GH6 with ProRes

If Thomas - or Joe, or Jane, or Bob, or Veronica - never used 32-bit, 24-bit is the blissful ceiling.

32-bit float needs to be in cameras. Period. Done.

The technology exists, therefore, it should be in cameras. It's that simple.

Anything less means we're getting less than we should.
 
NorBro said:
If Thomas - or Joe, or Jane, or Bob, or Veronica - never used 32-bit, 24-bit is the blissful ceiling.
Click to expand...

ok... but the reason I decided to adopt AF was to handle scenarios where I knew I could improve my footage (especially on gimbal or unmanned cameras). if he or I doesn't see potential improvement to our audio while using 24-bit, then what exactly are we missing out on? the time it takes to properly set gain?
 
with manual focus. and I stopped my aperture down more than I wanted to. and I was fully aware when I missed focus. and I held back from doing the most demanding types of shots for focus pulling. and it took a lot of brainpower away from operating. and right now I'm fully aware of where the autofocus system in the camera struggles and where it needs to be improved. whereas I haven't clipped or had unusable audio since...
 
This argument is wack, Abe.

You can't create and justify reasons for AF but then not accept reasoning for how others would use 32-bit audio if you're trying to stay even, honest.

AF provided you a better operating experience on a gimbal. It allows you to shoot wide-open and mostly focus on framing.

32-bit opens up audio possibilities for those interested in using it. It's not just about setting the gain properly.

Like of course if someone doesn't have a need for something they won't use it or think it's necessary. Photographers have a $6,000 R3 and many might not even try the 6K/60p RAW the camera offers.
 
if someone gets something out of 32-bit float, then more power to them

what I'm saying is that my final product would be the same whether I recorded it 32-bit float or 24-bit. that's the crucial difference. using autofocus, I can get different (better, more) footage than I did. I just think that for a lot of use cases, it's not that difficult to handle with 24-bit. 24-bit is already a lot.

I'll take 32-bit float (like I did with my zoom f6) if it comes at no expense. if we're talking about which features we want to see most come to cameras, I wouldn't trade it for anything else I actually want
 
Alright...let's wrap this up because I don't think anyone else wants to hear us talk about this.

So you just wanted to tell me that you don't think I should ask for 32-bit float audio as a feature in cameras because you're personally good with 24-bit?

Is that right?
 
I think 32-bit float is not that important. for some people it may be. but I handle scenarios as described and I haven't needed it. I suspect filmguy123 encounters more difficult scenarios than that. so why not, add it on. but I clip highlights now and not for lack of exposing correctly. I don't currently have an issue with clipping audio. I'll take more DR before we get 32-bit float, please. that is all
 
There are cameras with 32 bit audio? Or you're talking about separate recorders? Is 32 bit better than recording a separate safety track? My Tascam records a simultaneous duplicate safety track at -6db or -12db. I always do a sound check but it never fails the DJ will crank up his output when he's excited.
 
No cameras with 32 yet.

There is no clipping in that world, so if that sounds like it's something you might enjoy then you'll like it.

You can work on one audio file and key frame your ups and downs however you'd like.
 
DLD said:
Because more is better. Unless it's moire, where less is more.
Click to expand...

I like the joke, but more pixels is not more of everything good.

- More pixels means smaller pixels
- Smaller pixels mean more noise
- Less dynamic range
- More kicking the can down the road for true global shutter
- Less recording time per card
- Less money leftover after paying for the media, and the computer to edit it
- Less time left over after waiting for it to render, to transfer over, and so on

If you're actually going to use 16K a lot of the time, then it might be worth it. But having it just in case is like carrying around a bulldozer in your back pocket just in case you need to do some bulldozing. How's your back?
 
Sorry I mentioned anything about audio. Like we didn’t have enough to debate already.

to be fair I’m in the 32 big audio camp as well. If there are no negatives just do it. It doesn’t hurt to have it. It’s not even really a technical limitation. Not having 16 stops of DR is a technology hurdle and a challenge to get in an affordable camera. 32 bit audio is not.

I agree most of us don’t need it. If we can get that overhead with no negatives there is not much to argue against it.
 
combatentropy said:
I like the joke, but more pixels is not more of everything good.

- More pixels means smaller pixels
- Smaller pixels mean more noise
- Less dynamic range
- More kicking the can down the road for true global shutter
- Less recording time per card
- Less money leftover after paying for the media, and the computer to edit it
- Less time left over after waiting for it to render, to transfer over, and so on ...
Click to expand...

These concerns have been addressed over the last decade of the technological development. The hybrid market will settle on 8K since it provides for a stills/video combination under a reasonable budget. The high end pro market can do what it wants but it needs to show some advancement too. That fact that Blackmagic Design came out with a an affordable - and now very affordable - 10K-12K model shows that it's very much a technological reality.

And the media and storage prices are coming down too. Obviously, for some, HEVC/H265 will be sufficient but others will shoot Raw (or Compressed Raw) and everything will be fine.
 
Last edited:
https://youtu.be/AKP-wntay0I

Found this one interesting since I have a Canon R6. Not a lot to go off of but this starts to make that argument that one has to have FF a bit silly. m43 is not dead and fully capable of great results. Especially with the new GH6 that seems to be bridging that gap between m43 and FF even more. Not that the Canon R6 is an award winner when it comes to DR either but still its a flagship model for Canon.
 
If someone didn't know cameras well and watched that video, they would immediately agree and wonder why anyone would ever think there is a difference between the two.

But, IMO, that video is "dumbing-down" what FF is capable of, which is more shallow DOF and bokeh. The video is showing samples from the full-frame that are made to match the smaller sensor (even though you can still see softer bokeh on several of the Canon photos).

Now whether that's noticeable to normal folk is debatable, but that's why photographers pay thousands of dollars more for larger sensors and faster glass.

MFT is definitely capable of nice bokeh and shallow images, and it could be matched to full-frame chips in certain situations, but it's not as simple and it well never be on the level of a full-frame sensor with f/1.2, f/1.4 apertures on the wider end of the spectrum.

And I think that's it. Because colors and DR are great in their own way from everyone. And in most cases, people are grading their extra DR out of their final product anyway, or shooting in environments where an extra stop may not affect their work.
 
filmguy123 said:
Betting against technological advancement is always a fools errand. No doubt 8K-12K will become standard. I think it’s just the timing that comes into question (ie when high res means a big trade off for little to no practical return to large segments of market).
Click to expand...

I guess. Doesn't mean you have to be happy about it. My wife has been watching Monk lately. Film is prettier than digital. Sharpness/detail is overrated. IMO maximal detail is only desirable in nature/sports and maybe a few other genres. What we really want is better color reproduction and dynamic range
 
filmguy123 said:
Watched a ton of videos on the camera, I thought this one had some of the best *footage* - lighter on tech talk, specs and tour of the body, and instead heavy on actual out-of-camera content - which is what I wanted to see. Also, a great comparison (finally) between GH5 vs GH6 lowlight.

The footage looks smoother and more natural to me than the sort of crispy/over processed look on the GH4/5 models. The DPReview shot on GH6 had that look, so I imagine its a result of adjusting in camera settings and/or grading, but in either case, I think the footage is more pleasing to the eye and will match very nicely. As well, the autofocus looks good for my needs - dynamic b-roll that isn't one-take critical looked completely fine. I wouldn't trust it with a bride walking down the aisle and I wouldn't choose it if AF was my top priority but this looks like an obvious step up.
Click to expand...

Thats 12800 ISO comparison between the GH5 is absolutely insane. I don't even think the GH5S looked that good at ISO 12800. I rarely ever go that far anyway and only do so if I have to use a very slow zoom lens like a super zoom. On the R6 my use of ISO 12800 and 25600 are strictly used with the 24-240 RF super zoom which is almost f8 on the long end. With f2.8 or better zooms/primes on the GH6 this likely covers the majority of low light usage. Beyond that really any camera should be using light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top