14 stops at 8bit at $5K hasn't been done yet.
?? stops at 10bit at $5K hasn't been done yet either.
BTW....I'll happily take either of those today thanks! (From any manufacturer btw....)
JVC releases affordable 4K acquisition/display solution
- Thread starter Emanuel
- Start date
14 stops at 8bit at $5K hasn't been done yet.
?? stops at 10bit at $5K hasn't been done yet either.
BTW....I'll happily take either of those today thanks! (From any manufacturer btw....)
Barry_Green
Moderator
Good catch, Barry. I should have included "large sensor", S35/Micro 4/3.
Cheers Barry!In that category, we're talking $14K, Sony F3 (+$4K for Slog).
And the $15K Red Scarlet.
Did I miss anyone under $20K? (Let alone $5K)
(For either 14 stops of DR or 10bits or better on output, and a large sensor...)
Last edited:
John Caballero
Veteran
The fact is that for manufacturers to continue to sell new cameras they'll need to keep pushing the technology. Especially when the competition ups the ante. 4K will be here full force from all the camera manufacturers. Then the'll star going for 8K, 10K????
Oh...BTW....let me just mention a little "dark horse" in the running here. That Chinese camera company (Kinefinity) pushing for an S35 RAW cam for $6-$8K. With the current cams all considered....that's a little ray of hope.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?260134-Chinese-2K-RAW-S35-Cinema-Camera-8000-dollars
http://www.Kinefinity.com
..."12-bit linear output for True RAW as CinemaDNG, or 10-bit Log90 output for Cineform RAW"
===============================================================================
"Got an e-mail today from Kinefinity with the following info in regards to the KineRAW-S35:
1. KineRAW S35 pricing is around USD 6K~8K as net price.
2. It will be launched in China Mainland at first in coming April. For other countries, it comes a little bit late, maybe later in 2012.
3. Sample footage and results will come from January."
=======================================================
I completely appreciate JVC's efforts to bring 4K to the less than $5K market. Let's hope they bring some other goodies along for the ride some time soon! Cheers!
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?260134-Chinese-2K-RAW-S35-Cinema-Camera-8000-dollars
http://www.Kinefinity.com
..."12-bit linear output for True RAW as CinemaDNG, or 10-bit Log90 output for Cineform RAW"
===============================================================================
"Got an e-mail today from Kinefinity with the following info in regards to the KineRAW-S35:
1. KineRAW S35 pricing is around USD 6K~8K as net price.
2. It will be launched in China Mainland at first in coming April. For other countries, it comes a little bit late, maybe later in 2012.
3. Sample footage and results will come from January."
=======================================================
I completely appreciate JVC's efforts to bring 4K to the less than $5K market. Let's hope they bring some other goodies along for the ride some time soon! Cheers!
Last edited:
cowpunk52
Veteran
Kind of reminds me of the 3D craze from last year, and that hasn't panned out very well. Even people with 3D television sets aren't watching much 3D content, and 3D production plateaued over the last year with no signs of improvement despite a slew of 3D capable cameras and 3D purposed camera features. Manufacturers may market 4K in full force, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anybody will be buying (or producing or delivering). Neither of the 2 broadcast networks I work for have any plans to upgrade to 4K at all, not even on the table. Of course, that could all change if there is suddenly huge market demand for 4K, but it seems to be a feature that TV manufacturers are trying to push but nobody is really asking for. Like 3D tv's and 3D camcorders.
adkimery
Veteran
3D is cumbersome though. The glasses, the possible headaches... it's got too many downsides. 4k though is dead simple as it's just more pixels. Bigger is better, right?
Broadcast TV isn't going to go beyond HD for a long time because of the cost upgrading all the back-end equipment. One of the reasons it took so long for HD to hit in the US is that we had to wait for technology to be able to cram an HD signal into the same bandwidth as an analog SD signal to keep in complaint w/gear that couldn't readily be upgrade or replaced (like orbiting satellites).
The world is a rapidly changing place though and the quicker we move towards IPTV/streaming the less we have to depend specialized, expensive TV delivery equipment. I wouldn't be surprised if 5-6yrs from now there is 4k streaming from Netflix (or whoever) going straight into 4k TVs. Blu-ray will be 4k (thanks to 75 or 100 gig discs) and OTA will still be HD (and all 4k TVs will do a nice job of scaling the HD signal up).
-Andrew
cowpunk52
Veteran
I guess what i'm trying to say is, I think it will be the market and not the marketers who will decide if/when 4k becomes mainstream. And i question the value that an average consumer puts on 4k.3D is cumbersome though. The glasses, the possible headaches... it's got too many downsides. 4k though is dead simple as it's just more pixels. Bigger is better, right?
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Does anyone think this is really anything more than a technology test bed for JVC? Who are they marketing something like this to? I have not really paid much attention to JVC, except for an audio tuner I had back in the '80's. Besides crash cam shoots on projects shot with other 4k cameras, what other types of projects would a camera like this be useful for?
EDIT: SPZ, OK, you answered part of that, thanks.
EDIT: SPZ, OK, you answered part of that, thanks.
David Shapton
Well-known member
I don't understand the whole "anti 4k" crowd. Even if displays remain at HD, is it not better to capture at a higher resolution? Much like digital photography, you only really need roughly 6-8 mega pixels to fill a standard magazine cover, yet low end dslrs are at 12 or higher. Computers will catch up for the processing power.
Resolution does not mean everything, but it helps with footage flexability.
PS, and you can stabalize footage if you don't have a steady cam, or a steady cam will not fit.
Resolution does not mean everything, but it helps with footage flexability.
PS, and you can stabalize footage if you don't have a steady cam, or a steady cam will not fit.
Last edited:
Darren Levine
Veteran
i am part of the anti 4k crowd, mostly because of the 4k fanboy crowd. those who tout it as the only thing you should be shooting, and buying a 1080 camera is outdated.
i cock my head and ask them to name all the hollywood movies shot digitally BEFORE 4k was ever around, and whether or not they walked out of the theater because it wasn't 4K.....
the point is resolution does not tell a story, and even 720 looks great on the movie screen if done correctly. 1080 is for all practical reasons indeterminable from 4k from MANY(but not all) viewing distances. it's all about perceivable resolution, not inperceivable resolution. its the same analogy as lossy codecs, that at some point adding more data will not yield any discernible difference in quality.
as for the argument about future proofing..... well thats completely and utterly retarded, im sorry, but retarded with a capital R. if it looks great, it looks great, PERIOD. above statements remain true no matter what year your living in.
and as for the croppability in post benefit. yes, it has some merit, but it's also being used as an excuse not to frame correctly while shooting, which says to me improper planning. i do post cropping all the time, but by 5-10% tops. 4k is overkill for that reasoning, and NOT worth the loss in light sensitivity due to smaller pixels.
with that all said, i'd give it 5-10 years and 4k will be the standard, just because were a progressive being. but that's zero reason to buy 4k now. you're going to trade your camera in 2-4 times before than anyways. and like i said, 1080 will always look great because of perceived resolution
PS, not directed at you Jadotch, you just gave me the lead in.
damn, couldn't get through the afternoon without a rant ;P
i cock my head and ask them to name all the hollywood movies shot digitally BEFORE 4k was ever around, and whether or not they walked out of the theater because it wasn't 4K.....
the point is resolution does not tell a story, and even 720 looks great on the movie screen if done correctly. 1080 is for all practical reasons indeterminable from 4k from MANY(but not all) viewing distances. it's all about perceivable resolution, not inperceivable resolution. its the same analogy as lossy codecs, that at some point adding more data will not yield any discernible difference in quality.
as for the argument about future proofing..... well thats completely and utterly retarded, im sorry, but retarded with a capital R. if it looks great, it looks great, PERIOD. above statements remain true no matter what year your living in.
and as for the croppability in post benefit. yes, it has some merit, but it's also being used as an excuse not to frame correctly while shooting, which says to me improper planning. i do post cropping all the time, but by 5-10% tops. 4k is overkill for that reasoning, and NOT worth the loss in light sensitivity due to smaller pixels.
with that all said, i'd give it 5-10 years and 4k will be the standard, just because were a progressive being. but that's zero reason to buy 4k now. you're going to trade your camera in 2-4 times before than anyways. and like i said, 1080 will always look great because of perceived resolution
PS, not directed at you Jadotch, you just gave me the lead in.
damn, couldn't get through the afternoon without a rant ;P
I know. I am not offended by any of it. I just never really understood the anti-4k. You are right, cropping something is a patch, which should have been done right to begin with. Resolution does not help tell a story, I will argue that the lack of resolution distracts from it though.
BTW I am a 3K fan! (From what I understand it is about what the human eye can pick up in a movie theater is around that number, depending on where you are of course and can down res to HD.) But very few agree with me.
PS My biggest complaint against 3d movies is how they snap you out of the suspension of disbelief. In my opinion it distracts from the story when ever there is something you cannot focus on, or that makes you think of the 3d and not the narrative.
BTW I am a 3K fan! (From what I understand it is about what the human eye can pick up in a movie theater is around that number, depending on where you are of course and can down res to HD.) But very few agree with me.
PS My biggest complaint against 3d movies is how they snap you out of the suspension of disbelief. In my opinion it distracts from the story when ever there is something you cannot focus on, or that makes you think of the 3d and not the narrative.
Last edited:
Darren Levine
Veteran
yea, it all really comes down to a side by side. and not now nor ever will any end audience be asked to watch the same movie twice over in two different resolutions. so even if something will look noticeably better, it can only make a lesser but still good looking image look bad in a never-gonna-happen audience cinema side by side.
GioCanales
Active member
I'am with the anti 4K too, a few companies want to skip crawling ( get clean 1080P ) and go straight to walk and run ( ugly 4K ) JVC hasn't been the king involving HD 1080 image acquisition, what makes you think they hit Jackpot in 4K. Please let these companies get the things right, let them fix all the problems most cameras have like moire, noise, aliasing, rolling shutter etc. and at least 1080P 4.2.2 10 bit big sensor with affordable prize like HHL wrote before. When they get all these things right, then we should start looking for the next step: 4K.
I am not in position to tell the companies what to do, only the image coming from that camera will tell you if I'm right or wrong, I been an early adopter for many years, not anymore, technology takes time to evolve properly, good luck for the guys who have 5K to gamble on those cameras, I don't.
Gio.
I am not in position to tell the companies what to do, only the image coming from that camera will tell you if I'm right or wrong, I been an early adopter for many years, not anymore, technology takes time to evolve properly, good luck for the guys who have 5K to gamble on those cameras, I don't.
Gio.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Well, for sure a RED camera doesn't cost so less either. In any case, it looks like you're calling a next step to 4K when 4K cameras without those problems you're mentioning (moire, aliasing, etc) they are already out there, just cost much more than $5k.
GioCanales
Active member
Can you point me to a cmos sensor S35 camera that doesn't have problems like, rolling shutter and/or moire, aliasing etc. Maybe Sony's F65, but that camera is way out of the ballpark for many people, including myself.