undercrimson
Well-known member
Yeah, next time I'm going to the zoo I'm definitely going to shoot 4K and crop-in for the zoom.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
RX100 Mark VI Review: Is this camera worth $1200?
- Thread starter undercrimson
- Start date
undercrimson
Well-known member
I'm saying most people who shoot "RAW" are shooting on a DSLR (either APS-C or full-frame sensor). This market is by FAR the largest for RAW shooters. If you know what RAW is, your experience is probably coming in from using a DSLR (likely the popular entry-level DSLRs like those Canon Rebels or Nikon D7500 or something like that).
Most point-n-shoots/compacts don't have RAW processing, and slapping RAW on those isn't going to be what you'd expect, generally speaking.
tbcass
Veteran Member
My definition of a blown highlight, which is the generally accepted one, is when part of the sensor receives so much light that it becomes saturated and the photodiodes are maxed out to the point of clipping. At that point nothing is ever recoverable. If anything is recoverable it's not truly "blown".
Loading…
en.wikipedia.org
undercrimson
Well-known member
lol ok, I think that "generally" most people don't even know what a photodiode is so how can this be the "generally accepted" answer?
A "blown highlight" is when the colors get capped out at white -- it doesn't even need to hit (255,255,255) for that matter, if it were to hit (240, 240, 240) even you'd still say "hey those highlights look blown out. Can we see if we can recover some detail there?" Technically it might imply checking the histogram and seeing if they're being clipped out at the far edges.
Most "general people" don't know or care how RAW works, we all look at JPGs in the end. If you cared about photodiodes, then simply looking at a JPG you would not be able to precisely determine whether the image has "blown highlights" since you wouldn't know what the sensor/photodiode was doing at that point in time and whether it was oversaturated or not, lol.
On another note, stop trying to sound smarter than me because you're not.
Last edited:
tbcass
Veteran Member
I don't consider myself smarter than anyone but I do have 2 degrees, one in Electrical Technology and one in Biology, both earned in the 60's.
onlyfreeman
Veteran Member
Why does it matter if there is any TV content in 4K right now. For people creating memories or any other kind of video they value, they can view that on the hardware available right now, in full quality. They can also make sure their video quality is as good as possible far into the future, a future in which 1080p will probably be a good joke.
Lots of devices can record 4K and also play that content back without issues, hardware is only a problem if editing the content, and there is no real need to do that for most users. They can always edit it later as hardware becomes more powerful and widely available.
Why store memories or other valuable work in an inferior format?
onlyfreeman
Veteran Member
Is there any way to identify the bit depth of the RAW file?
undercrimson
Well-known member
I used to think this way too... but in reality, I don't think people ever go back like this. Especially not for video, which is too intensive in terms of editing it into something consumable + adding music and effects... You'd have to re-export the entire video, it'd be so much work for little gain. I can't imagine many people 10 years from now, trying to re-render some vacation video.
RAW photos is a bit different since a photo isn't compiled into some collage...
sybersitizen
Veteran Member
Probably, with tools that I don't possess. RawDigger would be one, I guess.
Last edited:
undercrimson
Well-known member
This had a big complicated discussion on the RAW format. It's crazy stuff, but it seems like RX100 is either 11 or 12 bits.
Loading…
www.rawdigger.com
George1958
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,475
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,259
4k is old hat already, we will soon be expect this to be 6k plus and calling 4k an inferior format. Plans to have a format that will have long term immunity against being comparatively poor are unrealistic.
that said there is a growing consensus that most folk are not able to discriminate between 4k and HD content, and for many HD is equal to the task and it is a thinking error to driven by marketing propaganda to think otherwise.
dont get me wrong, 4 k is marvellous as a format but then again if you buy into nothing else will do, then where do you stand on stills? Will only MF do as the rest are inferior ?
that said there is a growing consensus that most folk are not able to discriminate between 4k and HD content, and for many HD is equal to the task and it is a thinking error to driven by marketing propaganda to think otherwise.
dont get me wrong, 4 k is marvellous as a format but then again if you buy into nothing else will do, then where do you stand on stills? Will only MF do as the rest are inferior ?
Last edited:
+!
Why would I want to shoot 1080p when I can shoot 4K? Even if my delivered format was HD I can use 4K as the source to either crop in for a different view or down size for a superior image. HDR is not necessary for UHD & only complicates matters. The difference between the detail in HD & UHD is clearly visible.
What consensus? If you can't see the difference between 4K & 1080p either you need glasses or your screen is too small or you are watching from too far away.
The commonest size for HD TVs was 46". Today the commonest size for a 4K TV is 60". The difference is chalk & cheese. 4K is like looking through a window.
Last edited:
tbcass
Veteran Member
Because memories are not dependent of video quality. I have some videos of my oldest grandson taken in 2005 in 480x360 or something similar. The memories are not diminished by the poor quality. That said there's a cutoff beyond which video IQ improvements don't add much unless viewed at huge sizes. With still photography that point is often considered to be 8 mp. I think HD is the point for video when viewing up to a 60" screen +/-. What next 8K? I can imagine 8K on huge movie screens would be nice.
There will always be something better. Hasselblad makes a 100mp camera. If you don't use that camera all your stills are from an inferior format. Get my point?
I mentioned earlier that 4K would be nice for the ability to zoom into HD when post processing. I can see a use for that while editing and making a video more interesting. This could replace using multiple cameras in some cases.
--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
Last edited:
tbcass
Veteran Member
Maybe you are watching too close! The fact is for most people HD is good enough for video and 8mp for stills. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with them.
One of my cameras is 42mp. Do you have a camera with that much resolution? If you don't and can't see or don't care about the difference between 42mp and 20mp for example you must need glasses or are looking at too small a size.
My point is stop criticizing someone else who disagrees with you on the need for 4K. It's none of your business what they like. Instead you shoot 4K and let them be happy with HD.
Me I can see the difference between 4K and HD but it's not enough to matter for me. I don't demand the same quality in video as I do for stills because the constant movement tends to obscure a lack of resolution. It's when you freeze the image on the screen that the difference becomes obvious.
onlyfreeman
Veteran Member
Yes, good point.
I guess what I was trying to say, that in my personal opinion I would utilise the best quality format available to me (at that time and in that situation) to capture whatever it is I value.
For example I don't have a 100 MP camera, so even though that's what I would like to use, I can't. Although if I had a camera that records both 1080p and 4K, why would I use 1080p?
Obviously situations are different, some people have storage issues, their cameras can't record 4K in a useful manner, they have nobody to pass the recordings onto etc. It remind me a lot of other similar discussions, such as *RAW vs JPEG etc.
So I believe it's useful to think about the situation and if we have a good enough reason to not use the best quality format we have. I don't think not being able to edit the footage right now is a good enough reason, at least not for me.
*I also regret not shooting a lot of photos in RAW (when I easily could have but just didn't know about it) when I started using a RAW capable camera.
sybersitizen
Veteran Member
You've already made your choice, which is fine. The question in your mind is actually Why would someone out there use 1080p?
Exactly. So you do know the answer: Not everyone has the same priorities ... so not everyone cares about maximum quality when using a camera. I don't, for example. Good enough is good enough.
Again, that's fine.
I've known how to shoot and process RAW for many years, and I still shoot 95% JPEG. No regrets here at all.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that I'm more meticulous and critical (even obsessive/compulsive) about other aspects of my life than some others out there. We're all different.
Last edited:
undercrimson
Well-known member
Simply, it is still a pain to process 4K video. It takes forever, and often you need to set up proxies where you edit on a "proxy" 720P video and then render out the 4K over many hours. It bogs down your system. If you have an 18-core beastly machine at home, then sure go ahead and shoot your 4K -- even then, the visual difference isn't going to be too noticeable. Even watching 4K movies at home, I rarely stop and say "Oh hey look at all that detail", usually there's too much bokeh & motion blur in videos to notice.
undercrimson
Well-known member
One thing we didn't discuss so much, that I want to get your opinion on, is that the RX100 VI has an f/7.6 equivalent "bokeh" aperture at 24mm. This is compared to the RX100 V, at f/4.9. This is a 2.4x stop difference in bokeh-blurring ability (the light/exposure is unaffected).
Now... this really got me thinking. I love bokeh at wide angles, I think they're really great for separating people/subject from the background. I hardly ever would choose to shoot at f/8 wide-angle unless it were like a panoramic vista, since I tend to like some bokeh background-blurring between my subject matter.
The additional 8x zoom is still appealing, but I think this really starts to get me thinking whether I really want to go around shooting at 24mm f/8 all the time. The RX100 V's f/4.9 is more acceptable in this regard. It's a difficult trade-off for the zoom.
Now... this really got me thinking. I love bokeh at wide angles, I think they're really great for separating people/subject from the background. I hardly ever would choose to shoot at f/8 wide-angle unless it were like a panoramic vista, since I tend to like some bokeh background-blurring between my subject matter.
The additional 8x zoom is still appealing, but I think this really starts to get me thinking whether I really want to go around shooting at 24mm f/8 all the time. The RX100 V's f/4.9 is more acceptable in this regard. It's a difficult trade-off for the zoom.
4K video on the Sony RX10/RX100 gives you 24/25/30 8mp images per second. Why put up with "good enough"?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum