Clayton Von Isaacs wrote:
>You are missing the point. Yes they used the 5D one time on house for a point as John pointed out. They used it on 24 a a crash cam.They also used it onsite movies as a crash cam
I was taking about a number of productions when I wrote about that, House was only an example. Yet nobody asked themselves why they didn't use another small camera? The Canon was a legend at that time (hype) among low end people because of the image (I didn't buy into that, because if the video and line skipping). But if various people's world is too small to incorporate those people.
> They believe in only providing a RAW image for you to manipulate in post. Stated it millions of times.
Yet they have multiple cameras aimed at the TV daily production market, which definitely is not raw, and definitely compressed.
Ever hear of "group think". It pays not to argue just to have a go at somebody. People land up starting to argue against valid things the other says
> They worked hard on getting a compressed visually lossless RAW only because of SSD and storage limitations at the time.
Yes, I know, I corresponded with them suggesting how to do it. I don't know what technical solution they used eventually, but the initial suggestion I gave was a simple one to get lossless at moderate rates (less than 2:1). It's rather like a movie, most people see a great movie and maybe credit the director, and the main actors, but forget all the little people that actually made up the quality. I don't think I have never heard anybody here give credit to the technical people/leads who actually made it happen (including my mate if he's working there). Same thing with doing demo footage.
> everyone cried for a low cost RAW camera. BM delivered.
The only time BM has ever delivered a (real) low cost film camera is when they discounted the pocket to under $500.
Now, it is pointless to honestly waste my time against hero worship.
Frank Glencairn wrote:John Brawley wrote:
Grant hates compression.
They're never ever going to make a compressed only video camera. Compression isn't pro.
JB
I second that.
Uncompressed video (and outstanding signal quality) was the whole point..
Frank you do realise that compression includes lossless and near lossless (basically can be used for high end visually lossless)? You realise these things have been used professionally for a long time for quality? Even today uncompressed 4k+ workflows are a real stumbling block for storage, not so much in speed of newer technology, but in price. So isn't it right to have options fur others? I could use the same arguments used here by others to insist everybody should buy 8k weapon vistas or Arii's instead. But I don't think that it's honest to cut everybody else out.
John Brawley wrote:
> No.
> In 2010 it was because this was a very small camera that could allow narrative style drama shooting. In that episode the story called for a very physically small camera.
John, read what I wrote to Clayton. Nobody asks why they didn't use another small camera! This camera was the fad of the time to try due to it's picture quality, which had a lot to do with the sensor. They didn't use a cheaper camera.
> If it was really for the way it looked then they would keep shooting it.
Seriously, they Only gave it a try over other cameras in that episode and went back to shooting regular workflow. What would make you think they would give up shooting regular for a line skipping mess. Look, I've got pocket caneras you could shoot documentaries on at 6Mb/s h264 720p60 because the sensor image is way better than many cheap cameras of the day, and do is the codec. I was waiting in front of a finishing line one day, and decided to shoot the starlings just in front of me darting about like a race car. I could track them. I wondered what I would get at 6mb/s. In the view finder I could just see dark macro blocks where the starlings were. I was a bit disappointed I didn't get anything toshiw their flight. But reviewing the footage on a PC afterwards, they had perfectly preserved shape in flight Amazing at up to 6mb/s, no wonder that version of h264 became widely used (I had published some stuff on image quality retention, and shared it with the chipsets VPE and in the industry). Anyway, horses fir courses, and I'm not advocating 6mb/s 720p60 as a good acquisition format.
> I don't determine what BMD chooses to make. I'm just telling you what I know from having consulted and worked with them since before they made cameras.
And as business person and a designer, I'm pragmatically pointing to where the market starts and lays, and what is possible over no codec at all micro studio, and in muchh smaller cameras today. It is an extra feature, and something that can be used if the fpga won't allow any compression/uncompressed in a small camera. Funny the microstudio does't have raw uncompreased to add. That could be done though an external interface.
I think the truth is they either have plans to mitigate the coming competition, or they don't. If craft had released it would have been serious. The pragmatist plans for the future, to avoid business downturn, and listens to however can help legally and morally (hope) avoid that
> We haven't even started this revolution properly because the same big box companies STILL don't make cheap RAW cameras.
In business speak it's a practice of stratification. They want you to pay more for raw, so they give you overpriced h264 in compromised cameras and more for less compromised cameras for daily use. As long as BM etc doesn't answer the trio or so, of dancing elephants in the room, the niave will go along over paying for compromised cameras in h264, and spending a lot more for better cameras just to get propperly daily filming, and low end, utility. The production and broadcast approach this, but for $1000-$2000 they could out do the fixed lens ones to the extent of the broadcast. If they don't do it, somebody else could with raw uncompressed/lossless as well.
> I want BMD to continue to innovate, not to do what others already do and make cameras that are only compressed.
What innovation. Apart from pay a sensor maker to design the 4.6k, it is a lot of packaging, sizing, shaping products and conventional technology design. It is the intent and destination that matters and they are famous for that, with a suitable quality
> I want a camera that does not limit me.
Look, many cameras can be made to do raw Bayer uncompressed like that, even $1 camera. But you pay for the storage costs and many cheap parts are setup not to output this. So basically a camera, even with h264, can be made to have uncompressed Bayer out. So, a sub $1k camera outputting 4kp50 16 bit is 800 MB/s you have to fork out cards for likely in array at the moment. So the normal 4:1 visually lossless like compression would be welcome. That may add more price even using a cheaper solution. So, once you go up your cheaper options go down. So, 8k $1000 small sensor should be possible, for example, if you can get a contract for the sensor (limited options). However doing compressed wavelet raw Bayer maybe done without a custom ASIC, but there are limited lower end solutions with enough horsepower that can be programmed, and it's a matter of getting a contract, which might not happen. So, 8k with your uncompressed raw Bayer might be possible at 1200 (12 bit p25)-3200 (16 bit p50) mega bytes per second. So unless you buy an expensive camera setup it is likely a cheap option needs compression equivalent to 200 MByte/s - 75 MByte/s.
Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:35 pm
I don't expect a lot of new things.. More like software updates on excisting gear / software (resolve) 
or 
?
or 
? 
