John Brawley wrote:Wayne Steven wrote:If it is so hard to encode 8k, how come there has been low end consumer camera chipsets capable of doing 8k/SHD for a few years?
"Show us the 8K low end consumer cameras Wayne....
Answered.
https://www.ambarella.com/products/sports-cameras#H3The latest on a series that could be used 8k.
The nvidia credit card drone boards are another useful to look at.
Wayne Steven wrote:
Now, as far as overeating sensors. As was pointed out, there are many 4/3rds, even some s35, and lots of those tiny phones, that pull 4k video from their sensor without overheating,
"Which ones do uncompressed RAW and ProRes Wayne ?"
Virtually no sensor ever does prores. A lot of sensors do uncompressed raw of some sort (bayer, complimentary, x3). If it does video, it is often derived from some sort of raw (either sensor image or 4:x:x encoding which might be considered Raw). Unfortunately RAW has become associated with bayer only, instead of unprocessed whatever. Bayer is either raw bayer or processed bayer.
Wayne Steven wrote:
Now, as I stated 8k has the distinct advantage of pulling stills from the frames, and poster sized ones at that. Real world, reasl world advantage. In weddings and other events, even on set, big advantage, big big big advantage. Any frame can be pulled corrected and posterised for marketing/advertising, real money. No need to have a photographer around to compensate for inadequate resolution, or o miss the best ****, give him the photographer to trawl for any ideal shot better than his/her.
"This theory of doing stills from high res video is largely discredited. It doesn't really work... Do you know why ?
Here's a NO FILM SCHOOL story from 2011 re-sprouting the RED speak.
http://nofilmschool.com/2011/07/wedding ... epic-youreThe closest some photographers got was for fashion work. From 2014.
https://fstoppers.com/editorial/exclusi ... aker-34469It doesn't work because the motion blur is too slow. No one wants' their wedding video to look like a scene from saving private ryan.
You have to shoot still photos with a high shutter speed to reduce blur and make a nice photo, especially on something that's moving and uncontrolled, like, a bride at a wedding.
For pretty motion you want the opposite, a slow shutter speed to make the nice motion blur that helps the pictures look fluid, smooth and pretty.
You shoot a wedding with high shutter speeds, then you end up with a choppy hip hop music clip.
Maybe one day a long time from now, those small micron sensors will be so sensitive that you could run two exposure cycles, but we're a very very long way form the sensors being sensitive enough to do two exposure cycles and make nice pictures in a crappy LED lit reception center.
It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work in reality.
High res motion cameras have been around for long enough for this to have TAKEN if it was going to work. It's already market proven. Some try it, but anyone who wants to make nice pictures, stills or video, and that's usually what gets the return business, won't do it. The only way this idea works is if you favour one over the other, to the detriment of one of them
JB"