crazybus wrote:The high-ISO performance actually looks pretty good. I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison against the D700 and A900 testing noise, AF performance and dynamic range.
Yeah, noise doesn't get bad until about 12k ISO. That's crazy.
Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
crazybus wrote:The high-ISO performance actually looks pretty good. I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison against the D700 and A900 testing noise, AF performance and dynamic range.
It's amazing that there are always fools who will believe that inferior technology is "more buttery" or some other BS. That insanity doesn't much relate to discussion of this wonderful new camera.
SPOOFE wrote:It's amazing that there are always fools who will believe that inferior technology is "more buttery" or some other BS. That insanity doesn't much relate to discussion of this wonderful new camera.
I'm similarly amused by people that think "bigger number equals t3h b3tt3rzzz". But I guess it's impossible that subjective aesthetic opinion could be more significant to some people than the proclamations of a user manual or press release.
crazybus wrote:I don't know about that. Unless you intentionally shoot at exposure times that minimize the perceived difference (ie. faster shutter with 30p and slower with 24p), I find it extremely easy to tell the difference. Whether or not the average person would consciously know the difference is debatable, but sub-consciously I think most people would notice something strange about the image.
bhtooefr wrote:
I know I picked up on the fact that movies looked somehow "different" from something like the news, and didn't understand why until I found out the framerate difference... but I could tell the difference.
I don't think it'd be a "ZOMG THIS IS SHOT IN 30 FPS THEREFORE IT'S NOT SUITABLE FOR A MOVIE" thing, even with me knowing the difference, though.
30p is superior to 24p. If you want motion-blur, you can do that at either frame rate. You may need a slightly different multiplier to get the same temporal effects, but there's nothing that can be done in 24p that cannot be done better in 30p, or eventually, in 60p.
SPOOFE wrote:You could try that again in English, but don't bother. Logic obviously doesn't matter to you.There is nothing that cannot be presented in 30p that cannot be presented in 24p.
SPOOFE wrote:30p is superior to 24p. If you want motion-blur, you can do that at either frame rate. You may need a slightly different multiplier to get the same temporal effects, but there's nothing that can be done in 24p that cannot be done better in 30p, or eventually, in 60p.
There is nothing that cannot be presented in 30p that cannot be presented in 24p. I don't know what you think you're trying to prove other than your supernatural ability to mindlessly repeat yourself.
danny e. wrote:You can't just recreate 24p by decimating the framerate of 30p material. You would need some type of software resampling to cook up new intermediary frames or it will definitely look jerky.however, if you recorded with 30p or greater, you can remove unwanted frames.
i think you were trying to say that you can do anything with 24p that you can do with 30p, which is logically flawed. with 30p you have 6 extra frames every second..
SPOOFE wrote:i think you were trying to say that you can do anything with 24p that you can do with 30p, which is logically flawed. with 30p you have 6 extra frames every second..
No, that's not what I'm trying to say. I said exactly what I said:
"There is nothing that cannot be presented in 30p that cannot be presented in 24p."
By all means, suggest some story element or plot point or scene or mannerism or action or behavior that cannot be presented in 24p. I'll wait. Very patiently.
SPOOFE wrote:Hey, I'm not saying you have to like it. But certainly you recognize that a lot of people do, for whatever reason. Surely you understand that there's a lot of money spent to recreate the "film look". And don't even start with "That's just how people are accustomed to blah blah blah" because everyone knows that already; all that matters is that there are people that like how it looks. That's the only assertion I've made, and for some reason, that assertion really seems to bother a couple folks, which is just terribly amusing to me, frankly.
SPOOFE wrote:Hey, I'm not saying you have to like it. But certainly you recognize that a lot of people do, for whatever reason. Surely you understand that there's a lot of money spent to recreate the "film look". And don't even start with "That's just how people are accustomed to blah blah blah" because everyone knows that already; all that matters is that there are people that like how it looks. That's the only assertion I've made, and for some reason, that assertion really seems to bother a couple folks, which is just terribly amusing to me, frankly.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:SPOOFE wrote:Hey, I'm not saying you have to like it. But certainly you recognize that a lot of people do, for whatever reason. Surely you understand that there's a lot of money spent to recreate the "film look". And don't even start with "That's just how people are accustomed to blah blah blah" because everyone knows that already; all that matters is that there are people that like how it looks. That's the only assertion I've made, and for some reason, that assertion really seems to bother a couple folks, which is just terribly amusing to me, frankly.
I think that anyone who 'prefers' it only does so because they think they are supposed to. That's just the general human psychiatry. For example, when watching some of the olympics, I don't understand alot of the subject scoring in things like diving or gymnastics, but when they show someone who 'does it like they are supposed to' then I mentally decide that certain aspects of their performance must have been how things are supposed to be done, and so in the future when looking at a performance, I'll see said aspects and think "oh wow, they're good" when in reality they might not be any better than the next person. I'm sure there's a term for that, and I apologize for not providing the best explanation.
SPOOFE wrote:i think you were trying to say that you can do anything with 24p that you can do with 30p, which is logically flawed. with 30p you have 6 extra frames every second..
No, that's not what I'm trying to say. I said exactly what I said:
"There is nothing that cannot be presented in 30p that cannot be presented in 24p."
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Don't know if anyone else saw this:
http://gizmodo.com/5052767/a-taste-of-t ... l-hd-video
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:Don't know if anyone else saw this:
http://gizmodo.com/5052767/a-taste-of-t ... l-hd-video
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/ ... o-reverie/
The video is now out.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:Don't know if anyone else saw this:
http://gizmodo.com/5052767/a-taste-of-t ... l-hd-video
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/ ... o-reverie/
The video is now out.
danny e. wrote:SPOOFE wrote:i think you were trying to say that you can do anything with 24p that you can do with 30p, which is logically flawed. with 30p you have 6 extra frames every second..
No, that's not what I'm trying to say. I said exactly what I said:
"There is nothing that cannot be presented in 30p that cannot be presented in 24p."
ugh. like lots of negatives eh?
maybe my original comment was correct.
"nothing cannot" == "everything can"