Dotes: Andrew certainly meant tonal precision and NOT tonal range here: "This can be used to extract maximum dynamic range at the time of recording, at the expense of tonal range."
It is about time reviews start MEASURING the rolling shutter effect and not just demonstrating it. It is not even hard to measure. Also, I fail to see how a clean and almost moire free camera like the d7100 has worse image quality compared to the gh3.
Hello Andrew, nice to have you here.Here is another moire test of the gh3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VAfRO0yIic&feature=youtu.be
I am sure the gh3 is a much more video oriented camera (I actually used one last month for a shoot). It is a true hybrid. But we are discussing image quality here, not features. For me, moire is the most distracting video image element. It might be ok in a still image, but completeley draws attention to itself in a moving image and destroys shots. Neither rolling shutter, nor "electronic" noise, nor low DR, nor FPN ruin shots in the way moire ruins them.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. I cherry picked a moire test video because we are discussing moire. If we were discussing porn I would cherry pick a porn video for you, geez.
Moire occurs in situations involving fine-line and human made structures, which incidentally are all around us. If you did have any idea about what we were talking about you would know that moire and aliasing artefacts are the single most annoying and (hard to fix in post) problem for low budget/indie filmmakers.
Neither the Nikons d5200 and d7100, nor the Canon 5d Mark 3 exhibit aliasing artefacts comparable to this moire-fest.
Being a property of the unifrom sequency sampling it is actually possible theoretically to fully remove this if your OLPF and downsampling are optimized for the sampling rate of your camera.
And finally, learn to do a proper argument. Your posts are full of fallacies.
Seems pretty moire ridden to me...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcbNJUDMEPY
Well, it is not much use having a better codec when your video is moire ridden.
Andrew certainly meant tonal precision and NOT tonal range here: "This can be used to extract maximum dynamic range at the time of recording, at the expense of tonal range."
Francis Carver: Great new digi-box, BUT for these few minor issues:
1. Crop factor is anywhere from 2.5x to 3.0x, depending whom you ask. it is major, however. Blackmagic Design had mysteriously "forgot" to mention anything about it in their detailed press release or in the posted specs.
2. You would need native Super 16mm film optics or maybe 1-inch C-mount lenses on it. Then you would need some PL and C-mount adapters to make them fit. Full-frame 135 and even DX sensor lenses would be a serious mis-match.
3. Small chance of being able to record fisheye, UWA, and WA perspective image sequences with this Blackmagic camera, due to the above mentioned lens mis-match issue. Crops, barrrels, etc. They should have announced some dedicated lenses for it as well.
4. You cannot change the battery in this thing. The battery inside the camera is sealed. After you shoot for 75-90 minutes with it, you need to plug camera into the AC adapter for 2 hours, according to the BMD specs. Not too good, is it?
The crop factor is definitely 2.3x.For video horizontal crop factor is the only thing that makes sense.Check this article (the last part), for example:http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/cinematic-look-aspect-ratio-sensor-size-depth-of-field/
RRJackson: A few things worth mentioning about this. The active sensor size is 15.6mm x 8.8mm. That's a very nice size for shooting moving images.
16mm is 10.26mm x 7.49mm. Super-16 is 12.52mm x 7.41mm. A lot of big-budget films have been shot on 16mm. 'Black Swan' was shot on Super-16 and was nominated for an Academy Award for its cinematography.
It's also not *that* much smaller than 35mm Techniscope, which was the 35mm 2-perf format that Sergio Leone used to use all the time. George Lucas also used Techniscope for 'THX-1138.' At 22mm x 9.47mm it's a little bigger than the Blackmagic, but not all that much.
The point about the EF mount limiting the use of wide-angle lenses is well taken, but wide angle lenses typically involve distortion and in a moving image distortion grabs your eye and won't let go. A little distortion that won't be all that noticeable in a still will cause people and objects to visibly warp and bend as they cross the field of view in motion picture footage.
This discussion is kind of pointless. 2-perf is obviously more suited for 2.39:1 than Super16.Of course, anyone can shoot any ratio these days with any medium. Digital crop comes for free, after all.