👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 phenomenal job man.

Agreed with all your findings. Previously I owned Sigma fp (it hasn't OLPF) and I've got images with incredible resolution while still pleasantly soft (I think it was bc of some type of binning from 6K sensor to 4K image) and natural images. Now I switched to FX6 and while this camera better for my type of works (docs, music videos and small form narratives) sometimes I missed this look from my fp's cDNG. p.s. funny, when I shot narrative works with fp I usually decrease resolution in post (very tiny amount Gaussian blur) and wanted camera with lower resolution. Now I have such cam and want more resolution! 🙃

Wow very good information

I'm quite fond of my 4k and have never had the need for any more. Just means larger file sizes for basically the same video that will go online. File Size aside, Codec > Resolution. I will rather shoot in 1080p 10bit 4:2:2 then 4k 8bit 4:2:0.

I have switched to only shooting in 12k at Q5. A lot of times my data rate isn’t much higher than 8k and sometimes it is lower than 8k at Q5. If I am using vintage lenses or a diffusion filter the data rate drops even more and if my focus is a little off like you talked about the camera seems to take advantage of it.

@deadendboredom

Жыл бұрын

I find that very interesting, thanks for your comment! When I read how you set up the camera, I wondered how the compression affects the quality and how big the files will get. And in connection with this: are there compressions and resolutions that should not be combined with each other and what about differences between high resolution and high compression compared to low resolution with low compression. Looks like I have to take a closer look at it. Thanks for the inspiration!

@elvisripley

Жыл бұрын

@@deadendboredom Something that I noticed and you could test if you wanted was the data rate variability in 12k quality setting is greater than 8k. And it seems to always benefit shooting in 12k if you have a nicely exposed image with some shallowness to the depth of field. A quick test is just looking at the time remaining on a card. That is a quick way to see how much data the camera is using.

@deadendboredom

Жыл бұрын

@@elvisripley I have actually been working on a detailed test all day today and recorded various scenes in all resolutions and compressions and have already created a large Excel spreadsheet. However, it may still take some time for more scenes to be recorded and everything has been evaluated and checked - but I can already say that there are some interesting findings in it, especially in relation to what you said.

@elvisripley

Жыл бұрын

@@deadendboredom Thats great. Maybe I will have new discoveries to share by the time you post it.

@deadendboredom

Жыл бұрын

@@elvisripley Here we go: kzread.info/dash/bejne/d6CLr7xtlcvfl5c.html I'm curious if this changes something about which compression you record and if not, why

Depth of field would help you here. Don’t need to shoot near wide open all the time.

@deadendboredom

Жыл бұрын

You are absolutely right, of course it helps to reduce the aperture. But: probably I should have said it earlier in the video, but the tests were all already done at aperture 5.6, so far from „wide open“.

Gotta have auto tracking so no review starting without referencing that function is of no use.

@deadendboredom

Жыл бұрын

What specific auto tracking are you referring to?