Great article

[Emanuel]

I didn't mean it like that. But it's not like Chris Nolan and Spielberg are going to hang out on EOSHD. They're just not the market. We're indie guys, event shooters, corporate shooters, hobbyists, and the like. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think there's a lot of high-end cinema shooters here. You might count Ed David, but he barely posts here anyway. 

So, let's put the personal stuff addressed to my PM box (I am waiting for your time in my mother language) and be on topic now. Your post's topic, though BTW.

Chris Nolan and Spielberg or alike then, humm? With an exception, Ed (Ed, my fellowman, no more pro-tests this time, your self-esteem can not deny ; ))

And the rest of the world...?

Frankly, my brother, how old are you? No, it is not a personal question (I doubt you'd privately reply anyway LOL), it concerns the subject matter.

Age, experience, whatever, anything related counts to understand the way the audience here (in this case, you) should particularly be addressed to.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

So, let's put the personal stuff addressed to my PM box (I am waiting for your time in my mother language) and be on topic now. Your post's topic, though BTW.

Chris Nolan and Spielberg or alike then, humm? With an exception, Ed (Ed, my fellowman, no more pro-tests this time, your self-esteem can not deny ; ))

And the rest of the world...?

Frankly, my brother, how old are you? No, it is not a personal question (I doubt you'd privately reply anyway LOL), it concerns the subject matter.

Age, experience, whatever, anything related counts to understand the way the audience here (in this case, you) should particularly be addressed to.

I'm sorry, I thought we were getting back on topic. 

[Emanuel]

Wow, alright. I didn't know English was your second language. I was simply responding to your criticizing me for using "dude."
I'm also not trying to attack you. I disagree with your assertion that 4:2:2 is more important than 8-bit, and that 4K doesn't matter as much as other factors. You've gotten very emotional about both problems and responded not with a compelling argument supporting your claim, but with a flawed test, baseless assertions, and a holier than thou "I eat professional cinematographers for breakfast" attitude I find unwelcome and unhelpful to the conversation at hand. It might help if you state your opinion in a way that leaves room for dissent without denigrating others for it. A collegiate atmosphere, in my experience, does a lot to improve the approach-ability and level of discourse of a forum. 

No. That statement is inaccurate. You've disagreed, true. But, far away to be me to be emotional on that. You've just started to discredit that test (not even mine) because didn't serve your higher bit depth claim. "Baseless assertions" were not mine, pal. My "holier-than-thou" expression as you say now is written in some other (figurative speech) context and in some other thread where here you kept going your crusade over the messenger. We, me and other posters of your side, were even capable to conclude it there. Not exactly agreeing to disagree. Go there and take a second glance on topic. There's much to read.

[sunyata]

I'm am genuinely laughing out loud, not fake LOL. 

[Emanuel]

I'm am genuinely laughing out loud, not fake LOL. 

To laugh is healthy, man. I also got (and not a fake) one when you tried to explain the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 with a monochromatic sample (nice try to decompress with that Marcie one haha) If you say so because you refer to import to here that discussion out there, it is pointless. Remember? You wrote "maybe" three times in the same line. It seems some people (and this is not addressed to you, man of the renaissance) have some trouble to accept the opponent may agree with us in some way or another. Or have hard chance to publicly accept they are as much ordinary as the others. Because our egos make us to believe we are in some higher superior degree because some client has decided to sign the check to pay the hours spent at the front of the computer when we actually post in some ordinary forums. We all suffer of such need of love. Everyone in the same boat. From there to conclude some variables as codec, bitrate can be more useful than specs on the paper, it is not hard when our egos let us settle them down.

[dbp]

OUCH. What a bunch of losers we all are.

Not being a big deal doesn't equal loser. It means you aren't a big deal. Most people aren't (me included)

And it's true. The likelihood of the top of the food chain type of folk posting here is rare. But that's ok. We're all in the same boat, trying to get better and learn a thing or two. 

Still important to maintain perspective.

 

 

[sunyata]

Ah, bang goes the dynamite. I was actually just laughing at how cantankerous these forums are, not you specifically. But if you want to talk about screw ups, these are your words:

People are too focused on 10-bit versus 8-bit, when the-real-difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 is higher than 10-bit 4:2:2 vs 8-bit 4:2:2.

This is not correct but I understand how one could think that from that Shogun test, to be fair. The radial I used was not initially monochrome btw, it was de-saturated to try to closely match the source test you referenced. "nice try to decompress with that Marcie one haha".. I'm not even sure what that means. I said "maybe" 3 times in a sentence to underline how many possible variables could be introduced in the Shogun test, i.e. "Maybe this, maybe that, who knows." 

"Or have hard chance to publicly accept they are as much ordinary as the others."  " We all suffer of such need of love. Everyone in the same boat." Okay, now I'm in a 12 step program? 

[Emanuel]

Ah, bang goes the dynamite. I was actually just laughing on how cantankerous these forums are. But if you want to talk about screw ups, these are your words:

This is demonstrably wrong, as I demonstrated. The radial was not initially monochrome btw, it was de-saturated to try to closely match the source test you referenced. "nice try to decompress with that Marcie one haha".. I'm not even sure what that means. I said "maybe" 3 times in a sentence to underline how many possible variables could be introduced in that test you referenced. i.e. "Maybe this, maybe that, who knows." 

" We all suffer of such need of love. Everyone in the same boat." really?

WOW now you quote directly from the other thread. So, are you bringing the other discussion finally, once again? Why? The other thread was not enough? What happened there for so much fury here?

What 'screw ups'? Without the context of my words? When I repeatedly mentioned we were speaking about banding, not exactly grading?

When I even wrote why I had written "the-real-difference"?

With no mention of other posts, examples you didn't give a damn, I see. What's the beef here? Ain't you used to read the manuals till the end because you've already guessed the rest of the lines?

Instead, your first post on topic was rather embarassing and there were three people to explicitly remind you how pointless you were.

Your contribution to the discussion was what? To mention those variables? Do you want the bicycle? Take it. Be happy!

On the rest, I can even guess you think the same about my own but quite frankly, I find your tone full of you, with the syndrome of superiority. Your last line doesn't let me down, speaks by itself. I'm sorry.

Ah, bang goes the dynamite. I was actually just laughing at how cantankerous these forums are, not you specifically. But if you want to talk about screw ups, these are your words:

This is not correct but I understand how one could think that from that Shogun test, to be fair. The radial I used was not initially monochrome btw, it was de-saturated to try to closely match the source test you referenced. "nice try to decompress with that Marcie one haha".. I'm not even sure what that means. I said "maybe" 3 times in a sentence to underline how many possible variables could be introduced in the Shogun test, i.e. "Maybe this, maybe that, who knows." 

"Or have hard chance to publicly accept they are as much ordinary as the others."  " We all suffer of such need of love. Everyone in the same boat." Okay, now I'm in a 12 step program? 

PS:

And as we can see, you've edited now your content for some reason, isn't it?

I can just conclude this personal crap has no place, not even via PM. So, I invite you to personally visit me whenever you'll be in Europe. But before let me know your names, please. I find it pretty fair, correct?

[sunyata]

You're right, I want the bicycle. I'm sorry.

[Emanuel]

You're right, I want the bicycle. I'm sorry.

Ah man of pictures, I see the craft is in your veins after all. Perfect entry. My hat :-)

[hmcindie]

But it will probably a 5D3 like video, which means not clean, poor bitrate, no HFR, ...

5D3 still looks great to me. For example if we compare the bitrates in h264 All-i vs the A7s.

A7s: macroblocking in movement (lots in 50p mode). Quite sharpish though. Moderate amount of Sony "edge artifacts". Some come from sharpening and some weird white/black highlights around contrasty edges. Blue leds are completely horrible.

5D3: No artifacts from compression almost at all. Smooth and soft (no edge artifacts either). Blue leds are bad but still quite workable.

Switch to RAW and the 5D3 goes from quite nice to crazy good. No HFR? It does 720p60 and I've done several 720p shoots on it, with clients always liking the image. A7s does 1080p60 but the compression starts to fail and moire/aliasing goes up (unless you switch to APS-C). Funnily I quite like the 120fps mode on the A7s, eventhough it starts to get on the ugly side.

The RX10ii is a different story though. First consumer camera to really make nice HFR, I've been having lots of fun with it.

 

Oh and on to the 4:2:2 vs 10bit grudge match... 4:2:2 is not very important in grading unless you do a lot of masks and edge keys. The end results will anyways be 4:2:0 so these edges will always be a bit snuffy. Proper 10bit is more important (especially if the image comes from Alexa or something)

[jagnje]

 Really? 

Back on topic... an example. What would you take, a 5d as it comes out of the factory with 4k or a 5d with everything a C100 has? Or they just drop the C100 prices to 1k and I'm happy for a few years.

[Mattias Burling]

I shoot 4K and imo the benefit is mostly for youtube since it gives a higher bitrate.

With that said, yesterday I re watched The Room for the 100th time, this time on Blue-Ray.
That film has everything working against it, the lighting is bad, the set is bad, the locations is bad.
But still I couldn't help notice how the s35mm film still simply killed.. scratch that.. Kidnapped, tortured and murdered the look of any 4K video out there.

Im such a sucker for the look of film its unbelievable.

 

Don't know why I posted it here, but it was the thoughts that came to mind after reading this thread.

 

[jagnje]

I have no problem upscaling 1080p to 4k for better bitrates on youtube.

[Emanuel]

Of course, variables count. We can't live without them. The same way there'll always be higher bitrate if we change from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2, obviously. On that test, can the difference between codecs, bitrate, etc bring the "whole" difference there? As sunyata wrote three times, maybe. No trouble to second it. Why shouldn't we? What do we have here? Two different teams pretending to themselves their shirt is prettier than the other side? Your loved doll (higher bit depth) is not less mine. Who can say differently? Who would go from Alexa to 8-bit? C'mon.

My beef is with the misconception only 10-bit is the miracle to save your footage from 8-bit banding. This is inaccurate. Countless examples going to the big screen since film has been replaced there (no one is saying it beats film or you said someone said). Dogma falling down? Is that the problem? Something different to believe? And that test fits the case. Beyond 4:2:2 vs 10-bit (a less careful reading has brought your light approach and carefree misinterpretation on the topic of the discussion), with higher bitrate, yeah, better codec and so on. Beware, the devil is in the details.

In behalf of the topic here, ML hack proves these capture devices can top other than the crippled 4:2:0 offer. For some reason, they don't implement it in their more affordable line. OP and article's point. Very accurate BTW.

[Mattias Burling]

I have no problem upscaling 1080p to 4k for better bitrates on youtube.

me neither, but if I'm using one of my cameras that have 4k, why bother with the extra step.

[Emanuel]

me neither, but if I'm using one of my cameras that have 4k, why bother with the extra step.

LOL On target. The point in behalf of 4K adoption. Anyway. Bitrate is much important than apparently seems. Especially if your target is a bigger screen. And for certain 8-bit hassles for sure. No one here is in love with low bit depth. It is much more to try to survive with.

There's something some of you tend to neglect. High-end is done with well-fed crews, lots of resources, etc. Which means to make poorer the scope of your communication because your audience becomes wider and you'll need to reach a much larger group of people to pay the bill of your investors. Most part of these viewers with no much more than basic visual literacy. I will only give you an example though. Who from here knows José Padilha, the guy who made the last Robocop and the most recent Netflix series Narcos*? Have you ever seen his Bus 174 masterpiece? (the guy weren't born inside the mainstream)

- E :-)

 

* as producer, the first two episodes as director

[Mattias Burling]

 

There's something some of you tend to neglect....

- E :-)

nope, knowing just that have payed my bills since day one after school.

[Emanuel]

nope, knowing just that have payed my bills since day one after school.

If you say, I trust your word :-) Some of them then : D

To me, what counts is the stuff which makes me happy with. No VFX has gotten to disturb my sleep. Literally. Yawn in movie theatre became one of my specialities...

[Damphousse]

http://admiringlight.com/blog/the-sliding-scale-of-camera-capabilities/

That applies 100% to video. 

Interesting to see how Canon was a killer, democratizing the industry for stills and then for video (5D2) by releasing affordable devices with pro features. 
Such a shame it is not the case anymore. What changed at Canon? 

All of this because of their Cine line   I hate it, and hate all of you who are buying C100, C300, C500 that make money to Canon and make them cripple the 7Ds/5Ds bodies for us non professional ... 
Without this Cine line, we would get a 5D4 with 4K with great bitrate and Canon Log - DPAF and so on.......

I still think 5D4 will have 4K unlike many of you (don't imagine how a body can come in 2016 without 4K, that would be non imaginable) when even iPhones get 4K. 
But it will probably a 5D3 like video, which means not clean, poor bitrate, no HFR, ...

Anyway. 

You got that from the article you linked to?!  A quote from the article...

Today’s cameras are ALL exceptional.  Everything with a decent sized sensor can produce images that will appease 98% of photographers and viewers of photography.

How you get "the C100 and 5D MK III" are crap from that... I just don't know.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on some valid points but the article you linked to is making an entirely different point.