Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com ([209.85.216.172] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5043105 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:44:29 +0200 Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id b25so872167qca.31 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:52:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=J3Q45GirMxKKFCMcLqW2GZYa3A9YSwJ/3CaN4uIcxUs=; b=0u8g9WwBtGEeUFdqaNFjlXq9aUFLZv1OW/oGYweYEpQ0hninVaVPQasGKZkNO896IQ BtUEdSWWmr/S0N4FHscAgdLjR/bPrnflNIG1sX1NvQefmsi77hNyhcEGJYvNLH9jipwT YxK6QoNb+s1bMuSbg+H7brLc/VUm/JAJvbFoMNoap6kkZxNA1chN8NCVGO5cGxF109cR HPWsdbPg8qwTvc6e5SPVCetJ03Q6/GGw7H/yf+QBBxHSTF9ekiP1LBSQNs5YhDyfLANf yzSVmaFDZ6+A/AwPcwu8SlXVLpuMNelDTIWtq6BBVT+my2G1HmRfxN0jkhPUEtsClBX8 rWCQ== X-Received: by 10.224.221.136 with SMTP id ic8mr11248243qab.17.1366311157875; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:52:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.49.127.107 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:51:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Teddy Gage Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:51:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Camcorder recommendations To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071d1ea37ce8804daa71bfb --20cf3071d1ea37ce8804daa71bfb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 And just to add to this, larger isn't always better. A larger sensor with photocells that are packed together (ie greater "megapixels") generate more heat and therefore more noise than a smaller sensor with fewer, but larger, photocells. Overall image quality depends on a great number of factors, not just one. Who cares if you're recording at 74 mbps if the image is crap? my 2 c On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > more myth than fact. so here is how it works... technically a smaller > sensor has smaller pixel sites. however if you stop here you are wrong. > this completely fails to take into consideration then lens in the equation, > especially if the lens is made for that sensor size. as example, a 1/3" > camera matched to a 1/3" lens. the 1/3" lens condenses / shrinks the image > size for that sensor. this increases the photons/mm - another words it > makes the image projected on the sensor smaller and brighter. this in > practical effect compensates out for a loss of sensitivity due to smaller > pixel sites. > > this is exactly what the metabones adapter does - it projects the lens's > rear image projection down into a smaller area, making it brighter ( > increasing photons / mm ). this is what makes for that 1 stop increase in > brightness. its simple math and physics, nothing more. therefore if you use > a lens properly matched to the sensor, sensor size becomes far less of an > issue in terms of sensitivity. > > S > > On Apr 18, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Jim Lang wrote: > > 'small sensor which compromises low light performance' > > That kills it for me. > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Evan Fotis wrote: > >> The GH3 is truly great for videographers, only limited by its small >> sensor which compromises low light performance. It costs a tad more than >> the Nex too and also bizarrely lack focus assist/peaking. >> Here's a thorough review: >> http://www.eoshd.com/content/9920/gh3-review >> >> Forgot to mention that the NEX family also can get the metabones >> speedbooster that does wonders, giving FF angle and gaining 1 stop in >> aperture! >> >> >> On 18-Apr-13 00:43, Jack Tunnicliffe wrote: >> >> Yes, except AVCHD on the Sony at a maximum 28 mbits vs h264 at 72 mbits >> on the GH3 if video record quality is really important to you. >> >> Jack Tunnicliffe >> Java Post Production >> >> >> On Apr 17, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Evan Fotis wrote: >> >> ~$500-$700 nex 5R or nex6 >> >> >> - APS-C sensor >> - 60p >> - many lens adapters >> - focus peaking >> >> >> On 17-Apr-13 20:43, Emile Tobenfeld (a.k.a Dr. T) wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm looking for a camera with as many as possible of the below features. >> Currently using a Lumix LX 7, which does surprisingly well for a $400 >> camera mainly designed for stills/ >> >> 1. Compact >> 2. Tapeless >> 3. 1080 24p. 30 p. (60 i optional) >> 4. Better (i.e. less) compression than the 34:1 of my Lumix LX - 7. >> 5. Mac- compatible software. >> 6. No 4 gig file limit. >> 7. High speed shooting for slow mo. >> 8. Good optics -- ideally comparable with Lumix >> 9. Better zoom ratio than LX 7 >> 10. Ideally can shoot high quality 5 MP or better stills. >> 11. Long shutter speed shooting for in camera blurs >> 12. Good low light performance. >> >> My Lumix LX 7 has all but 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Animator & Editor www.teddygage.com Brooklyn --20cf3071d1ea37ce8804daa71bfb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And just to add to this, larger isn't always better. A= larger sensor with photocells that are packed together (ie greater "m= egapixels") generate more heat and therefore more noise than a smaller= sensor with fewer, but larger, photocells. Overall image quality depends o= n a great number of factors, not just one. Who cares if you're recordin= g at 74 mbps if the image is crap? my 2 c


On Thu,= Apr 18, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com><= /span> wrote:
more myt= h than fact. so here is how it works... technically a smaller sensor has sm= aller pixel sites. however if you stop here you are wrong. this completely = fails to take into consideration then lens in the equation, especially if t= he lens is made for that sensor size. as example, a 1/3" camera matche= d to a 1/3" lens. the 1/3" lens condenses / shrinks the image siz= e for that sensor. this increases the photons/mm - another words it makes t= he image projected on the sensor smaller and brighter. this in practical ef= fect compensates out for a loss of sensitivity due to smaller pixel sites.<= div>
this is exactly what the metabones adapter does - it project= s the lens's rear image projection down into a smaller area, making it = brighter ( increasing photons / mm ). this is what makes for that 1 stop in= crease in brightness. its simple math and physics, nothing more. therefore = if you use a lens properly matched to the sensor, sensor size becomes far l= ess of an issue in terms of sensitivity.

S

On Apr 18, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Jim Lang <james.c.lang@gmail.com> wrote:
'small sensor = which compromises low light performance'

That kills it for me. = =A0


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Evan Fotis = <evan.fotis@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
The GH3 is truly great for videographers, only limited by its small sensor which compromises low light performance.=A0 It costs a tad more than the Nex too and also bizarrely lack focus assist/peaking.
Here's a thorough review:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9920/gh3-review

Forgot to mention that the NEX family also can get the metabones speedbooster that does wonders, giving FF angle and gaining 1 stop in aperture!


On 18-Apr-13 00:43, Jack Tunnicliffe wrote:
=20 Yes, except AVCHD on the Sony at a maximum 28 mbits vs h264 at 72 mbits on the GH3 if video record quality is really important to you.
=
Jack Tunnicliffe
Java Post Production

On Apr 17, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Evan Fotis <evan.fotis@gmail.com> wrote:

=20
~$500-$700 nex 5R= or nex6
  • APS-C sensor
  • 60p
  • many lens adapters
  • focus peaking

On 17-Apr-13 20:43, Emile Tobenfeld (a.k.a Dr. T) wrote:
Hi,

I'm looking for a camera with as many as possible of the below features. Currently using a Lumix LX 7, which does surprisingly well for a $400 camera mainly designed for stills/

1.=A0=A0=A0 Compact
2.=A0=A0=A0 Tapeless
3.=A0=A0=A0 1080 24p. 30 p. (60 i optional)
4.=A0=A0=A0 Better (i.e. less)=A0 compression than the 34:1 o= f my Lumix=A0 LX - 7.
5.=A0=A0=A0 Mac- compatible software.
6.=A0=A0=A0 No 4 gig file limit.
7.=A0=A0=A0 High speed shooting for slow mo.
8.=A0=A0=A0 Good optics -- ideally comparable with Lumix
9.=A0=A0=A0 Better zoom ratio than LX 7
10.=A0=A0=A0 Ideally can shoot high quality 5 MP or better stills.
11.=A0=A0=A0 Long shutter speed shooting for in camera blurs =
12.=A0=A0=A0 Good low light performance.

My Lumix LX 7 has all but 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Thanks.







--
Animator &am= p; Editor
www.teddygage.c= om
Brooklyn
--20cf3071d1ea37ce8804daa71bfb--