Big Announcements Coming Next Week [CR3]

[ajfotofilmagem]

Has anyone stopped to consider how disgusting humans look in 1080p close-ups and that 4K, 8K etc. are truly terrifying developments?...

I find it amazing how you can take a picture, and then pixel peep to see details you would never notice in the real world....

Can't even make out the colour of your eyes, Sir... Moar DR! Moar Pixels! Canon needs 1080K already!

Fun shot n' crop though, Don... But are these 4K enthusiasts hoping to zoom in to watch Spielberg in motion, directing Indiana from within the reflection in his eyes?

Over here the BBC in 576p is awesome - I fear the Americans and Japanese have simply spent too long suffering with 480i and now they're desperate to overcompensate

Some people (few) really need 4K. : But a huge number of people want to 4K to not feel inferior to have lower resolution. :-\

Small dick complex. :-[

 

[AvTvM]

Some people (few) really need 4K. : But a huge number of people want to 4K to not feel inferior to have lower resolution. :-\

if I recall correctly, the argument was 4k capture is "useful" despite the current scaricity of 4k-capable viewing devices ... "to get better looking/downsampled HD/2k/1080p video"?

But I am certainly the last person to comment on video. Never captured one. But my next PC monitor will be 4k (minimum) and my next TV set as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just thought of something...
5DS (53 megapixel)=Nikon D810
5DIV = Nikon D750
6DII = Nikon D610

It's starting to make sense I think..thoughts?

Or not.

7DII = Nikon ??

 

[Rahul]

Just thought of something...
5DS (53 megapixel)=Nikon D810
5DIV = Nikon D750
6DII = Nikon D610

It's starting to make sense I think..thoughts?

Or not.

7DII = Nikon ??

Don't worry, Nikon will be releasing something competitive in the next few months, call it back for QA/QC problems and release yet another updated camera which will eventually come close to the 7DII in performance (not sales).

 

[PureClassA]

It's about shooting, not necessarily the end display. Shooting in 4k and down-converting to 1080, while a more labor intensive process, yields better resolve in the end product than shooting at 1080 native. Furthermore, shooting in 4k affords you the ability to crop down to 25% of the image if desired and still retain full HD resolution. 4k also allows for future proofing your work when in the next few years, you'll see a lot more 4k media apart from just the movie theaters.

Look, I wasn't talking about the lack of it being a deal breaker on a new 5 body. Far, far from it. But when everyone else on the block has implemented what is now so common a feature, even with a $500 Go-Pro Hero 4, it would seem odd to deliver a new flagship product without it when Canon itself extols their prowess in television commercials right now as being "the company that brought Hollywood caliber HD to a DSLR" http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7pF2/canon-bring-it

All I'm saying is I'd be very surprised at this point if we don't see the next step in a new FF body. By the way, since everyone laments the "wax" on Canon HD, shooting in 4k and down sampling I'd bet would mitigate much of that effect.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's about shooting, not necessarily the end display.

That 'argument' is asinine. If anybody was to suggest you need to shoot with a medium format digital sized sensor to use a crop camera sensor area for your image, or shoot with a 100mm when you need a 400mm you would be, rightly, laughed at.

Sure a little amount of 'cropping' space to straighten an image etc is nice, but 400% is crazy.

 

[Lee Jay]

It's about shooting, not necessarily the end display.

That 'argument' is asinine. If anybody was to suggest you need to shoot with a medium format digital sized sensor to use a crop camera sensor area for your image, or shoot with a 100mm when you need a 400mm you would be, rightly, laughed at.

Sure a little amount of 'cropping' space to straighten an image etc is nice, but 400% is crazy.

400%? Where'd you get that number? From full-HD it's 100% (factor of 2). It's quite common for me to consume 40% in the process of post stabilization so 100% isn't crazy at all.

 

[PureClassA]

4k is 4 times the resolution of HD, doubling both axis of the lines. Either way still missing the point. Lets take the 400mm lens example. I shoot with a 400mm lens in 4k and I can effectively get full 1080 with about four times the reach if I crop down, negating to some respects the need for a 1600mm lens. Furthermore, lets say I want to shoot something like people on a pretty landscape. I can do a single shot to get everything in frame AND I can crop down to a closer-up shot of one area or the people if desired when editing a project without having to make several separate shots if time or equipment or lighting conditions don't permit. Then I can take the full frame shot and down sample to the same 1080 timeline and get a better image than having shot in native 1080. There are LOADS of advantages to 4k shooting and DSLR video cinematography folk desire them. Canon STARTED this movement with the 5D2.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's about shooting, not necessarily the end display.

That 'argument' is asinine. If anybody was to suggest you need to shoot with a medium format digital sized sensor to use a crop camera sensor area for your image, or shoot with a 100mm when you need a 400mm you would be, rightly, laughed at.

Sure a little amount of 'cropping' space to straighten an image etc is nice, but 400% is crazy.

400%? Where'd you get that number? From full-HD it's 100% (factor of 2). It's quite common for me to consume 40% in the process of post stabilization so 100% isn't crazy at all.

Idiot*.

FHD 1920x1080 = 2,073,600, 4K 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400

8,294,400/2,073,600 = 4.

4K is 400% the size of FHD.

Crop cameras have a multiplication factor of 1.6 (for Canon) but a FF sensor is 2.56 times the size of a crop camera's. Or, twice as long and twice as tall, for four times the area. Now before we get into an argument about factors and multiplication, which I am not interested in doing with you, it takes four FHD sensors to make one 4K sensor, if you crop a 4K image to 25% it's area you get the resolution of a FHD 1080 image.

* that was the very first word you typed to me in your first reply to a post of mine in the forum.

 

[privatebydesign]

4k is 4 times the resolution of HD, doubling both axis of the lines. Either way still missing the point. Lets take the 400mm lens example. I shoot with a 400mm lens in 4k and I can effectively get full 1080 with about four times the reach if I crop down, negating to some respects the need for a 1600mm lens. Furthermore, lets say I want to shoot something like people on a pretty landscape. I can do a single shot to get everything in frame AND I can crop down to a closer-up shot of one area or the people if desired when editing a project without having to make several separate shots if time or equipment or lighting conditions don't permit. Then I can take the full frame shot and down sample to the same 1080 timeline and get a better image than having shot in native 1080. There are LOADS of advantages to 4k shooting and DSLR video cinematography folk desire them. Canon STARTED this movement with the 5D2.

No you miss the point, 4K is only useful in and of itself if you are outputting 4K, though there is a good argument for shooting 5K if you want to output 4K.

Shooting more than 1080 makes a lot of sense to output to 1080, but saying you need 4K to get good 1080 output is just plain wrong. 2-3K gives lots of headroom to output 1080.

 

[Lee Jay]

It's about shooting, not necessarily the end display.

That 'argument' is asinine. If anybody was to suggest you need to shoot with a medium format digital sized sensor to use a crop camera sensor area for your image, or shoot with a 100mm when you need a 400mm you would be, rightly, laughed at.

Sure a little amount of 'cropping' space to straighten an image etc is nice, but 400% is crazy.

400%? Where'd you get that number? From full-HD it's 100% (factor of 2). It's quite common for me to consume 40% in the process of post stabilization so 100% isn't crazy at all.

Idiot*.

FHD 1920x1080 = 2,073,600, 4K 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400

8,294,400/2,073,600 = 4.

4K is 400% the size of FHD.

Crop cameras have a multiplication factor of 1.6 (for Canon) but a FF sensor is 2.56 times the size of a crop camera's. Or, twice as long and twice as tall, for four times the area. Now before we get into an argument about factors and multiplication, which I am not interested in doing with you, it takes four FHD sensors to make one 4K sensor, if you crop a 4K image to 25% it's area you get the resolution of a FHD 1080 image.

* that was the very first word you typed to me in your first reply to a post of mine in the forum.

Cropping is a linear measure, not an areal one. This is true in both sensor sizes and in post processing software.

4k/2k = 2 = 100% increase or crop of 50% of the image.

 

[Khnnielsen]

4k is 4 times the resolution of HD, doubling both axis of the lines. Either way still missing the point. Lets take the 400mm lens example. I shoot with a 400mm lens in 4k and I can effectively get full 1080 with about four times the reach if I crop down, negating to some respects the need for a 1600mm lens. Furthermore, lets say I want to shoot something like people on a pretty landscape. I can do a single shot to get everything in frame AND I can crop down to a closer-up shot of one area or the people if desired when editing a project without having to make several separate shots if time or equipment or lighting conditions don't permit. Then I can take the full frame shot and down sample to the same 1080 timeline and get a better image than having shot in native 1080. There are LOADS of advantages to 4k shooting and DSLR video cinematography folk desire them. Canon STARTED this movement with the 5D2.

No you miss the point, 4K is only useful in and of itself if you are outputting 4K, though there is a good argument for shooting 5K if you want to output 4K.

Shooting more than 1080 makes a lot of sense to output to 1080, but saying you need 4K to get good 1080 output is just plain wrong. 2-3K gives lots of headroom to output 1080.

It makes a lot of sense to use 4k footage with a 1080p timeline in the real world of deadlines and thight shooting schedules.
Apart from the IQ boost, which downscaled 4k is supposed to give, then I also get more use out of my interview footage and b-roll, when I use 4k.

I especially like to reframe my interview-footage to reflect what the person is talking about.

 

[Rahul]

@pbd - elephantine memory, I like that

 

[Lawliet]

It's about shooting, not necessarily the end display.

That 'argument' is asinine.

Only to those unaware of the color subsampling the Bayer-pattern involves.
Some comp work done with CG footage makes the shortcomings of subsampled material even harder to ignore.

 

[Jan]

Just thought of something...
5DS (53 megapixel)=Nikon D810
5DIV = Nikon D750
6DII = Nikon D610

It's starting to make sense I think..thoughts?

Or not.

7DII = Nikon ??

7DII = Nikon D7200. To be released @ CP+.

 

[Khufu]

Meh... I used to shoot tour videography on HDV cams at PAL DV 576p... and upscaled to 720p for the YouTubes!
Nobody gave a frick, I'll go as far as to say no-one noticed. I do think 576p is a pleasant upgrade/alternative to 480p but much beyond that is for the most part unnecessary. With sensors at APS-C or even m4/3, never mind FF, we're needing slow apertures or shooting exceptionally highly defined b/g and f/g, er, blur? Neato!

If you want MOAR REACH you can try an M2, 600D, 70D, ML-ware etc for epic video crop.

Interviewing anybody ever at 1080p seems disturbing to me, I don't want to see anyone's studio make-up flakes and nose hairs... How about grabbing that Ultra-HD Soft Focus lens so we can record all the pleasant 8K footage we need?!

Seriously... Record clean audio and balance it well and you can film with an old shoe and people will love it.

My HDR FX1000 has 3x 1/3" sensors with no more pixels than necessary, a body made for holding sans-stabilising and some nice Cine-type/Gama Curve profiles... Plenty is in focus, insane f/1.6 constant aperture on a 20x zoom - do people remember these things we used to call video cameras and expressions such as "right tool for the job"?

I know, I'm off on one again... People are fascinating though, aren't they?

 

[dcm]

...

I know, I'm off on one again... People are fascinating though, aren't they?

Our expectations are spoiled by our phones that now do so much. We expect everything else to have everything and be better than anything before. It's quite a challenge to keep up in this world. :

 

[xps]

Just thought of something...
5DS (53 megapixel)=Nikon D810
5DIV = Nikon D750
6DII = Nikon D610

It's starting to make sense I think..thoughts?

Or not.

7DII = Nikon ??

7DII = Nikon D7200. To be released @ CP+.

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/12/15/nikon-d7200-rumored-specifications.aspx/

Here are the rumored Nikon D7200 specifications:

New 24MP APS-C sensor
Nikon D750 styled body with a tilting screen
Expeed 4 processor
MultiCAM 3500DX2 autofocus system
51 AF points
Built-in Wi-Fi
6fps
Buffer: 16 RAW+JPG
Video: 1080p @60 and 720p @120 (not sure about 4k)
Video aperture will be adjustable during live view
Expected announcement in the first few months of 2015


Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2014/12/15/nikon-d7200-rumored-specifications.aspx/#ixzz3QEpGfOcq

 

[Maiaibing]

Good news from Canon (actually bad news about Canon DSLR sales - but good news for customers):
Will try to turn around their fledging DSLR business (slight drop again since last warning now down to 6.4 mio units) by "comprehensively" improving picture iq, operability and wifi/gps ("interconnectivity").

This sound very promissing when it comes to the new 5DIV(??) coming to a store near you soon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

7DII = Nikon D7200. To be released @ CP+.

Based on the rumored specs, not even close (but no doubt it'll get a higher DxOMark BScore).