Did I overlook something, or is there indeed no specification of the focal length, or the angle of view that the built-in lens has?
wus: IMHO it doesn't make a lot of sense to shoot the earth from outer space in 3D, as it is far too far away for any 3D effect to become noticeable. 3D only works in the short to medium distances.
I agree views inside the ISS are a perfect opportunity for 3D, but the headline is "ISS astronauts shoot 3D movie of planet Earth". If they mix 3D shots from inside the ISS, it will distract from the "Beautiful Planet", just like the noisy wow's that dccdp rants about.
I'm sure it's a great movie - all IMAX 3D movies that I have seen so far were phantastic - I'm just a little afraid that IMAX put the emphasis on making it a commercial success, sacrificing, in part, the message "save the beauty of this planet for our future".
IMHO it doesn't make a lot of sense to shoot the earth from outer space in 3D, as it is far too far away for any 3D effect to become noticeable. 3D only works in the short to medium distances.
Eric Calabros: and my TV can't even play 60p 4k
And even the latest ones can't play 120p UHD, simply because the interface used in TVs isn't fast enough - even the latest iteration of HDMI 2.0 stops at 60p for 4K with HDR.
But it's good to see there is at least a processor which can encode UHD with 60p and more. Unfortunately they don't say anything about compression ratio / output bitrate, or the kind of memory card interface needed to record the resulting video stream.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how long it will take until this processor (or another one) appears in a consumer camera that can shoot 4K 60p HDR, or even 120p.
Francis Sawyer: WHAT A JOKE. They act as though bit depth is the biggest problem. IT'S NOT.
The problem is compression level, which is glaringly absent from this sham of a "spec." There's no mention of minimum bitrate or compression scheme.
This means we're still facing a future of fraudulent "4K" or "UHD" that has no more real resolution than a cell-phone video, especially when there's movement in the image.
Low-bitrate, interframe-compressed junk is just that: JUNK.
Agree. And the other spec that I'm missing is a higher resolution in time, i.e. higher frame rate. And also for 3D / Stereo movies! And HDMI 2.0 isn't fast enough for all of this ...
I'm afraid there is still a long way to go before we see all this implemented, on affordable consumer devices.
Scott Eaton: I recently helped install a large 3x3 matrix video all in a night club, and if you want to see how limited 1080p is you should see Sunday NFL on that thing. Totally dreadfull - 4k/8k can't come fast enough.
The 4k/8k debate has three entirely distinct debates; aquisition, broadcast, and display. Display is already there, and home TVs are getting big enough to need the extra resolution. Broadcast is almost entirely political - the bandwidth is there, but also lobbiests pushing for cartels on data bandwidth.
Aquisition is a different debate entirely. I agree with the skeptics here in that whats the point in doing 4k pro-sumer if we can't do 1080p correctly and have to toss 80% of our chroma information to keep file sizes practical? I still think if we have 5 or even 6 color sensors with more discrete luminance sensitivity we would have better data to start with and could be upscaled to the same quality level. The samples of 4k video I have show outstanding detail, but little else.
Hello Scott, would you be so kind to tell me which 8K display is available today?
zzzxtreme: i'm thinking the camera would support 2 memory cards to be able to handle such huge data
In my opinion, that should include a fragmented memory, that hasn't been low level formatted right before use like cameramemoryspeed did - or would you want to format your SD card every time before you start shooting video, just to make sure it records your video smoothly???
Also, I find it interesting that the fastest SD card in this "test", the SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 32GB, which is only of the UHS-I type, averages 75 MB/s, while SanDisk's UHS-II card, the Extreme Pro 280MB/s UHS-II 32GB, which should be around 3 times faster according to SanDisk, is actually only about half as fast.
How can that be???
Thanks for the link, otto! Basically it confirms what I wrote: in real world measurements, SD card write speeds fall far behind the silly "up to" statements that manufacturers publish.
Now I don't quite understand why you picked a camera that's rather stills photography centric, and doesn't even shoot 4K.
The website states "average" write speeds, for burst stills photography. "Average" means that some samples were faster, while others were slower.
However, for continuous video shooting, an "average" isn't enough. The SD card interface must be capable to maintain the required write speed at all times, under all cirumstances. For video shooting, we need to know the minimum speed that the card (and the camera's card interface) can maintain, not the average.
justmeMN: I suspect that the future of still photography is pulling still images out of short high resolution videos. It certainly would help in capturing a "decisive moment".
@Karroly - who said 60fps? There is not 1 consumer camera out there today which can record even 4K at 60fps, let alone 8K.
I agree the higher the pixel resolution, the higher the frame rate should be.
I'm afraid it's still a *very* long way to go...
I'd prefer if they would first introduce 4K60p, with global shutter and 3D.
Anyway, in my opinion, nobody needs 8K, unless we are talking about 360° video.
Which SD card supports continuous, uninterrupted 40MB/s????
The fastest type I know of, the u3 speed class, guarantees only 30 MB/s. Yes the manufacturers say "up to 280 MB/s", but in order to guarantee hassle free, continuous recording you don't need a speed which can, in the best case, sometimes, for short periods, go "up to" 280MB/s, you need to know the speed that can be guaranteed as a minimum, under all conditions. For the fastest SD card class to date, UHS speed class u3, this speed is 30 MB/s.
8K from a 4/3 Sensor? That means 44 MP on the whole sensor (assuming they stick with their 4:3 aspect ratio), or 2.3 microns pixel pitch. Not long ago, compact cameras had pixels of that size.
Does anybody want compact cam look from a system camera?
wus: It is certainly not by chance that comments directly in the article are not possible. Otherwise, lots reasons what else "you need to know" about 4K Video would quickly reveal that this whole article is more industry marketing talk than any seriously balanced content. Sorry Barney, it lacks several fundamentals that one should know about 4K.
Let's have a look at what the abbreviation "HD" stands for: High Definition. In the past 5 years or so, when 1080p became the de facto standard for video shooting, we have learned that for any content with movements, it is better to shoot at 50 or 60p ("HFR", or high frame rate), because at 24, 25 or 30p, movements will look either blurred, or flicker (if shot with short exposure times).
When viewing 4K content on 4K displays, from the short distances where you actually have an advantage from the higher pixel count, this blurring or flickering becomes even much more visible, and very annoying.
Sorry DPR, your "article", which doesn't even mention this, doesn't deserve its headline. Because the needed frame rates are certainly a fact that "you need to know".
Another fact that you should know is about 3D with 4K. Maybe 3D has gotten a bit out of focus lately, but I'm sure it will return one not too distant day. There are different ways / formats of 3D on 4K, but considering the aforesaid, the only acceptable format to present 4K in 3D would be at full resolution in HFR.
Unfortunately, today's 4K TVs don't even have an interface that offers the bandwidth needed for that. The HDMI 2.0 that is the standard now doesn't support it... Even DisplayPort 1.3 isn't good for it if you want 4K in 3D in HDR. The same goes for the suggested 100 fps for sports, even without 3D.
And do you know of any computer monitor with 4K resolution, capable to display 3D with at least 60fps (although only 100 would make it really future proof), in 3D and HDR?
From those days in the mid to late 90s, whenever I was on the NAB, "HD" had already been scaled down to 1080 lines. At least that was still a figure well above the 625 or 540 lines of resolution that standard TV had.
But when HD finally came to the consumer market, nearly all devices that the manufacturers called "HD" had only 720 lines. Only years later, devices with 1080 lines of resolution came to the market, then called "full HD".
And when "full HD" finally had become common, people suddenly realized that 24 or 25p isn't quite the holy grail of "high definition" for movies, when you think of what the term stands for - movements! -, so higher frame rates are needed.
The industry gladly accepted that "challenge" and introduced cameras and camcorders recording at 50/60p.
Now we have 4K where HFR is be even more important, but nobody seems to care. Did you all forget how important HFR is, if you want to shoot any sort of "action", i.e. video with movements?
Therefore, in my humble opinion, 4K deserves the term "HD" only if it offers high resolution also in time, i.e., if it's shot in HFR.
To my knowledge, there are currently no - zero! - consumer photo cameras or camcorders that can record UHD or 4K with more than 30 fps. Not even expensive ones like the Sony A7rII. (If I overlooked one, please let me know by posting here!)
This so-called article aims only at selling the currently available stuff, that isn't really future proof.
Let's see "if history is any guide": in the middle of the 80s, Japanese companys showed the first HD TVs. They were still working analog, with 1250 lines of resolution - twice of what was usual back in those days on TV. It never took off internatioinally because it was just too expensive, and non-standard. From then on, it took looooooong, loooong time until the content producing industry could agree anything that could be called a standard.
It is certainly not by chance that comments directly in the article are not possible. Otherwise, lots reasons what else "you need to know" about 4K Video would quickly reveal that this whole article is more industry marketing talk than any seriously balanced content. Sorry Barney, it lacks several fundamentals that one should know about 4K.
slippedcurve623: Nice camera, and glad to know they have larger sensor but one question, how are my existing super 35mm PL lenses gonna fit? Is it even compatible with EF lenses or do I have to invest in medium format lenses like the arri 65mm?!
I'm sure RED has thought about lenses. The 8K Sensor has 46mm diagonal, 3mm more than 35mm SLR lenses. I think most - particularly the better - SLR lenses should work.
Even if we disregard the small sensor and apertures I wonder how good an underwater photo can be that's shot at 24mm through a flat port.
Anyone know how I should understand this "the ability to dim the viewfinder’s OLED" that DPR writes above? An EVF in a Nikon DSLR??? That would be a first ...
jefrs: The aperture controls the amount of light. If you use the same shutter speed and the same f-stop and the same focal length(!) then the same amount of light hits the sensor irrespective of its size. The F-stop is defined as focal.length / iris.diameter. It's simple optical physics and I am a professional physicist: it's like a funnel where the smallest hole determines how much stuff goes through it, it has nothing to do with the size of the bucket below.You reviewers really, really, really need to get this or go back to school to learn your stuff.
I think it's rather you who needs to go back to school. To stick with you example: yes, if the focal length and f-stop are the same, the same amount of light goes through. But it will also be spread on the same area, and if a smaller sensor covers only half of that area, this smaller sensor will collect only half of the light. The remaining light is lost.
One of the reasons why 50 - 135 / 2.8 never got as popular is probably because they aren't really equivalent to 70 - 200 on FF. They'd have to be 50 - 135 / 1.8 in order to be really equivalent, including the same shallow depth of field as a 70 - 200 / 2.8 on FF.
It's similar comparing FF 24 - 70 / 2.8 with APS-C 16 - 50 / 2.8 lenses. Sigma seem to have realized this and introduced their excellent 18 - 35 / 1.8. It doesn't cover quite the same zoom range, but at least in the range it covers, it offers equally shallow depth of field.
Its bigger aperture also helps to combat the noise that most APS C sensors exhibit, making up - at least to some degree - the other advantage that FF still offers over APS C.
I hope Sigma soon complements the 18 - 35 / 1.8 by a 35 - 70 / 1.8 and ultimately by a 70 - 135 / 1.8 or 2.0.