels, rather than giving them everything. Product configuration requires the guts to take away features.”

 

[IronFilm]

https://vimeo.com/248235757?cjevent=e90b36a9bc3311e881f5000b0a1c0e10#comment_16376718

Sigh, high end pros just fucking up the technical details again. If you're looking for it (well, I'm not! Just randomly stumbling across it), you seem to just see this every day over and over. 

Quote

 

Gavin Greenwalt 7 months ago:

@56:00. Sorry but you just borked the test, you aren't demostrating a difference between two different sensor formats, you're just demonstrating the difference between photographing a subject from two different perspectives. The VV perspective is further back and therefore using a different equivalent focal length.

You measured the wrong dimension, you measured from the sensor plane probably instead of measuring from the Entrance Pupil of the lens.

You're selling large format sensors on an improperly performed test not any intrinsic characteristic of large/small sensors.

 

[Aussie Ash]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

https://vimeo.com/248235757?cjevent=e90b36a9bc3311e881f5000b0a1c0e10#comment_16376718

Sigh, high end pros just fucking up the technical details again. If you're looking for it (well, I'm not! Just randomly stumbling across it), you seem to just see this every day over and over. 

 

I bet you haven't been using "The four second rule" !

[IronFilm]

The four second rule while driving?!

[kye]

19 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'm surprised that Panasonic haven't pushed for a change though if on the basis of Alan's testing they are being excluded from what would be a bit of a coup for them to have full EBU approval for the GH5s?

I read a number of EBU reports for various cameras as well as the EBU specification documents when I bought my XC10 and I'm not at all surprised that the GH5s didn't get UHD Tier 1 or 2.  

Those standards are very high and there are actually very few cameras that meet them. I'd encourage anyone to pick a few test reports of very high end cameras and read those to get a sense of how well other very respected cameras do. Often they don't test as well as you'd expect. I haven't read all of them, but most (all?) cameras with only a 4K sensor fail to meet UHD Tier 1, and even those with 4.6K or 6K struggle.

I was really disappointed with the test results of my XC10 until I read other tests and now I understand that its test results are remarkable.

Also remember that the standard doesn't test everything. The XC10 exhibits temporal noise reduction resulting in ghosting at higher ISOs, and not only did the EBU tests not discover that but they also have no mechanism to test it either.

I hope this helps

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Also remember that the standard doesn't test everything. The XC10 exhibits temporal noise reduction resulting in ghosting at higher ISOs, and not only did the EBU tests not discover that but they also have no mechanism to test it either.

I have a mechanism for testing that:
"your eyes"

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, kye said:

I read a number of EBU reports for various cameras as well as the EBU specification documents when I bought my XC10 and I'm not at all surprised that the GH5s didn't get UHD Tier 1 or 2.  

Those standards are very high and there are actually very few cameras that meet them. I'd encourage anyone to pick a few test reports of very high end cameras and read those to get a sense of how well other very respected cameras do. Often they don't test as well as you'd expect. I haven't read all of them, but most (all?) cameras with only a 4K sensor fail to meet UHD Tier 1, and even those with 4.6K or 6K struggle.

I was really disappointed with the test results of my XC10 until I read other tests and now I understand that its test results are remarkable.

Also remember that the standard doesn't test everything. The XC10 exhibits temporal noise reduction resulting in ghosting at higher ISOs, and not only did the EBU tests not discover that but they also have no mechanism to test it either.

I hope this helps

As I say, my point wasn't really about the actual failure (as its the EBU's own criteria so it could have failed on not being lined with pink fur if that's what they so choose to have as a specifcation) but about the response to Alan Robert's testing against that criteria.

Moreover, why Panasonic didn't challenge it if it was so flawed, as having EBU approval would at thw very least be good for PR purposes for them.

As it was for Canon with the XC10.

https://www.canon.co.uk/about_us/press_centre/press_releases/consumer_news/digital_cinema/xc10_ebu.aspx