As it says in the article, starting with 4K video with significantly higher resolution (4 x), then working in post, with ability to crop, rotate/tilt video, or change colour/contrast of video, then downsampling to full HD will yield significantly better full HD results on video qualilty with more image detail. This is a huge benefit to videographers.
4K later downsampled to full HD - Kind on like using higher Raw (more image information to manipulate) before outputting to Jpeg in the video world.
I think most general consumers have adopted HD video on computer or large screen. As long as it is computer based formats like MP4 or MKV at full HD or AVCHD.
Lots of my clients only own DVD players and don't ask for BluRay disks, as do not own BluRay player unless built into their systems. To put into numbers about 50 percent of my consumer clients ask just DVD disks, and the other 50 percent BluRay disks. If video played on a computer, they all want full HD video, like MP4 or DivX MKV stored and copied to USB stick drives which I give them.
4K is definitely growing among professional videographers as it offers cropping into video as strong feature, but I think mainstream of most public it is still growing slowly for buyers of 4K players or high end TV monitors, but I guess it is still the future anyway. For some the future is now.
Is this a commentary on today's youth and smart-phones actually making things less social. Are we better off now that we can be plugged in 24/7 for those that want to be.
However lots of schools do not allow cell use during school hours - class time. Although I would say the image is an exaggeration of life. Kids still find time to play between classes.
For some professional videographers and semi-pros who are on a budget (not wanting cost of a FF A7 system) or only part time or want a second camera for video, Sony A77ii with its updated firmware and XAVC video is impressive high quality HD video (at 1080 60P) for an apsc sensor and beats out video image quality and color saturation compared to Canon 70D (only HD 30P). My opinion anyway.
I have seen video samples in HD on Vimeo by pros/semi pros who have used it. A77ii with tilt screen and high quality video codecs may be more preferred than a D7200 for video users anyway, with the phase detect on sensor in A77ii, useful for video enthusiasts or semipros.
Although, not a perfect camera, A77ii video performance is very good compared to Nikon and Canon apsc. No 4K, but still highly useable professional video with the right quality lenses. Very good HD video on a budget in a highly capable well featured camera.
Some of the general public are finally learning the value of mirrorless over entry level DSLRs, that quality is comparable among some models, as least the ones that might have picked a dslr like a Rebel in past are learning about benefits of mirrorless with less weight, especially among m43 models. Is this because public awareness keeps growing, over past years with store flyers or online ads? Features of latest models keep getting better. em10 is an ideal size and price point for many hobby enthusiasts for example. em10 and em5 must be good sellers based on the hype I read.
Was this done in Photoshop only, or special plug-ins for lightbeams? If so which software or plugin were used? Love to know if you could share the methods. Brilliant work for changing the look to dynamic forest. I have used Indian Summer filter in Nik Color FX to change green leaves to warm colours, however would look a bit different. Not sure if a special filter for beams or was drawn in with Photoshop. Regardless, it is fantastic, as having vision can make great results.
stan_pustylnik: What I'm not getting - why during entire interview about Alpha DSLR - DSLT users didn't receive reassurance about A-mount continuation! Remember first Sony Alpha A-100, it was DSLR!
I think the Sony A77ii (apsc SLT) which uses the A mount has been selling fairly well against the Nikon and Canon apsc competitors D7100/7200 and 70D, taking at least some of the market, as this is a good featured camera. A99 in FF also uses A mount. Is there going to be a A99ii? Could be good reasons to continue with A mount.
Clever idea! Great image.
Adrian Van: Google the following - Mythbusters Episode 104 to show why all these photos can actually be all True. They examine all the critics with tests. Including reflectors left on moon by astronauts proven true in a laser test. Interesting read. Video of microgravity test also true and not high frame rate film slowed down for moonwalk, as the motion is different than high speed film slowed down. Love watching the Mythbusters show.
Looks like we made it! or at least a few select astronauts did!
So who are your going to believe - be patriotic to your country and their space program, which developed in lots of new science tech advances, or keep thinking that space explorers never accomplished anything. Obviously you did not google the reference or watched the episode which is online. I would rather believe we as explorers accomplished a lot of new technology because of ideals of exploration (whether moon landing or not, rocket technology still advances, google Space X for latest rocket designs which are amazing for earth orbit and safe return back of rockets now reusuable in test flights. I do not need absolute proof as some do (regarding moon). Does it really matter?My "symptons" of rocket travel do persist, there you have it. Sometimes science fiction can become science fact, not all of it yet, but certainly some advances are made yearly. Count on it, we are using new technology today. Glad my comments are entertaining though.
Google the following - Mythbusters Episode 104 to show why all these photos can actually be all True. They examine all the critics with tests. Including reflectors left on moon by astronauts proven true in a laser test. Interesting read. Video of microgravity test also true and not high frame rate film slowed down for moonwalk, as the motion is different than high speed film slowed down. Love watching the Mythbusters show.
I would love to see a shoot out between this camera and the D810 in all kinds of extreme light and also action sequences with tracking and see which is the more ideal camera and if a bit extra resolution makes a difference. Also where is the full D810 review? Someday?
altafbusal: D.O.AWHY?1-AWKWRAD DESIGN AND CONECTIVITY2- IPHONE JUST GOT EVEN BETTER, WITH 4K VIDEO, WHICH IS A MUST THESE DAYS, THIS DEVICE IS MISSING IT.3-PRICE....IT IS NOT PRICE WISELY.
If you are going to buy a DXO One, and carry it along? Why not then buy a small mirrorless camera instead with compact zoom like em10 or gm series? I find the latter more attractive. However, some may like the bit smaller size of carrying a DXO one. Image quality significantly better than regular phone cam.
firstname.lastname@example.org: Raw: D810 vs A7R2 vs 5DR:I'd pick the Nikon for sharpness, noise, resolution, color.All good. Very subjective.
Sounds like a good topic for a new thread, on how many photographers think lenses have impact on colour, whether cheap ones or very expensive ones with multiple coatings like Nano or Fluorite L lens have anything to do with the final colour of the images captured. The colour difference may be less in a controlled studio with perfect lighting, however more obvious outdoors or in mixed light sources or extreme lighting. I know from my own eyes using different types of lenses on the same camera body on what results I see in images. (that colour not just clarity or sharpness has some impact with better lenses.) It would be interesting to see the results of common perception among many other photographers what they think on whether lenses impact colour with a new thread. Until then some of us will continue to agree to disagree. Cheers.
Here is an article showing a graph for Fluorite lens of Canon L series glass - scroll down on following link...http://www.kehblog.com/2013/02/an-overview-of-canon-l-series-lenses.htmlQuote from article is talking about improved light transmission of certain wavelengths of colour due to Fluorite lens. Draw any conclusion you like....Does it only correct chromatic aberration or impact the colour of the image (at least subtly) for bit more intense or richer colour? Quote from article-"For instance, Canon uses fluorite crystals in many of the L series lens elements. Fluorite is a great material for photographic lens elements because it transmits UV (ultraviolet) and IR (infrared) light well, has a low index of refraction and has a low rate of dispersion."Does that affect overall colour (a bit at least)? Depends how colour is defined. Article suggests lens corrects focal lengths of wavelengths of colour for absolute clarity of colour. Or is better colour just a perception of clarity?
breivogel: It appears that the A7RII has slightly lower noise than the D810 in RAW at high ISO. OTOH, at low ISO, the D810 looks a bit sharper than the Sony.
Sorry no link, it was discussed a number of months back when forum members were discussing why the D700 was considered a classic and was holding its price despite the arrival of D610. Superior body contruction of D700 and crisp files were discussed by a few members. Counter to this point was that more resolution in newer cameras offered better cropping ability for D610 or D810. So if you want more MP, then D810 and D750/D610 is the way to go. D700 is still a fine camera and files hold up well with great lenses and DXOmark of 2300 iso for low light, just less resolution for landscapers or extreme cropping. The Canon 5D3 has nearly same DXOmark for low light at 2293 iso as D700. Not bad for an older camera.In my own opinion, I think D810 has sharper files overall than D610 in all kinds of extreme light, from images I have seen online. Comments have been made by some members that D750 have bit crisper images than D610 as I think Nikon made some minor tweaks in D750 default profiles.
To my experience, using top lenses like Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and comparing to lower priced lenses on my other cameras, I see a more richness of colour with the better lenses, not just sharpness and clarity. Much like what UV filters can intensify landscapes or deepen skies. Manufacturers try to keep the colour shifting to a minimum, for maximum transmission of light using coatings to lower flare and ghosting.
So depends on how you define the impact of colour with each lens or dismiss it. Maybe the colour is not being shifted but it can be richer or more intense with coatings like Nano or other multicoatings on other brands. In my opinion anyway, I will take the higher quality lens for deeper tones as light flaring can lower intensity of colour density from poorer lens. Maybe not shift the colour hue. Does intensity of colour also define colour?
I will give it a read. Thanks for link.
Even cinema lenses have coatings on them that impact the final colour of the image. Coatings are like filters and can impact the richness of colour, tone, clarity, and sharpness. Does that not impact colour? Canon has fluorite lenses,to correct colour aberrations and fringing, but is that not impacting on colour accuracy and colour richness. Nikon has Nano coatings.
To add to the above, though, once sharpening has been added (or even before sharpening), the higher MP file, may appear to have more fine detail resolved due to its higher resolution 42 vs 36, which the closeup of studio scene show between these 2 cameras using pro lenses.
It has been theorized before, that a lower MP sensor can appear to have sharper pixels at pixel level, as the pixel pitch of each pixel (micro-lens) is larger than the more densely packed pixel MP sensor in light gathering of micro lens. This comment was mentioned in a forum discussion a while back mentioning how crisp D3 or D700 images are despite only 12MP compared to newer high MP cameras. At low iso D810 36MP could appear sharper than Sony 42MP probably due to larger pixel pitch.