- Posts: 3362
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
- Location: Earth
I've had some bemusing conversation with some lost Ronin around here lately. The idea of better K's rather than more K's came up. Which seems like the start of a new mantra or something. But the guy is onto something, we don't need all these K's.
Instead of 8k we could have 1k, or 1.28k, which is close enough to a film standard. We would have bigger pixels, for lower noise for even lower low light. We could record uncompressed for maximum quality. We could record 25mbit/s or less to save precious storage space With Sony, maybe we would have the same dynamic range, but it's all about the lower K's isn't it?
The pro cameras could be lighter and have longer battery life. The mini could be as thin as a tablet, with a lens mount out the front. Once you add fold out display, its still going be half a centimeter or more, with all day battery and storage. Why, you could even then use it as a tablet, and editing computer! Stripping the K's off really pays dividends.
But why stop there we, don't need k's, we could go back to c's, and use standard definition. Even 128-160 pixels or so across in 16 shades of grey conveys a picture, like they used to film in that audio cassette recording camera in the 1980's. Wow, the camera might even fit in a price of wire. Just moving it around might charge it's battery. You could have a little Handel to turn, like they used to have on real cinema cameras. In a credit card sized camera stuck on the back of a full frame lens, you could film maybe all week, and cost a $1 to make. What are people saying their development their development dollars on these 8k monsters.
Or, you could just get enough low light, low noise, and 17+ stops dynamic range on an 8k camera today, which is going debayer and downres into a superior color image, for less than $5k soon enough, and record to cheap copious storage at 100MB/s+, rather than a $1 1.28C credit card camera.
Instead of 8k we could have 1k, or 1.28k, which is close enough to a film standard. We would have bigger pixels, for lower noise for even lower low light. We could record uncompressed for maximum quality. We could record 25mbit/s or less to save precious storage space With Sony, maybe we would have the same dynamic range, but it's all about the lower K's isn't it?
The pro cameras could be lighter and have longer battery life. The mini could be as thin as a tablet, with a lens mount out the front. Once you add fold out display, its still going be half a centimeter or more, with all day battery and storage. Why, you could even then use it as a tablet, and editing computer! Stripping the K's off really pays dividends.
But why stop there we, don't need k's, we could go back to c's, and use standard definition. Even 128-160 pixels or so across in 16 shades of grey conveys a picture, like they used to film in that audio cassette recording camera in the 1980's. Wow, the camera might even fit in a price of wire. Just moving it around might charge it's battery. You could have a little Handel to turn, like they used to have on real cinema cameras. In a credit card sized camera stuck on the back of a full frame lens, you could film maybe all week, and cost a $1 to make. What are people saying their development their development dollars on these 8k monsters.
Or, you could just get enough low light, low noise, and 17+ stops dynamic range on an 8k camera today, which is going debayer and downres into a superior color image, for less than $5k soon enough, and record to cheap copious storage at 100MB/s+, rather than a $1 1.28C credit card camera.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them