Thanks for the correction alaskacameradude. I hastily added "sorry, no NEX" in my fervor to defend MFT as a mounting system. My Bad! (I certainly don't want to be a purveyor of misinformation!)
Jvc gy-l300
- Thread starter TomLenham
- Start date
Thanks for the correction alaskacameradude. I hastily added "sorry, no NEX" in my fervor to defend MFT as a mounting system. My Bad! (I certainly don't want to be a purveyor of misinformation!)
alaskacameradude
Veteran
No prob, just wanted to make sure that people that may want/need to, know that they can get
those in E Mount if necessary. MFT and NEX have a lot of similarities in that you can adapt just
about anything to them as they both have such a shallow flange, so you don't HAVE to use native
mounts, but it is kind of nice to have the native lenses available sometimes for things like auto focus
and iris, image stabilization, and all the other nice little features (for example some NEX lenses have 'face
detection' and also can use the 'tap to focus' on the FS700 where you just tap the part of the
screen that you want to focus on, kind of like the Epic.) Not sure which NEX mount lenses do
and don't work with this, I have two NEX mount lenses (the kit 18-200 F3.5-6.3 and the 18-105 F4
and it works with both of them.) But most people will probably be using a lot of Canon or Nikon glass
on the camera anyways I would guess.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I've been to Costco (no Best Buy in my town) and done the 'eye' test. Further, for
people that claim they can tell a difference, I wonder, is it a placebo effect, is it
something else like better dynamic range on the 4k screens, do they have like
amazing eye sight, or are they looking at like freakin HUGE screens?
Because according to science, someone with 20/20 vision can not tell the
difference until you are either very close or have a huge screen. There is a
chart that can show you the distance a person with 20/20 vision can start
to perceive the benefits of any of the formats (720 over SD, 1080 over 720 and
4k over 1080). Maybe take a look at this link......
http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/
Last edited:
I stand by the fact that Steven Spielberg doesn't shoot in 16mm.
That aside, whatever works for you.
demoboy
Well-known member
your approach to filmmaking sounds very young and you still seem to batch marketing words as if ''FullHD'' has always been identically the same for anything said or sold (1920x1080), or that ''4K'' has always been 4K everywhere in the world no matter what the context is... there are so many products, markets, variables regarding 4K products that anything said cannot be analyzed to what a reputable filmmaker would use...
I guarantee you that if you shoot on a ARRIFLEX416P and scan it to 4K it'll blow away the LS300 by miles! whatever's practical is not the point. it's about respecting the tools that made filmmaking and ''ISO'' possible today...
As do I.
Again, if you can't see the difference between a monitor that has 4 times the resolution of another, well....
But making a blanket statement that the difference is imperceptible or imagined is just incorrect. Perhaps it's the case for you, but you really are speaking for yourself in this regard. We shall agree to disagree.
Well, yes, the screens in comparison have been huge. You know, the kind that people are buying for their home use. Isn't that the idea of large 4K and HD monitors?
A video showing the LS300's menus if anyone's interested:
http://vimeo.com/120440571
It appears to have a decent amount of image adjustments. Disappointed to find out there's no waveform or histogram. Seems odd at this price range.
That could be a deal-breaker for me. (Perhaps that will be added at some later date.)
http://vimeo.com/120440571
It appears to have a decent amount of image adjustments. Disappointed to find out there's no waveform or histogram. Seems odd at this price range.
That could be a deal-breaker for me. (Perhaps that will be added at some later date.)
Last edited:
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Did you look at the link to see how huge the screens actually have to be
before you can tell the difference? Say for a viewing distance of 10 feet?
demoboy
Well-known member
the general public have no idea about pixel densities or upscaling. For instance here in Turkey we have been selling 4K TVs for about 2 years, but the awareness of a 4K feed or explaining it is comical. In essence they're merely 4K ready unless the owner is feeding a 4K signal, and the funny thing is that most displays are just Full HD signals promoting a 4K television. That in itself the buyer has really no idea of a real 4K feed or benefit of what they are really looking at, just an upscaled Full HD signal. Surely the pixel density resolution still makes the Full HD signal look good, but it's not a 4K source. I know in the states there are more honest protocols when displaying 4K sets for owners to buy. Usually Sony display protocols are the best imo since most stuff is proprietary. I can see why Sony could lose money in the TV wars since basically the Koreans have now years caught up with electronics it's more cheaper and ideal to get an LG tv. the awareness of color reproduction still seems to fail with buyers, but then again you go with what's affordable.
I did. The author says the chart is his own make. I disagree with his conclusion.
I know what I've seen.
combatentropy
Veteran
No one is saying that they can't tell 2K from 4K if they get close enough.
Best Buy has too many variables. A 2K set there looked better than a 4K, because they were showing different programs, and the 4K one was so compressed it looked worse than a DVD.
A more controlled experiment would be to use your own TV at home. Put in a nice Blu-ray or some source that uses all the pixels on your set. Pause on some shot that has good detail. Walk up to the screen until you can see the pixels. Step back until the pixels blend together. Measure how far away you are. Feed the numbers into this calculator: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html.
On my 47" 1080p TV, the pixels blended together when I got about 6 feet away. At that point, my viewing angle is 30 degrees --- which is roughly the ideal, even THX's. How much of your sight would a 4K TV have to fill to make a difference, and are you comfortable sitting that close for an hour or so?
I get the same numbers with my 14" laptop. In my lap, two feet away, it's again 30 degrees. If we want to talk sanely about minimum resolution, we would talk only about the ideal viewing angle. Screen size and viewing distance are meaningless apart from each other. Better just to do the math, find the angle, and start from there. I've tested again and again, and THX is right: a comfortable viewing angle is around 30 degrees. Much closer than their maximum (36 degrees) and I start feeling overwhelmed. Even 30 degrees is only if I want to be immersed, like for a movie. For casual television, something like 15 or 20 is more relaxed --- and guess what, my TV is about that far from the couch, twice as far as the THX recommendation, where even a DVD gets hard to tell the pixels.
If it were up to me, I would stop at 2K until cameras reached a certain DR and ISO with global shutter. Basically an Sony A7S but with global shutter and in the Four Thirds format. Once you get 14 stops of DR, an ISO that can shoot in starlight, and global shutter, even on a sensor as small as Four Thirds, only then can you step it up to 4K.
Last edited:
High1ander
Well-known member
It is comical to use Best Buy as a reference for saying 4K is better than FullHD in xxxxx feet/meters viewing distance. Best Buy has zero interest in making people buy the "new expensive 4K TV", their business model is to sell a TV-standard that's 10 years old...
If you want to "compare" you need to have the same the source material (exported in different size), and the same compression per pixel, i.e. 4K needs 4 times the bandwidth. Then use TV's that are somewhat even in quality (good luck with that), so stuff like better contrast, color accuracy, etc. don't distract. Once that is done, you can start to "compare" them if the idea is to give a somewhat non-biased conclusion.
If you want to "compare" you need to have the same the source material (exported in different size), and the same compression per pixel, i.e. 4K needs 4 times the bandwidth. Then use TV's that are somewhat even in quality (good luck with that), so stuff like better contrast, color accuracy, etc. don't distract. Once that is done, you can start to "compare" them if the idea is to give a somewhat non-biased conclusion.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I don't doubt you have seen something. My question is, what exactly have you seen?
There are so many variables (better DR, contrast, and so on) besides resolution, that it's hard
to know. I have seen 10 or 15 scientific charts and all of them are pretty close on the
distances and screen sizes at which 4K seems to be an improvement over 1080p.
http://www.rtings.com/info/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080p-full-hd-tvs
When someone disagrees with what science says because of 'what their eyes see', I have to question
what exactly they are seeing. In other words, yes, maybe what you are seeing in 4K is better,
but there may be another reason other than pure resolution. Or maybe you have better than
average eyesight, you could be close enough to see the difference, or my vote, the store is
'cooking' the side by side demos to sway you.....they certainly are not unbiased observers
in this case.
All this is not to say there is NEVER benefit. If you look at the chart you can see if you
have a 60 inch screen and sit 8 feet or closer from it, or a 65 inch screen and sit 9 feet
or closer, you WILL begin to see the benefits of 4K. I (and most of the people I know)
don't have the room to have a 60 or 65 inch screen. So 4K may well be great for those
who have the room for very large screens in relatively smaller rooms.
Last edited:
stoneinapond
Veteran
You are mixing up two things here. While science informs us as to the "mechanics" of seeing, it has nothing at the moment to add to the question of perception. All that can be said at the present time is that people see things differently to one degree or another.
And in the spirit of full disclosure, I do all my work in 4K, even though even I rarely get to see it in its full glory. But I know the glory is there. :beer:
And just to stay on topic, I really enjoyed the piece on the glass artist.
Last edited:
alaskacameradude
Veteran
As I understand it, they can measure this. Granted, different people have differing vision,
so they may or not see things others can. That's why they choose a 'baseline' of 20/20
vision....which is a degree of perception. If you have better than 20/20 vision you
may see the benefits of 4k at further distances than the chart says, and if you have
worse, you may not see the benefits of 4k even when you are closer. But 20/20
is the baseline they chose for the charts and when you have that vision, they can
measure how close you need to be to see benefits of a certain resolution over
another. Are you saying this is false?
Well, I currently have a 57" HD set, so upgrading to a 4K 60" isn't out of the realm of possibility. And yes, I was comparing very large TV sets against one other. And I don't see how comparing 4K and HD monitors at a Best Buy makes it a bad eye test. The TVs are in the same environment. 4K is getting 4K content (as it's supposed to), the HD sets are getting HD content. How could it be otherwise? And yes, I did see 1080 "uprezzed" to 4K, and no, I didn't like it. The difference was very noticeable.
And I'm not the only one that perceives 4K as being sharper than HD. You bring your articles, I'll bring mine:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/1080p-hd-vs-ultra-hd-4k-eyes-video/
There's plenty more internet articles on the subject that go either way. We could fill this thread up for pages with conflicting conclusions from different articles. I just don't take any one as gospel over another.
Obviously viewing distance is a factor. No kidding. The same can be said for SD and HD content seen on an HD TV set, if you're far enough away. But to say 4K is negligible or a "placebo" is, in my opinion, erroneous.
And that was the basis for my argument. Making a blanket statement that 4K has no perceivable resolution over HD is just not right. Don't lump me into the "everybody says it's the same" camp.
As far as what I saw, I saw a much sharper image from the 4K TV set. I don't know how to explain it any better. It was sharper, the picture had better resolution, as 4K is supposed to be. And as it is. The images were absolutely beautiful. It has 4X the resolution as an HD set, how can it be otherwise? You want details? I stood really close, then backed up a few feet. then a few feet more. I tried to place myself equidistant between the 4K sets and the surrounding HD sets to see how they compared. There were HD sets next to the 4K set (of close to the same size, maybe a few inches different in either direction) and the differences were, to me, very noticeable. I spent quite a bit of time looking at all the sets, to the point the sales staff was getting a bit tired of me, as I obviously was there just to look. I have good eye sight, I don't need corrective eye wear, but I also don't have fighter pilot vision. That is what I saw. It's unscientific, but there it is.
Anyway, this thread has derailed. I apologize for taking it off the tracks. Back to:
The LS300 looks like a lot of camera in a small, affordable body. The ability to shoot 4K and 1080, 50mb, 4:2:2 onto SD cards is amazing. I enjoyed the glass making video, I thought it really showcased the LS300's ability to make excellent images. Especially 4K images. I'd be proud to show that video to a client.
andykwilkinson
Well-known member
Glad this thread is now back on track. I also thought highly of that glass video and was very impressed when I saw the camera at BVE in London last week. I think this camera will do really well because it is so versatile in the lenses it will accept.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Did you even watch the video that you linked to? The article itself had no charts
showing any superiority of Ultra HD over HD, just talked about an informal
test they did, and then linked to a video referencing this test. This video said....and I quote
"But, when you step back, these fine details are harder to spot. And many of the
people in our office who came through to see for themselves were unable to
pick out which TV was which. In fact the passersby confirmed what we already
suspected for ourselves. Picture quality trumps resolution even for casual viewers
The plasma's deeper blacks and superior shadow details were far more obvious in this
informal test. So here's the 3 big takeaway points. First, Ultra HD sets at a screen size
anything less than 65 inches just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. At 65 inches
the differences are subtle but they are there. Then as you go up in screen sizes the differences
become more prominent. Second, picture quality beats resolution every time......"
and it continues on.
In your link to 'prove' the superiority of 4K, they were comparing a Plasma HD set to a
LED 4K set and they said most people preferred the HD set! That's what the video you
linked to says! So I'm not sure how that article proves what you are saying.
Look, I'm not disputing 4K is going to look better if you are fairly close, or if you have
(what I think of as) very big screens. My reference to the 'placebo' effect was because
you said you were at least 15 feet away and could tell an 'obvious' difference. And EVERY
SINGLE chart I have seen, tells me that if that was true, either you have amazing vision, or
that was one big ass screen.....much bigger than 65 inches. If you have actual charts and figures
to show how superior 4k is, and they say differently that the charts I have linked to above,
I'd love to see them, but every one I have seen pretty much says the exact same thing as far
as when the benefits of 4K start. None of them say there is NO benefit, they just say you need
a big screen or a short viewing distance, that is all.
I also apologize for the derailing of this thread, but I honestly AM interested if you can provide
charts that contradict the 'prevailing wisdom' that I have seen on 4K.
In the interest of getting back on track, I'd ask, do we know if the LS300 is 8 bit or 10 bit?
Also wondering what the bit rate is in 4K, I'd suspect it is higher than 50mb. 50mb 4:2:2 is
good for HD, but probably not so good for 4K. And 10 bit would be a nice bonus, but I'm
suspecting it's not going to happen at this price point. Still, for all the AF100 shooters that
have some MFT glass, I'd think this would be a no brainer of an upgrade.....
Last edited: