Help The Camera Manufacturers Make Better Cameras: Part 2

[Andrew Reid]

I will let this poll run and then submit the results to the manufacturers.

Let's show them what filmmakers really need in future and a window onto what we already use and own, in terms of cameras and lenses.

[DBounce]

@Andrew Reidperhaps we can submit both polls? There is good data in both.

[Andrew Reid]

Yes of course.

[tweak]

I shoot Zcam e2 most now. I also have GH5 and 5Diii that I used previous and still use occasionally.

[Andrew Reid]

How's the ZCam E2 working out? Any good?

[tweak]

35 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

How's the ZCam E2 working out? Any good?

Much improved for me over the GH5, I really like it. Also anamorphic support for all different ratios is un-matched in the price range. Prores support is super convenient and colours are a breeze to get right. I've got nothing bad to say. The small form factor is also very nice for shooting with a small profile or on a gimbal.

[Levi]

In the way of codec, 10 bit internal h.265 with the option for external raw/prores to an ssd, would in my mind be a great compromise. A uhs II sd card can easily handle h.265, but raw/prores, leaving aside write speed, would cost so much for storage vs a SSD (~ 5x the cost.) 

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

There is no mention to one of the most important factors, now that specs are really great in most cameras: easy menus!

[zerocool22]

Yeah you should def add DR and motion cadence. (colour would also be high up there, but not sure how you would add it in a poll as it is prolly more personal)

 

I am surprised people are choosing for: Internal H.264/H.265 with LOG (small file sizes) though. I think  you could split up the users on this forum in 2 categories( one is video minded people selling corporate/event style video's on a daily basis and then you got the cinema dudes who want to create shortfilms. And those 2 people just want different camera's all togheter).  

[newfoundmass]

28 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

I am surprised people are choosing for: Internal H.264/H.265 with LOG (small file sizes) though.

Obviously I'd like as many options as possible when it comes to codec and bit rate, but I also don't absolutely NEED more than that for a lot of my work. 

Being able to shoot an entire event on one or two SD cards in 4K on my GH5 is wonderful. And when I have shot in log I've been happy with the results. Would raw, ProRes, etc be nice though? Absolutely! 

[sanveer]

I also wish screens would get larger. Maybe somewhere in between 3 inches and 5 inches could be an interesting middle group.

I wonder if we could have have 12-bit 4-2-2, since we also have 10-bit 4-2-0. 

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, Xavier Plágaro Mussard said:

There is no mention to one of the most important factors, now that specs are really great in most cameras: easy menus!

I'll add to that: easy buttons!

49 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

I am surprised people are choosing for: Internal H.264/H.265 with LOG (small file sizes) though.

I'm with @newfoundmass. I'd prefer a camera with options: H265, ProRes and Raw all at once would be ideal. However, if I only have one internally, H265 is the best option. For one, you can easily get an external recorder for ProRes and even ProRes Raw. How many external recorders have H265?

[zerocool22]

56 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

I'll add to that: easy buttons!

I'm with @newfoundmass. I'd prefer a camera with options: H265, ProRes and Raw all at once would be ideal. However, if I only have one internally, H265 is the best option. For one, you can easily get an external recorder for ProRes and even ProRes Raw. How many external recorders have H265?

I get that, but external recorders are for me at least a thing of the past. Editing h265 is a pain in the ass. Storage costs are not really an issue  anymore (unless you wetransfer your footage to your editor or something). 

[Mako Sports]

3 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

I am surprised people are choosing for: Internal H.264/H.265 with LOG (small file sizes) though. I think  you could split up the users on this forum in 2 categories( one is video minded people selling corporate/event style video's on a daily basis and then you got the cinema dudes who want to create shortfilms. And those 2 people just want different camera's all togheter).  

Yeah I shoot sports and occasionally product reviews, I want absolutely nothing to do with super large pro res like file sizes. 

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, zerocool22 said:

I get that, but external recorders are for me at least a thing of the past. Editing h265 is a pain in the ass. Storage costs are not really an issue  anymore (unless you wetransfer your footage to your editor or something). 

I dont use external recorders either. I always considered them a temporary solution to crippled internal recording. I have a CPU from 2013 and I can easily edit 8 bit h265, though it struggles a little with 10 bit from the xt3. But that is in resolve, naturally premiere is much worse. Nothing beats the convenience of an entire day of shooting on a single 32 GB sd card, then comfortably editing hours of footage off of a quiet 500 gb ssd.

But naturally i see the benefit of prores, both as an easy to edit format, and as an industry standard. I would rather have both, and its really a shame that there are so few cameras that can record both internally.

[kye]

6 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

I am surprised people are choosing for: Internal H.264/H.265 with LOG (small file sizes) though. I think  you could split up the users on this forum in 2 categories( one is video minded people selling corporate/event style video's on a daily basis and then you got the cinema dudes who want to create shortfilms. And those 2 people just want different camera's all togheter).  

I voted for Internal H264/H265 but I did get a bit torn between that and internal RAW.

My rationale is that I want the best quality I can get, but with a limited bitrate for practical purposes like ease of editing and stage bitrates.  I use GH5 with UHS-I cards, so I'm limited to the 150Mbps h264 4K mode or the 200Mbps h265 6K codec, and whilst I'd love to shoot the 6K mode all the time, saying it's a PITA for editing is possibly the understatement of the century, so for the moment I've gone back to 4K mode because the h264 is so much nicer.

If the manufacturers started offering internal RAW then I'd be very very interested in codecs like BRAW 12:1 (46MBps) or maybe 8:1 (68MBps) for short projects or hero shots.  But every Prores except Proxy (22.4MBps) and, at a stretch, LT (51MBps) are beyond practicality for me.

I also voted for 6K resolution.  For me, I'm currently publishing at "1080 quality" which means that I'll probably export to YT in UHD but I don't sweat it if there's a shot that is only 1080 quality because either I've cropped into a 4K shot, or it was a 4k50 150Mbps LongGOP shot conformed to 25p and possible slightly cropped and/or stabilised in post.  Of course, I'd love for every shot to look like it was shot natively in the export resolution in full uncompressed RAW, but that's not my expectation.

In this sense, taking in consideration my ~500Mbps bitrate limit, it's a toss-up between modes like:

• a very high bitrate 1080 HFR mode which would have less resolution to crop into and stabilise, but also less compression, more chroma subsampling, and higher bit depth
• a 4K "middle ground"
• a 6K oversampling approach which will have the most resolution, but the most compression and least data-per-pixel as-shot, but when downscaled to 4K may give a better result, especially considering that stabilisation is only as good as its tracking accuracy, which is a function of resolution.

When 1080 and 720 came out I did some tests comparing what resolution gives the nicest output for a given completed file size.  When you compress a video file to 1080, 720, and SD where all have the same output file size, the file with the highest resolution was easily the best quality.  This quality test assumed the same codec, and all files were quite compressed, so the test may not be directly applicable to a compressed vs RAW comparison, however it suggests that a comparison might be worthy.  

Given this logic, the h264/h265 6K or 8K file may have advantages over a lower resolution but much higher bitrate file.  I'd be open to both options, especially when you consider that a 4K sensor doesn't have full colour subsampling, whereas an 8K sensor can do 4K at full subsampling.

This then leads into the question about if you should downsample from 8K to 4K in-camera before compression or downsample in post after compression.  I suspect there are advantages to each.

 

[Amazeballs]

I would choose BMRAW over Prores any day. And it's a free codec to implement. 

Also want big 5 inch flippy bright screens (at least 1000 nits) as someone mentioned. 

[kye]

1000 nit screens would be great, but if not possible / practical then a decent EVF can also work almost as well.

[anonim]

I firstly like to give a tribute to original idea of @DBounce for such thread. Than maybe suggestion to offer preliminary stratification about primarily intentions and goals of usage. I have zero interest about photography or wedding usage, so my preferences greatly differ from people whose usage rely more on such different goals.

[Andrew Reid]

Biggest surprise of the poll so far is this.

Had expected much more Sony users.