September 02, 2014, 08:30:57 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78 79 ... 278
1141
Reviews / 6D Noise Levels and Comparison Tests
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:25:33 PM »
Someone from CloudyNights forum performed some useful tests of the 6D noise levels at different temperatures at astrophotography exposure lengths. Very interesting stuff, for those who are interested. You can find the images here at the original thread:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6402677&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=all&fpart=1&vc=#Post6402677

One of the very interesting things is you can see how much temperature affects read noise levels. The images are taken at +21°C, +7°C, and -7°C, with exposure times of 300 seconds.


1142
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:05:31 PM »
And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is.  Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter.  Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.

Noise reduction software applies to all images, regardless of pixel size. You can't bring software into the hardware equation here. Sensors are hardware. From a hardware standpoint, smaller pixels/bigger pixels, so long as the total sensor area is the same, it really doesn't matter.

Trying to bring in post-processing aspects brings in a massive amount of subjectivity into the discussion, and then it becomes impossible to guage anything. Person A might use Topaz DeNoise, Person B might use Neat Image, Person C might just use LR/PS built in NR. Let's keep the argument to concrete information that we can all agree on. Sensor area/output magnification. That's all that would really matter. A smaller sensor has the potential to produce sharper results, but overall, noise is going to be the same (at best).

I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.

For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR!  In fact, the other way is more likely.

Hmm strange then that the Canon 5D and 40D were both approx 10mpx cameras of the same generation but the IQ, noise and DR of the 5D is clearly better than the 40D (at a given ISO). Or if you prefer the Nikon D300 and D3 both c. 12mpx cameras of the same generation and guess what the D3 has better IQ, noise and DR! So regardless of the maths or anything else, when the chips are down large pixels seem to outperform small ones

Large sensors out-perform small sensors.  Small pixels out-perform large pixels as long as you don't get so small that the smaller pixels are too small for the manufacturing technology making them.

The 70D, even with 40MP out-performs the 7D with 18MP.  The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

The idea that small pixels are somehow bad is long, long out-of-date.

First, I really have to quash this idea, because it is fundamentally WRONG: The 70D is NOT NOT NOT a 40mp camera!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 70D has 20.2 million pixels. Only the center 80% of those pixels (16.16mp) have split PHOTODIODES. A photodiode and a pixel are not the same thing. The 70D has, only has, always has had, and will only ever have, 20.2 million PIXELS. The 16.16 million center rectangle of pixels have split photodiodes. There are 32.32 million photodiodes packed into 16.16 million pixels, which comprise the center 80% of the sensors 20.2 million pixels in total.

When it comes to DPAF, photodiodes != pixels. DPAF pixels have two photodiodes, but they are still one pixel. The split photodiodes are underneath the microlens and color filter...so you could never read 32.32 million pixels out independently and have it be anything better or different than reading those 16.16 million pixels out. The split halves are the same pixel, under the same filter and same microlens. If they were separate pixels, DPAF simply wouldn't work. The entire point of the technology is that you can read light from each half of the lens, and therefor detect phase differential, from each and every individual PIXEL. The 70D has 20.2 million pixels. Only. In which case, the gap between the 7D and 70D is 2.2mp...which is practically trivial, since both sensors have roughly the same total area. (The 70D's real advantage is that it is actually slightly larger in dimensions than the 7D...more total area, more total light, albeit  a nearly trivial "more".)



As for the pixels. I've never said they are bad. Small pixels out-RESOLVE large pixels, they do not necessarily out-PERFORM large pixels. But small pixels can only out-resolve large pixels in certain circumstances. Sometimes, having more pixels for identical framing means large pixels can effectively outresolve smaller pixels...because you can either use a longer lens, or get closer, and still achieve the same framing. If resolving power is all that matters to you, and you have excellent skill with noise reduction (which is arguably more difficult to apply to images made from smaller pixels than images made from larger pixels), then smaller pixels will certainly be better for your use case.

Smaller pixels will always outresolve larger pixels, but they do not normally outperform larger pixels. The only case where smaller pixels might literally outperform larger pixels is if the smaller pixels had considerably better technology than the larger pixels. If you packed in ultra high Q.E. silicon materials (i.e. black silicon), ultra low noise readout (i.e. slower frequency readout, thermal cooling), backside illumination, high power microlenses and double microlens layers, etc. then sure, you could produce smaller pixels that might be capable of outperforming larger pixels....for a time... But the same technology can always be applied to larger pixels. On a normalized basis, where the technology field is flat, (and where you don't assume some specific post processing software is used to change the output of the sensor), smaller pixels cannot perform --> better <-- than larger pixels. At best, they could perform as well, at worst...well, they would perform worse.

Pixel performance is a fairly complex thing. I challenge you to pit G15 sports, wildlife, and bird photos against the same kinds of photos from the 1D X. I'm willing to bet good money that, assuming you find work from skilled photographers who actually know how to effectively work the equipment in hand, you will NEVER find any G15 images that are better than 1D X images. The G15 may have greater DR per pixel, but the 1D X trounces it in terms of sensor area.

1143
Reviews / Re: Nikon D4s VS Canon 1Dx Comparison
« on: February 28, 2014, 08:32:05 PM »
208ms shutter lag on the D4s, seriously?

Not sure where you're getting your data…
From their analysis:


Fair enough.  More evidence of their incompetence as reviewers. 

208 ms is the value Snapsort reports for the D4, and they got that from Imaging Resourse - except they took the time for AF + shutter release, instead of just the shutter lag (which is actually 43 ms).

It would have to be 43ms, rather than 208 ms.

There is no way the shutter lag could be 208ms. There are only 1000ms per second, so 1000/208 is 4.8. If the shutter lag was 208ms, the D4 could only achieve 4.8 frames per second. Shutter lag has to be less than the total time to initiate exposure, actuate the shutter, end exposure, and flip the mirror/read the sensor, because that TOTAL lag time is what determines the maximum frame rate. Total inter-frame lag time would have to be 90ms for the D4/D4s to achieve 11fps.

1144
Reviews / Re: Nikon D4s VS Canon 1Dx Comparison
« on: February 28, 2014, 05:54:55 PM »
Not only is the article clearly biased towards Nikon, it is exceptionally shallow. There is no real testing going on here, no real depth, so it is very easy for the writer to make subjective claims, as they didn't really gather enough empirical data of a high enough quality and consistency to refute their claims.

The individual writing the review certainly doesn't seem to know the 1D X either. There is no need to pre-lock on your subject with the 1D X. In my experience, it nails focus wherever your focus points are based on the AF mode, which utilizes the RGB metering sensor and dedicated DIGIC 4 processor to compute all the necessary information. The 1D X has all the same capabilities as Nikon's AF "3D" system, and certainly seems to be more effective at computing accurate focus quickly.

1145
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:45:04 PM »
yes perfect. My original point was that I would prefer less larger pixels because IMHO larger pixels mean less noise etc. The point of comparing the SAME generation / mpx sensors, one APC-C and the other FF proves that point in the real world. Both Canon and Nikon are as close as they can be in all but pixel size. Lee Jay is suggesting exactly the opposite in that more (smaller) pixels would provide less noise

If you are not changing sensor size, then more/fewer pixels doesn't mean much. Assuming you are using the full frame. If you are reach limited, then smaller pixels have a definite and intrinsic value...you can crop more, and still have good detail. You definitely won't have less noise...you'll have more noise, however cropping higher resolution detail with more noise is often better than cropping lower resolution detail with less noise. Especially in the APS-C world.

1146
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:33:34 PM »
People seem to be suggesting (not just on this forum) that Canon are scratching their heads over the potential specifications of a 7D Mk II. I'd have thought that it was pretty obvious -an APS-C sensor version of the 5D Mk III with a higher frame rate (i.e. 8-12fps).

The elephant in the room is whether the 20MP sensor from the 70D is good enough for their "flagship APS-C camera" or whether Canon are waiting to launch a new generation of sensors in the 7D Mk II. The more time passes from the 70D's introduction, the more likely I think the 7D Mk II will be the launch vehicle for the new generation of sensor; I would therefore expect any announcement to be just prior to Photokina. [Sod's law they will announce it next month and make this prediction wrong!  ::)]

Purely speculation but I would imagine one of Canon's biggest concerns is a new 7D Mark II potentially eating into 1D X and the big white market. They need to make it attractive enough, but not so attractive to take away any of the market from their flagship body and lenses.

This is such an old and tired argument. Canon has nothing to fear from the 7D II stealing from the 1D X. The 1D X is going to be a superior camera in every respect. If someone can afford it and wants the best quality they can get, they are going to get the 1D X. In my previous comment, I explain why. Ultimately, noise is more about sensor area than pixel size. When it comes to pixel peeping, pixel size matters, but pixel peeping isn't photography...it's just a waste of time. FF sensors have more total area than APS-C sensors. For identically framed subjects, that means FF always has the potential to gather more light. More light, less noise. If you choose to stop down, then that is an artistic or technical choice, not a limitation of the technology.

In no way, regardless of what features Canon puts into the 7D II or how good they are, will it ever really steal sales away from the 1D X. On the contrary, by making the 7D II as good as they possibly can at the cheapest price point they can, it will GREATLY increase their sales. The simple fact of the matter is many, many people would probably LOVE to have a 1D X, they simply cannot afford it. The biggest thing stealing sales away from the 1D X is it's price. A feature-rich, highly capable "Mini 1D X" in the 7D II would give all those people a far more affordable option that is in reach...increasing total DSLR sales.

1147
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:28:57 PM »
Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.

I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP.  More resolution and less noise that way.

That's a misconception. If you account for noise as a factor of total sensor area, it doesn't really matter how large or small your pixel are. The expectation is that you are downsampling any and all of those sensors to some common output size...i.e. the same magnification.

Otherwise, smaller pixels are always going to have more noise at the pixel level. Any technology you might apply to smaller pixels is applicable to larger pixels. Any potential technological gains you might have that allow smaller pixels are only going to make bigger pixels better. In no way can smaller pixels be less noisy than larger pixels. They may resolve more detail, but assuming Q.E. remains roughly the same, that detail WILL be noisier.


All else being equal, if you have 6 micron pixels and 3 micron pixels, the 3 micron pixels are going to have 1/4 the FWC. A 6 micron pixel might have 60,000e- max charge at ISO 100, where as a 3 micron pixel is going to have 15,000e- max charge. Since noise is the square root of the signal, you have 244e- noise with 6 micron pixels, and 122e- noise with 3 micron pixels. In other words, you have a 244:1 SNR with 6 micron pixels, and a 122:1 SNR with 3 micron pixels.

The only way to make those smaller pixels equal to the larger pixels is to downsample by a factor of two.

What's the problem with having a high resolution sensor that allows detailed images at low ISO and then downsampling to reduce noise when you need to used higher ISOs?

I'm asking because you seem to know your stuff and I'd like to get this cleared up once and for all!

Oh, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It just won't give you LESS noise. Assuming we have two APS-C sensors, if we view them a 100%, the image taken with the sensor with smaller pixels will be noisier. If we sample them to the same size, noise will be equal. The sensor with smaller pixels will be crisper when scaled to the same size, but there won't be any real difference in noise.

Why? Because both sensors have the same total physical area. Assuming the same output magnification, the only thing that matters is sensor area, not pixel size.

This is a different argument than FF vs. APS-C. In the case of FF vs. APS-C, you can look at it a couple of ways. There is equivalence. You frame the same scene identically with both FF and APS-C (doesn't matter if you get closer with FF or use a longer lens). You need a narrower aperture with FF in order to achieve the same DOF as APS-C. You end up with the same amount of noise for the same output magnification. Again, total sensor area matters here, however you have normalized all factors, so noise relative to output magnification is going to be similar.

However, I don't think that is generally how photographers think. In my experience, photographers who want the same framing with FF as their APS-C counterparts ALSO want a thinner DOF and blurrier background. That is especially the case with those who do portraiture, weddings, studio work, etc. with shorter and medium focal lengths. In that case, FF is always going to be vastly superior to APS-C. Not only do you have greater total sensor area, but you have larger pixels AND a faster aperture. No contest. Smaller pixels on a smaller sensor cannot compete in any way, shape, or form.

In any case, in none of the above scenarios will smaller pixels give you BETTER noise characteristics. They may allow sharper images, but from a noise standpoint, you at best can get the same noise performance out of smaller pixels for the same sensor size. Smaller pixels on a smaller sensor, in common use cases they will never be as good as larger pixels on a larger sensor, and at best they will only be "as good".

1148
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:01:51 PM »
4K video is now featuring on SmartPhones:
- Sony Xperia Z2 brings 4K video to its flagship smartphone
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/4506883679/sony-xperia-z2-records-4k-video
- Samsung Galaxy S5 adds 16MP camera with 4K video
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/7372383200/samsung-galaxy-s5-features16mp-and-4k-video

Will the 7D Mark II be the first "normal" DSLR with 4k video??

I think Sony and Samsung have every reason to put 4K in their phones, given that they have 4K televisions to sell as well. Its an incentive, buy one and get the other one because its compatible with each other. I can see the advertisements now: Don't have enough 4K content yet? Thats fine, make your own 4K content with our phones. Then buy our TVs to view your 4K content.

In my opinion, get yourself a GoPro 3+ black edition... borrow one... buy one, use it for a week or 2 and return it.
Test it out... Record 4K and see what you can actually do with it. I know its not exactly 4K at the desired frame rates that you want... but you will see how limited you are with it.
Just do it... it will explain every thing I was saying up till now.

Well, I shoot video and I don't use a cell phone to do it. Trust me, 4K will be a big improvement over what we have now.

Remember, even if you are delivering in 2K, having your source footage in 4K is a significant advantage in many ways.

This is very true, for sure. However it also kind of assumes you know why it is an advantage, and that you have the post-processing software to take advantage of it. I still don't see this as a reason for Canon to put 4k in all of their DSLRs with upcoming releases. It might be grounds for them to release firmware updates for the 1D X and 5D III to support 24fps 4k, though.

1149
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Dual Pixel Tech Coming to the EOS 5D Mark III?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:00:11 PM »
I thought Magic Lantern had already done this with the 5D3??

cayenne

Dual pixel tech is a hardware feature. It cannot be added with firmware. Canon would have to have actually manufactured the 5D III sensor with dual pixel technology at the time they released it in order to add the capability with a firmware update later on.

Given the work that ML has done, if that was the case, I would have expected them to have figured that out by now, what with all of the things they have been doing with the 5D III lately. Given that they have not, it seems unlikely that the 5D III sensor was actually manufactured with DPAF tech.

If Canon does offer an upgrade, it would be a "Send your camera in and we'll replace the main board with one that has a DPAF sensor". And, that would probably cost a pretty penny, too! They may release an interim update to the 5D III, like the 5D IIIdp, that includes just a new sensor and no other model changes. Canon has done small interim camera model updates in the past, like the 1D IIn.

1150
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:25:27 PM »
Having not even read all of that yet, and doubt I will tonight...let me just say that, I think you knew I was being sarcastic, because that actually is really what I think of you.  And I know you think even worse of me, so I know you were also being sarcastic.  But it's kind of fun to not let our personal mutual disgust get in the way of other important things such as photography.

I also wanted to say that, having not thought much about what I asked above (apparently), I can answer my own question with a simple answer (as in, why not get a scope instead, etc.).

(Besides the fact that you are a birder)...It's because you want a wider field of view than most telescopes provide, correct?  I'm pretty sure most of the astro images I've seen, that needed a wider field of view, were not shot with telescopes, but rather SLR cameras and lenses.

There are some very good short focal length refractors out there specifically designed for wide field work. There is also the HyperStar option for Celestron SCT scopes, which focal reduces them to f/2 instruments. If you have a 2800mm f/10 11" EdgeHD, and convert it with Hyperstar, you now have a 560mm f/2 imager...that is an even wider field than I get with my 600mm. Some refractors are as short as 400mm.

I think a lot of people DO use their camera lenses for very wide field work, for sure....although I think that is more a matter of convenience than anything. A good apochromatic 80mm f/4 scope (320mm focal length) can cost a pretty penny (several thousand), where as a 300mm f/4 camera lens might cost $1000 cheaper (although can still cost a thousand or two itself.) The actual apo 80mm f/4 refractor will be a much better device for imaging, and if y our serious about your astrophotography, it's the better route to go for wide field work (unless your talking Canon Great White telephotos, in which case until you get to the real high end range of apo scopes, the Canon lenses will be better.)

There are actually some professional scientific groups that use arrays of Canon lenses to do deep sky imaging. I know that EF 200mm f/1.8 L and f/2 L, EF 300mm f/2.8 L, EF 400mm f/2.8 L lenses have all been used in ultra fast (i.e. f/1!) telescopic arrays. Some have been used to find ultra dim deep field objects (super distant, dim galaxies), others have been used to find the dimmest nebula and galactic disc detail ever (the size of the average galaxy, according to some papers about an array that uses 12 EF 400mm f/2.8 L lenses in an f/1 setup, is significantly larger than is normally seen in your average visible light imaging...at f/1, you can gather so much light that you can see the dimmest structures in the universe with the exception of what Hubble itself sees.)

Ok, I read some of the end of one of your posts.  9 micro meters for a pixel on a medium format imager...impressive.  Would you happen to know what sort of imagers some of the well known observatories use?  I'm sure it's probably customized, or "bespoke" componentry, but was just curious.  I imagine the sensor is even larger than medium format.  The one in the Hubble Space Telescope I assume, is quite large, but probably not the largest.  Perhaps the "wide field" space scope uses an even larger imager (the one that hunts extra-solar planets, detects phase shifts from stars)...I think this is not even really called an imager, is it?

Hubble has some large imagers, but its newer and more advanced ones are not all that large. Certainly not the largest.

A lot of professional observatories use PlaneWave scopes on Paramount ME II mounts with FLI imagers as the lowest end imagers they might use. There are some much larger imagers out there. Some have diagonals as large as 90mm, which is utterly massive, that's a 64mmx64mm sensor. These sensors also tend to have around 70dB of dynamic range. When you factor in a multi-stage watercooled TEC with a 70°C to 80°C Delta-T and read noise levels in the 0.001e- range, and they utterly blow the crap out of your average DSLR sensor or even a cooled $10,000 astro CCD imager. Imagers like that tend to cost a hundred grand a piece.

The larger PlaneWave scopes, including the $200,000 28", have become pretty standard these days for professional installations. They are usually set up as arrays and calibrated to point at the same locations in the sky synchronously. So, you might have an array of five PlaneWave 28" CDKs all with the high end 65mm or 90mm (diagonal) sensors. Your average multi-scope array setup for a university probably costs a couple million bucks, but in terms of combined relative aperture and sensitivity, such a setup can rival a mountain top observatory for total light gathering capacity, at a tenth the cost or less.

The largest telescopes on earth, like the Keck 10 meter, is an f/1.74 monstrosity. The Keck observatory houses multiple scopes, uses active optics, and dozens of imaging devices. I doubt any branded cameras were used...they probably use sensors from Teledyne, E2V, etc. and built them directly into the system.

1151
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:09:36 PM »
The Pleiades. The first few frames I managed to get on the first night I set up my telescope setup:



This was stacked from only a few frames, maybe 28. I had originally intended to take about 100 frames or so, but cloud cover and an accidental unplugging of my power cable ended up ending the night before it really got started.

1152
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 12:55:52 PM »
There is no way the 5D III is being replaced this year. Not a chance. It's a SUPERB camera, and the 5D II lasted closer to four years than three. I don't expect to even see CR2 rumors for the 5D IV until next year, and I don't expect it to hit the streets until the end of 2015/early 2016. The 1D X won't be replaced any time soon, either...it's just too good a camera. It would be unwise for Canon to release new models for at least another year and a half (especially considering the 1D X didn't actually hit the streets until the better part of a year after it had been announced.)

The 5DIII development cycle was interrupted by environmental factors: the tsunami at Fukushima delayed quite a few products meaning that the 5DIII would have arrived sooner than it did if everything had of gone to plan. 4 year gap was likely not intentional.

That still does not change the fact that the 5D III is still an exceptional camera by current standards. It will continue to be an exceptional camera for many more years.

1153
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:39:49 AM »
Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.

I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP.  More resolution and less noise that way.

That's a misconception. If you account for noise as a factor of total sensor area, it doesn't really matter how large or small your pixel are. The expectation is that you are downsampling any and all of those sensors to some common output size...i.e. the same magnification.

Otherwise, smaller pixels are always going to have more noise at the pixel level. Any technology you might apply to smaller pixels is applicable to larger pixels. Any potential technological gains you might have that allow smaller pixels are only going to make bigger pixels better. In no way can smaller pixels be less noisy than larger pixels. They may resolve more detail, but assuming Q.E. remains roughly the same, that detail WILL be noisier.


All else being equal, if you have 6 micron pixels and 3 micron pixels, the 3 micron pixels are going to have 1/4 the FWC. A 6 micron pixel might have 60,000e- max charge at ISO 100, where as a 3 micron pixel is going to have 15,000e- max charge. Since noise is the square root of the signal, you have 244e- noise with 6 micron pixels, and 122e- noise with 3 micron pixels. In other words, you have a 244:1 SNR with 6 micron pixels, and a 122:1 SNR with 3 micron pixels.

The only way to make those smaller pixels equal to the larger pixels is to downsample by a factor of two.

1154
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:31:04 AM »
...
Now Panasonic comes out with 4K video at 24 frames per second... still not fast enough to do anything beyond very slow moving objects

4k video at 24fps is not fast enough for ... anything?

Someone better tell Hollywood that the frame rate they've been using for decades in nearly all of their movies is too slow for motion!
Good point :)
They also have a lot more skill at movie making than I do... a LOT more...
My movie making has been recording musicians (slow), scenery while paddling (slow), and birds and a hyper kitten (very fast). 30fps is fast enough for the first two, and 120fps isn't fast enough for the second two...

Your still thinking like a photographer. When it comes to video, it's always 24fps, or 29fps, or 30fps. Those are the standard cinematic frame rates. They don't change. Doesn't matter what your filming, you always use those key frame rates. Video is quite different from stills in this respect...one of the things that is great about these lower frame rates is they are slow enough to exhibit motion blur, which is actually quite a desirable thing for cinema.

The Hobbit movies were filmed at 48fps. That lead to a lot of complaints from many movie goers. The lack of motion blur results in it being a LOT easier to spot the propishness of props, it results in movement that is too crisp, panning that is too sharp, etc. Hollywood cinematographers are going to have to discover a whole new batch of tricks to hide the fakeness of movie scenes with higher framerates. At 60fps, which is coming down the pipe, it will be even harder to conceal than at 48fps. And the stark kind of motion-without-blur will become even worse.

I think 48fps and 60fps may be a little ahead of their time. They are CERTAINLY ahead of the post-processing tools. I think a lot of the means cinematographers have to hide the fakery at 24fps is ultimately going to end up being done in post. I think motion blur, achieved by cross-blending certain parts of sequences of frames, will also ultimately be achieved in post, if higher frame rates are really the way of the future for cinema.

For anyone who isn't a professional cinematographer, however, 24, 29, and 30fps are pretty much the staples. Even if your filming birds.

Are you a cinematographer or video maker? I would be really surprised if you said yes as then you would know better than to say these things. 48/60 and more fps is required when things need to be shown in slow motion. Many times birds need to be shown in slow motion to create drama and to catch things which normal motion would not do.

Sure, if your filming slow motion. I've said as much earlier in this thread. But for standard motion video, your usually at one of the standard frame rates, because those are your playback rates. As far as slow motion goes, you can film up to 100,000 fps if you really want to...that means, technically speaking, frame rate is arbitrary. Slow motion is a special case, you usually buy a piece of equipment specifically capable of doing slow motion if your interested in slow motion.

But that's not what were talking about here. Were talking about average people "needing" 4k video to shoot average things. Your not going to be at 48 or 60 frames per second. People who would ultimately use a 750D to shoot 4k video are just going to flip it to video mode and start shooting 4k video...and that is going to be at 24fps. For the people who are a little more serious than your average person shooting average video, then they are likely to have something more capable. A 5D IV or a 1D X II, where you might actually have the option of 60fps to support some basic slow motion for cinematic video recording. However, that brings us right back around to the original argument:

Canon won't be offering that kind of 4k video support any time soon, not in their DSLRs. The 5D IV is a couple years away. The 1D X II is probably farther off than that. I suspect there will be a more cost-effective Cinema EOS model before either of those two come out with 4k video.

1155
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:32:47 AM »
So, this is a rumor that there will soon be a rumor?

It is a discussion as to the accuracy of a rumour that there may soon be a rumour of a possible announcement that there may be a release of specifications in advance of a product release.

Translation: nobody knows


I.E. Rumormongering  :P

Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78 79 ... 278