Major upgrade in camera resolution ahead due to 8K standard.
Nov 8, 2017 12:15:32 #
burkphoto wrote:
For good 4K video, avoid Canon dSLRs and try the Lumix GH5. It's made for great 4K.
Other than DPAF tech, Canon has no value prop anynore without jumling to the C series video cameras. Lumix GH5 would be my choice for video ina DSLR for sure....except I am not into video. My 70D and 5D will do a decent job and have DPAF also....if I want to get serious...Lumix or jump to C Series canon.
Nov 8, 2017 12:23:27 #
crazydaddio wrote:
...that's coming too...the gamers will get there first...
Either the gamers or the porn industry...
bwa
Nov 8, 2017 12:32:04 #
jerryc41 wrote:
My TV is 1080, and that's where I plan to stop. I can't keep buying new ones every time they make a jump in resolution. Does it really matter for sitcoms and documentaries?
Jerry, which TV do you use to watch infomercials?
Nov 8, 2017 12:46:14 #
bwana wrote:
Either the gamers or the porn industry...
bwa
bwa
They are not mutually exclusive.
--
Nov 8, 2017 12:55:25 #
JPL wrote:
There is a lot of discussion here about resolution... (show quote)
As a question of practicality, 18.8 on my Canon 7D is all the resolution I need for the type of photography I am doing.
Nov 8, 2017 13:03:42 #
The problem with going to 8 k there is very little programming out in 4 k so whats the hurry, its coming
Nov 8, 2017 14:17:09 #
crazydaddio wrote:
Other than DPAF tech, Canon has no value prop anynore without jumling to the C series video cameras. Lumix GH5 would be my choice for video ina DSLR for sure....except I am not into video. My 70D and 5D will do a decent job and have DPAF also....if I want to get serious...Lumix or jump to C Series canon.
For those of us doing stills and video, the Lumix GH series has been great. If I never did video, I’d be using Canons and Nikons.
Nov 8, 2017 14:19:09 #
burkphoto wrote:
For those of us doing stills and video, the Lumix GH series has been great. If I never did video, I’d be using Canons and Nikons.
Well said! Except that I might be using a full frame Sony without a flapping, noisy mirror!
Nov 8, 2017 14:22:02 #
I don't do much video shooting, but as a still photographer, I'm a proponent of the "enough is enough" philosophy. Unless you're shooting for billboards or slick magazine ads, anything over 24 mp starts to become excessive. I also agree that pixel size matters, and there is a point of diminishing returns. Not to mention that, as sensor robustness grows, so much all the supporting systems - computing power, storage capability, etc. It's quite a racket they have going, put together.
Nov 8, 2017 14:56:10 #
James Slick
Loc: Pittsburgh,PA
sb wrote:
I was impressed with the 4K TV's at the store until I started inquiring about 4K broadcast TV - which at that time was nonexistent. The 4K TVs at the stores were showing special 4K DVDs or BluRays. I don't know that even now there is a lot of 4K broadcast or cable television.
If you're on Comcast, Good luck getting a good 1080 picture!😂
Nov 8, 2017 15:03:14 #
Nov 8, 2017 15:28:51 #
JPL wrote:
There is a lot of discussion here about resolution... (show quote)
I'm in! I just got a 4k monitor and it makes my recordings look a lot better. I've been shooting 4k with my Sony a6500, a Samsung Gear 360, and some 4k GoPro clones integrating it all together and I love it. Can't wait for 8k. I want it right now. Pluckin' those 33 megapixel stills from 8k video at 120 fps video will be so fantastic... Anybody'll be able to shoot "stop-action" on critters in such a manner that the human eye has never seen before and make a billboard out of it, if we choose. Oh yow!!! I'm ready - bring it on, but hurry!
Nov 8, 2017 15:56:01 #
JPL wrote:
There is a lot of discussion here about resolution... (show quote)
I think manufacturers will keep making and improving products as long as the "I got to have the latest and greatest at all times and I want it now" crowd keeps buying whatever they make. Instead of keep adding mega pixels (imagine the speed computers and the storage capacities we will need shortly if this continues. Instead of keep adding megapixels, why does not just one manufacturer out there just work on improving the sensors we have now. I'd like to see a 20-25mp camera that can produce a photo taken at 100,0000 that will look like it was taken at 100 ISO. Now that's a camera that would impress me. 50,000mp 35mm cameras that can't go over 1600 ISO in my book is a waste to a versatile photographer.
Nov 8, 2017 16:04:04 #
To get back to original question
How much can we percieve?
Let's start with photography
Will a well composed and executed hdr stacked and post processed image be different at
6mp, 12mp, 24mp and above.
I suspect a pro could still do an outstanding job
With a 6mp.
What if the same "pro did this at 12,..18, 24mp .....50mp?
At what stage is this process no longer about mp?
I suspect software will be more important than mp in the future.
When will the camera make my crappy pictures look like national geographic?
I think national geographic is a good place to start to see these improvements in both film and photography.
How much can we percieve?
Let's start with photography
Will a well composed and executed hdr stacked and post processed image be different at
6mp, 12mp, 24mp and above.
I suspect a pro could still do an outstanding job
With a 6mp.
What if the same "pro did this at 12,..18, 24mp .....50mp?
At what stage is this process no longer about mp?
I suspect software will be more important than mp in the future.
When will the camera make my crappy pictures look like national geographic?
I think national geographic is a good place to start to see these improvements in both film and photography.
Nov 8, 2017 17:00:32 #
kenArchi
Loc: Seal Beach, CA
I watch TV, not pixels.
I use to make sharp
4ft photos. Why do they say you can't do that with digital?
I use to make sharp
4ft photos. Why do they say you can't do that with digital?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.