I don’t know if we watched the same video but I saw him say CR gave it a rating as unbelievable, but he thinks there is some merit to the possible specs. He then went on to explain why he thought there was merit, basically he did what he does, if you don’t like that then don’t watch him.
TBH he never stated them as fact. He used words like 'plausible' etc and he did acknowledge the Cr0 rating.
my wedding was shot in 360i 30+ years ago as it was standard for the day. Pretty average when played back now. 720p would have been very high end at that time. The A1's 8k record rate of 200mb/s means that it can be used as a original source without major storage drama. In 30 years time 8k will be standard delivery/streaming and display for sure although we are reaching limits of our eyes and distance to screen. The R5's firehouse data transfer in 8k raw and 4k/120 cause the overheating problem as they can't be recorded externally as the HDMI interface is limited but the CFe card will support it. If Canon had released the R5 with cinema lite codecs and could record externally without overheating then the major issue would have been overcome. Raw internally for special purposes in <20 minutes but compressed raw eternally.
I dream of more for videos thirty years from now. Hopefully, it's a matrix of palm sized drones that can create an immersive where you can see anything from anywhere. May holographic or virtual reality recreation
I've used 4k/120 for short clips - mostly for underwater shooting where there is a lot of movement (you/subject etc). I wouldn't record a wedding in 4k/120... that would be painful and sounds isn't recorded anyway. Recording in 8K would be more realistic I think if there Canon was to release the awaited cinema lite compression options - especially for external recording. At my daughter's wedding a couple of years ago, I setup my iPhone and let it 4un for 90 minutes recording in 4k/30 with an external mic. Pretty good quality as the lighting was reasonable in the church and the iPhone was slightly warm afterwards. No issues with 30 minute limitations either.
Images have stood the test of time so far and image depictions for 10s of thousands of year. A still image still crystallises a moment in time for people to process.I dream of more for videos thirty years from now. Hopefully, it's a matrix of palm sized drones that can create an immersive where you can see anything from anywhere. May holographic or virtual reality recreation
And yet, I suspect, 30 years from now, stills will be stills and capturing the moment, creating a story from a single image that can spark the imagination.
To my point. No technology today can replace an OVF for professional sports where a gimbal or monopod would suffice to follow the action.
It would open up possibilities for very large aperture lenses on sunny days for still and video, but I found ISO 25 hard to use for casual things. The picture in my avatar was shot on Rollei RPX 25 ISO 120 film, outside in the sun
That goes too deep into simulacrum territory for me, crossing the line from memory aid to fake-reliving the moment.I dream of more for videos thirty years from now. Hopefully, it's a matrix of palm sized drones that can create an immersive where you can see anything from anywhere. May holographic or virtual reality recreation
And yet, I suspect, 30 years from now, stills will be stills and capturing the moment, creating a story from a single image that can spark the imagination.
The microlenses above each pixel (divided into 2 for dual-pixel or - in the future - 4 sub-pixels for quad-pixel AF) are designed so that each of the subpixels covers exactly the same surface area on an in-focus subject. That is the whole point of DPAF or QPAF. Therefore, you cannot increase the resolution by simply outputting the information from every one of the sub-pixels, because you'd simply end up with 2 (resp. 4) identical images of the in-focus areas. The out-of-focus areas of the image appear shifted (to the left and right for dual pixel and to top-left / top-right / bottom-left / bottom-right for quad pixel), and the amount of shift is dependent on the distance of the out-of-focus point to the focus plane - the further away from the focus plane, the larger the shift. Furthermore, each of the sub-images only covers half (or a quarter) of the aperture. So the sub-images have less background blur than you'd get from what the aperture actually is set to, and the background (or foreground) blur in the sub-images will be shifted w.r.t. to each other (see bokeh shift function on DPRAW files). By adding the individual sub-images you get the image you'd also get without having split the pixels in the first place. I don't see that there's anything to gain w.r.t. resolution.
I have, I still don’t get on with EVF’s as well as OVF’s. I accept there are some benefits to EVF’s but after looking through an OVF for 40 odd years I still find looking through an EVF is nauseating after several hours, I get eye strain and the latency, even on high refresh rate EVF’s, doesn’t match what my brain expects.
<-- start Taboola -->
