Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Kinefinity in full atack mode

Not only that, but their Kinemount is so shallow that is supports everything (including FF35>s35 speedboosters... or in the case of Mavo LF, MediumFormat>FF35)... Plus their cameras are sub-20wh, which means rinky-dink handle batteries actually last over an hour (so think ~3.5lbs kitted with hour+ of juice) and a 100wh battery will last over 5 hours.

Admittedly, KineRAW is a bit of a question mark, but now that prores raw is here (and they've mentioned implementing it), I expect Kinefinity adoption to increase substantially in the next year (3x if they can hit the ground running... 3 years if they botch the roll out).

I still dislike their lack of presence in the west, but I'm optimistic that will change in the next year too. As for price, I kinda think it's getting a little too close to used Epic-Dragon territory for comfort and RED as a brand (ironically) holds a lot more clout/confidence (no one really knows about Kinefinity yet)...
 
The DJI x7 is the same sensor (rumored) to be the one in the Mavo 6K. If that's the case, it's a very good image. If the LF is a solid improvement over that image then it will likely be a great camera. The cameras do Kineraw, Cinema DNG, and Prores so there are more options there. It's mainly the Terra Cameras which only do Kineraw.

For the average person, they don't need greater than 4K or 5K recording so I think that's what I think other cameras should stick to. Any increase in photosite size is for me more important than extra resolution and without the compression of Redcode, I think 4K is the perfect resolution for a long time. I don't see Blackmagic making greater than 4.6K resolution any time soon.
 
Savannah Miller said:
For the average person, they don't need greater than 4K or 5K recording so I think that's what I think other cameras should stick to. Any increase in photosite size is for me more important than extra resolution and without the compression of Redcode, I think 4K is the perfect resolution for a long time. I don't see Blackmagic making greater than 4.6K resolution any time soon.
Click to expand...

Well not until next year's NAB at least :-P
 
Savannah Miller said:
For the average person, they don't need greater than 4K or 5K recording so I think that's what I think other cameras should stick to. Any increase in photosite size is for me more important than extra resolution and without the compression of Redcode, I think 4K is the perfect resolution for a long time. I don't see Blackmagic making greater than 4.6K resolution any time soon.
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that. Increase in photosite size is good, but so is increase in resolution, Monstro is a great example of that. The downsample from larger resolution is well worth it. That's why I was a bit let down by Gemini being just 5K. I know that larger would mean a larger sensor for it, but gemini has better photosite size but the 6K resolution of Dragon makes for a better downsample.

Recording 4K for 4K on a CMOS sensor is NOT good and the myth of acquisition not needed to be higher than the delivery format needs to just go away.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
It's not as simple as that. Increase in photosite size is good, but so is increase in resolution, Monstro is a great example of that. The downsample from larger resolution is well worth it. That's why I was a bit let down by Gemini being just 5K. I know that larger would mean a larger sensor for it, but gemini has better photosite size but the 6K resolution of Dragon makes for a better downsample.

Recording 4K for 4K on a CMOS sensor is NOT good and the myth of acquisition not needed to be higher than the delivery format needs to just go away.
Click to expand...

Downsample is only better if it's actually a significant increase over the original resolution. Otherwise due to image filtering it actually looks softer. So 6K downsample to 4K works very well, but 5K from the Gemini not so much.

For ME personally, I think there's really 2 resolutions. 2K FHD and 4K which is better than 2K. So as long as your 4K image contains 3-4K worth of resolution, that's more than enough to keep everyone happy. For most things, I don't see a need in 6K and 8K recording as 3-4K of resolution is more than enough for the current viewing distances and sizes we use.

For all of the VFX I do for various network TV shows in america, they're almost all shot 4:4:4 1080p on the Arri Alexa. With the exception of the occasional paint shot looking soft, I see no problems working with 1080p prores footage and I don't even really think 4K is all that special. The amount of TV series and movies finishing in 2K shows that most of the world doesn't care yet. I feel like no one really cares about resolution beyond not lying to the customers of how much resolution you are capturing. I have NEVER seen a VFX shot returned because it looked too "soft" or didn't contain enough resolution, and likewise, I don't think any consumer will notice if something was shot 6K and downsampled vs 4K native acquisition.
 
Savannah Miller said:
I don't think any consumer will notice if something was shot 6K and downsampled vs 4K native acquisition.
Click to expand...

Maybe not on the big screen but on an LG OLED (C7, C8 and above) or Samsung QLed Q9 even a 72 year old can see de difference.
One of my co-workers has a Nikon 850D and a set of Otus lenses.
From a normal viewing distance(from the OLED C7) we couldn't see de differences between 8k and 6k acq. but with the 4k acq. is was clearly softer.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Recording 4K for 4K on a CMOS sensor is NOT good and the myth of acquisition not needed to be higher than the delivery format needs to just go away.
Click to expand...

I have the same struggle with some studios that still believe in the CCD theory (no down sampling or scaling from original size for better resolution and less artefacts) and mainly don’t understand how debayer work. More res is also more color precision.
 
Philip Bloom tried it out

C180AA6A-DE4B-4BFA-AD88-AE147A51A0D8-2-768x512.jpg


http://philipbloom.net/blog/mavo/
 
I see the footage and still think that from a smaller manufacturer, the 4.6K Ursa Mini sensor and color science combo is the best you can get from one of these lower cost systems. But Kinefinity do seem very aggressive in the risks they take manufacturing their cameras and pushing new technology and the Kinefinity cams are shockingly small and light. If the LF increases the dynamic range compared to their previous cameras, it might be an interesting future for the camera market.

The wireless back looks really cool.
 
Last edited:
It has e-mount, so you can mount every lens with an adapter.
We love our UMP 4.6k's but I would love to have the option of an e-mount.

It would be nice when BMD and Kine would both support Cineform RAW (Kineraw), (not gonna happen....) to counter ProResRAW.
 
Misha Engel said:
It has e-mount, so you can mount every lens with an adapter.
We love our UMP 4.6k's but I would love to have the option of an e-mount.

It would be nice when BMD and Kine would both support Cineform RAW (Kineraw), (not gonna happen....) to counter ProResRAW.
Click to expand...

The e-mount is passive because sony doesn't license.
 
I'm sure Sigma, Fuji, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss etc have the license. Everyone else has to find another way...
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
I'm sure Sigma, Fuji, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss etc have the license. Everyone else has to find another way...
Click to expand...

Is there anybody on the camera-side that uses E-mount or is it only lenses?

EF mount is mostly reverse-engineered as far as I know, but Sony gives documents if you license their tech.
 
Last edited:
If you have the lens side you have the camera side...
 
Patrick Tresch said:
I have the same struggle with some studios that still believe in the CCD theory (no down sampling or scaling from original size for better resolution and less artefacts) and mainly don’t understand how debayer work. More res is also more color precision.
Click to expand...

More resolution is more resolution and color precision is something else.

Christoffer Glans said:
Recording 4K for 4K on a CMOS sensor is NOT good
Click to expand...

Guessing 3K sucks even more then.

http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/credits/
 
I feel like if you treat 4K as a higher than 1080p image quality then it's totally acceptable to just record straight 4K. Sure it won't have the same quality as an oversample 6K and if you pixel peep on a large monitor you can see a difference, but for the average consumer at normal viewing distance, the quality of the 4K image is more important than having extreme detail and resolution. Even reframing a 4K shot by 150% I don't see as a huge problem when outputting a 4K master because that's regularly done in the TV world with 1080p Alexa footage and it works just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top