Thanks! Just to be clear, the device works fine recording audio. So if you see one cheap it's worth considering. It just feels hall-ass.

Thanks for the kind words!

I screwed up by not saying I was talking mostly about video. Yes, you're right of course. Any photographer who works with RAW in a deep way can separate the science from art. The problem for those who shoot video in non-RAW is the camera makes the decision what "colors" to choose and the debayering method when writing to 8 or 10 bit. In other words, most of the science is hidden from them.

Yes, and females have more refined tastes than men--empirically.

Yeah, I should have mentioned the 10-bit in the Kodak system was real 10-bit per color channel. 10-bit H.264 is more like 8.1 bit to me ;) As for color grading, I haven't graduated 1st grade ;)

@@MaxoticsTV I agree I don't think h.264 supports 10 bit colour only h.265 does this albeit still in a highly compressed format. Always good to shoot with profiles log or otherwise for a specific reason and it's interesting to look at the downsides of one of the most popular styles of picture profile

There's a God complex in most people who pick up a camera--most males for sure ;) Myself included. The feeling of power when you take "flat" footage and bring it to life. IT LIVES! It looks like that latest $100 million blockbuster (um, sort of). I get it. I was young once. What bothers me is when "experts" call it reality, say its increased dynamic range. That you can't "grade" unless you shoot in LOG. It's a symbiosis between some KZfaq camera "experts" and the manufacturers. I always feel compelled to point out the physical world should be respected, understood. That it explains why there are limits to everything we do with a camera.

@@MaxoticsTV haha yes that is a satisfying feeling transforming an ugly log image into something vaguely viewable. There's a lot of parroting specs and commonly held assumptions in product reviews without genuine understanding behind the statements. It never hurts to question ones methods. It's good to dig into what features are actually subjectively valuable too so we don't pay extra for gimmicks we don't need.

@@mintflicks8319 Exactly! Trust, but verify ;)

As far as I know, each photosite's electrons are written to the RAW file exactly as they are "counted". CMOS works by writing them one row at a time, which is why you have "rolling shutter". I believe those in the industry who work on sensors know perfectly well how similar each is to the other, but it's a lot of math and things to know to understand the differences, if any. Why try to talk to trolls about it? haha. Canon uses dual pixels (scattered pixels for focus), not sure if they are the same as normal photosites or physically different. I do know what the data enters RAW as is, because they turn up red or green in Magic Lantern. My guess is there is some demosaicing in Canon cameras with RAW recording. Most of the work is in the color matrixes that camera manufacturer suggests the software use to deal with the image. For whatever reason, Adobe or others will use their own calculations. But I don't feel any of that changes the fact that the RAW data is straight from the sensor unadulterated. Maybe someone who knows will comment.

You made my night!

I went out of my way to be polite on the Audio Science Forum. Day after day. I tried to reason the issues from multiple angles. The problem is that one member had been on the forum, probably from the beginning, and it was a matter of pride for him. One day one he'd agree 2+2=4. Days later, when the logic had been built up he would argue 2+2 can equal 5 to get back to his original conclusion. If you look at any meeting with Putin, an extreme example, you can see no one around him wants to be there, or feels its worth it to speak up. Human nature is that it's better to follow a bad leader, or let them have their way, then get involved and run the risk of being exiled or worse. I can argue to the cows come home that we, as Americans, destroyed the homes of 1 million people and buried many families, especially children, in the rubble. That it is a priori wrong. That our government should explain why this has happened. Why they are continuing to let it happen (with our bombs). Yes, you can argue the issues forever, but what point if the biggest issue is glossed over whenever you get close to a conclusion? We're rather have a structure in place based on loyalty where we can feel secure that if we don't challenge anything we'll hold our position. Anyway, my fascination is that if I can't change people's mind about how 32-bit-float works (or doesn't), what hope for anything important?

@@MaxoticsTV Can you now call me a sympathizer with your cause? ;-) I have not ventured into video (it will come soon enough) or audio, per se, but I'll make sure to entertain you when I do.

My mother was a professional ballerina, then a ballroom dancer later in life. She loved the science of it though few recognize such an aspect exists. I did a video covering GAMMA six years ago. I'll try to redo it for you. But if you have 30 minutes to listen to "ums", it's here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hbSWl8SjrrTanas.htmlsi=8rn6UvCLnQebkzHE Your comment has put me into deep thought. And yes, few viewers for videos like this.

@@MaxoticsTV Just some fun facts for you: 1. My father was a Jazz musician (arranged for Duke Ellington, Oscar Peterson, Count Basie, Sy Oliver (his teacher), trained with Billy Taylor - and many more. Worked at Decca Records in N.Y.C.. He was also into computers and introduced me to a guy by the name of Bill Gates in the late 1970s. He passed away last year. I danced briefly (swing) with Janie Parker (PB of Houston Ballet). Years later I met Li Cun Xi (her partner) - and the defector from China, because friends of mine had let me stay at their home when he defected and he returned (he now heads the ballet in Australia) to cook a birthday meal for them and recruit dancers from Canada. He was an absolute delight and the subject of the movie "Mao's Last Dancer". Thought you might enjoy some of that. ;-) Thanks for the link. I'll head that way.

Interesting! I had never thought about wavelength precision might actually be harder!

The problem I have with sensor stabilization is the slight wobble, but agree, is best on the Panasonic cameras. I go back and forth on the GH6. My biggest issue is the autofocus. I know I'm in the minority ;) When I can pick up the GH7 for a reasonable amount I'll try it. The argument I made about the C100 vs GH6 is also true for the GH6 vs my Sony A7S--more buttons and other convenient features on the GH6. Thanks for comment!

Thanks for the nice words!!!

I'm thrilled my exploration was interesting! Thanks!

Yes, I should have made it clear that I'm talking about filmmakers who talk about "better color science." Thanks for comment!

Yes. For video, the reason many find it difficult to get the colors right in post is they throw them out using LOG shooting GAMMAS, a tradeoff for brightness detail at the extremes. Although I have cameras from all the brands if I had to pick one it would be Sony. Thanks for comment!

Yes, it's a consumer device so one has to expect some frilly ;) The stock market is finally crashing and that's going to kill off one of these companies. If Tascam didn't have the money to finish the software on this device a couple of years ago what hope today? Zoom too, must be hurting for cash. This video was more out of frustration as a software developer. Fundamentally, the device records audio just fine. Thanks for comment!

You're right, a better title would have been "Better" Color Science makes me laugh.

@@MaxoticsTV well looks like I mixed up sensors and censors, the latter I have been encountering too frequently on YT 😬

Yes, a lot of the technology was adapted to work with legacy TV (NTSC/PAL) and printing.

@@MaxoticsTV My background is remote sensing and much of this in satellite sensors is similar, except we work in spectral regions beyond the visible spectral region.

@@RetrieverTrainingAlone How do you infer what wavelength you're reading, or do you just assume a range?

@@MaxoticsTV Most humans have 3 type of photo receptors in the cones of the retinea sensitive to blue (peaking at around 450nm, green (peaking at around 550 nm) and red (peaking at around 650 nm). The rods in the retina are typically sensitive to a wider range of wavelengths (400-700nm) and therefore can sense in much dimmer light.

Thanks for the encouragement! "Independent thinking" is not always welcome ;)

When you set the camera to 5600 Kelvin what is it really doing? Does it have any effect on the RAW data? Not that I know of. All it does is write the setting to the RAW config data to help the post-processing software get a head start on assigning colors to the RAW data for output. I'm mostly poking fun as filmmakers who talk about "Color Science". Everything you wrote is, of course, important, but I believe most product photographers are worried more about the quality of light than the White Balance Setting, which is very crude. For example, most LED lighting has many color spikes. No color balance will help you there ;) Thanks for comment!

@@MaxoticsTV Raw data may not be as much impacted by 5600 Kelvin, but I think a little, as the colors are more neutral when captured in studio, so less to work at when processing to balance and product clients want accurate colors, so the answer is probably yes it can help in Raw to some extent. However, I am not a scientist. I tried setting my Nikon D750 with Nikon 24-120mm F4 to flash setting in camera, and the white backdrop were still slightly yellow in the images. Next, I set my camera to 5500 kelvin and whites were perfectly neutral with studio flash (Godox 400 watts) rated at 5600 Kelvin. Nikon has some of the best jpegs out there. I often just use the jpegs in Fine mode in product photos as I find them very color accurate and Raw is too much work to reprocess the files. What then is considered color accurate? when the white paper in studio looks balanced, it should be accurate (no yellow tint in photo or blue). And yes, the Nikon camera software does a few things compared to the Raw when it creates a jpeg in camera (I set camera settings to Neutral mode). I shoot all photos in both Jpeg and Raw. The Raw can have a slightly different color intensity (deeper Reds) than the Jpegs from Nikon's camera which can annoy me when processing portraits. I find the Jpegs more accurate in a neutral color balance (mode to Neutral in camera and 5500 Kelvin) when using the flash or LEDs which are 5600 kelvin viewed on my Dell 100 % sRGB 27 inch monitor. I ran test on color for the Nikon. I have been doing editing and product photos full time since 2018 as full time freelancer. So in some ways you are right, the standards of color can vary from brand, and also from Jpeg or Raw being slightly different in color (Raw having bigger color range). Nikon jpegs set at Fine, being very good, I find even more color accurate and pleasing to my eyes than Raw unprocessed files. I cannot speak for Canon or Sony though. However I do use Raw for outdoor photos or when I need more dynamic range, but are not needed as much in studio when lighting is very controlled. Capturing hundreds of photos in the studio on product shoots (such as last week 400 ladies shoes, 40 bottles of wine), Jpegs are just faster to process and still very good quality. Thanks for your video to review the topic of Color Science.

@@MaxoticsTV I agree that some product photographers might not care as much when doing only a handful of product images and using mostly Raw. But for me capturing a large inventory of photos for catalogues or websites, PDF multipage flyers when I shoot hundreds of product, setting up the shot to be accurate says time processing it. With multiple clients a week, this matters to me to save time and make more. And you are correct the incorrect balance in camera can be easily corrected in Lightroom or PS .. or ACDSee Pro (I use both). This year, with increased work, I am trying to save time processing, which is more so than last year, as more catalog work comes in.

@@adrianvanleeuwen Yes, no sense shooting RAW in a studio. I should have made it clearer in my video I was talking about filmmakers/videographers who talk about "Color Science." What I said applies to photos too but what makes me laugh is the video stuff. Any photographer who has worked with RAW gets an idea of how arbitrary everything is.

I couldn't afford to shoot much color ;)

And the sun is a slightly different color in Japan and that mixes with their displays and gives them a different red than we get in the West. Still, we must blame the execs for sure ;)

Yes, the camera manufacturer conversion of RAW to in-camera JPG is proprietary. Adobe would have to reverse engineer. Adobe or all end-user software hides a lot changes made on their end.

But still, regardless of "translation" by Adobe or any other software - we are getting consistent, measurable results from different manufacturers in the same software. Adobe and others work closely with camera manufacturers to get this right. A Nikon RAW in LrC is way different than a Sony RAW in LrC, one example. Science is absolutely involved in this process.

Since, I believe, Sony manufactures Nikon sensors that makes sense ;) But I'm just repeating what I've heard. My general non-professional opinion is all cameras can be matched up so you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test. From RAW of course. Though I believe sophisticated data tests could tell sensors apart. A project I'd like to do at some point. There is software, but it's very expensive.

@@MaxoticsTV Well, Sony might make the chips, but there are numerous hardware-dependent steps involved-pre-ADC, ADC, and post-ADC-that can be influenced by design choices. Nikon claims to do its own design work in these areas, so their influence on the final image could still be significant. Actually, objectively measuring the color output would be an excellent idea, especially under artificial lighting. While most cameras perform well in broad daylight, handling skin tones and complex artificial lighting conditions is crucial. The way different cameras convert these lighting conditions could reveal significant differences that are not often compared.

@@astraeusone Yes, I once argued that RAW is not manipulated by the ISO dial but someone said Nikon has better DR at very high ISOs (amplification). I did some tests and they were right. Now, I don't believe anyone would shoot at such extreme ISOs or that the differences were noticeable...still, proved what you just said. A lot of steps.

I would think in a movie with a real budget they'd light for the effect they want and expose for the subject. Setting ISO is for us armchair filmmakers ;)

@@MaxoticsTV There are tests of the study of the volume of the well of the pixel of the Maritsa, and often it does not depend only on the size of the pixel but also on how this cell absorbs light or rather the volume of this light. That is why the color of Panasonic video cameras is so beautiful, unlike mirrorless cameras or Sony cameras, they simply force their pixels to collect more light per unit of time.

@@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg34 Interesting. Anywhere I can read/learn more about that?

110% What I find fascinating is people don't realize how they're brainwashed by those who push that nonsense. When you try to show them the truth, like those in Plato's Cave, they get angry with you. Brand X is the best. Go away!

Thank you for a great explanation. We also do perceive colors differently. We see with our eyes and brains and the interpretation of colours depends on our memories and experiences.

Then explain to me please how I can easily point out Nikon / Sony / Leica etc RAW files. This is what photographers are referring to with "< brand > colors". Each manufacturer has its own proprietary formula for a given sensor to achieve consistent results, and this is measurable. This is exactly what people are referring to.

Thanks for the comment! Glad I'm not alone. One of my favorite camera lenses is a Fujian TV lens that costs $30. It too measures terribly but I love the image.

Thanks for watching past it. If I'm wrong, please explain how I am wrong. I've spent over 100 hours studying how it actually works and I can't see that it can. You can read my conclusion here: maxrottersman.medium.com/the-three-types-of-microphone-clipping-explained-d23ad13a60f7 cheers!

Yeah, the write speed on the GH7, to handle RAW, is definitely a nice to have! Thanks for comment!

Always makes my day to get a nice comment. THANKS!

Some thoughts, it I may. The a7r3 is a high resolution camera made primarily for photography. It has a pixel pitch of 4.51um. The GH6 has 2.99um, so they're not far off. The GH6 will do sharper video IMO for a variety of reasons. If we look at the A7SIII, however, it has a pixel pitch of 8.36. Almost 3 times the GH6. It's not an issue of brands, just the physical characteristics of sensor size and pixel size. So I agree with you that a high resolution camera like the A7R series isn't going to threaten MFT, but the video optimized sensors will--including APS-C. I don't believe the 10-bit CODECs do much, but I don't have the experience you have. Their problem is that cramming 10-bits into an 8-bit range doesn't give you colors that people can notice. You only get some improvements with banding. If you extend those 10-bits beyond the approx 6-stops of dynamic range of 8 bit you pull in noisy data because that's what at the ends of each side of the 6-stop range. I like the very gentle LOG shooting gammas, like cinelog, I believe. Trade some noise for a less contrasty image. I like my GH6 and I'd be interested in a GH7 for the improved focus and sure, RAW would be nice here and there. I get the feeling Panasonic doesn't have a clear vision for their cameras. Thanks for comment!

@@MaxoticsTV I had an a73 as well, sold it. I still think the Panasonic beats the 24 megapixel a73… again, not in low light though. There is something else: the codecs. The Panasonic will do all intra at a much higher bit rate than the older Sony’s. I admittedly have not used the newer Sony’s, nor the a7s3, so I can’t compare the graded footage (before the degradation that happens in KZfaq uploads). Suffices to say, for many reasons I am very satisfied with my MFT gear, but they do need to stay competitive, and $2200 cameras are hard to swallow when you can get FF for $1500! For my work, I actually need more depth the field and really good stabilization, so micro for third makes more sense for me right now.

@@3dtrip870 You read my mind! I wrote that the GH7 needs to be $1,500 but then figured I shouldn't go there so deleted it. I've been shooting a lot of my grandkids with the GH6 and the autofocus, though it hunts here or there, is totally fine to me. And I've always felt panny MFT footage very clean and tight. Shallow DOF is a double edged sword. Easy to overdo it. I feel the MFT gives just the right amount of separation for me. The IBIS is also just the right amount for me.

@@MaxoticsTV yep, the autofocus isn’t too bad…but I’d rather have the GH7 🤣

The A7SIII is a monster camera for film because the sensor is optimized for video. Supposedly, we can discern around 12 million colors. 8 bit can display 16 million (256x256x256). So if you can light the way you want you don't need more than 8 bit. The only reason you need more is if you can't control the light and want to make some tradeoffs. On the other hand, most compression schemes share chroma values between pixels, reducing storage. Biology drives all this stuff. We notice blurriness, but not missing colors if they stream by quickly. I calculated it once, I believe when you watch something on Netflix you're looking at 5% of the data the camera recorded. Anyway, RAW gives you the most control over the data because it doesn't discard anything. But in practice, you really don't want to deal with RAW because the data is huge. If you're doing abstract/music/video type stuff I think you should try RAW only because it teaches your (or taught me) what really comes out of the camera. It allows you to do experiments that compressed video might get in the way of. Something I'm interested in too. There's little difference between 10/12/14 bit RAW, or at least I can't see it. The main benefit is data points per pixel, not pixel blocks. If you want to experiment with RAW I'd get a cheap Canon and Magic Lantern. It gives you a lot of options. But again, I doubt you'll shoot RAW in most of your stuff. But who knows!!!

@@MaxoticsTV Cheers for such a quick and generous reponse. Could you point me to a good vid on magic lantern/canon workflow? Any thoughts on AI with Raw? So you're stating that manipulation aside, one cannot perceive the increased color-depth intuitively in an unchalleging grade?

@@thiskidkills7806 Magic Lantern is a community of weirdos ;) Ever since I got involved (and I haven't been for years, but some recently) everyone talks about documentation, tutorials, etc., but it just doesn't happen because everyone would rather work on their project. I've been playing around with Bilal Fakhouri's build. Here's a thread. www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=25784.0 It's one of those things just watch videos and dive in. Everyone in my experience is VERY HELPFUL and the stuff is so technical difficult (and not forgiving) that you don't have trolls. Too much work for them ;) Anyway, join Magic Lantern's forum, look around for stuff you're interested in. It's one of these things you either fall in love with or think "life's too short" HAHA

@@MaxoticsTV duly noted 😁

​​​​@@MaxoticsTVi've tried raw video on a pixel2 phone (2017 phone). i am an amateur and have used various cameras - mft (8bit, but 10bit as well) and apsc (8bit). i was impressed with the raw a 7yr old phone can capture. did not end up actually using the raw route because of various phone-related limitations and indeed the workflow and data storage which are pretty ridiculous (at least for a hobbyist), but yeah.. raw even on a phone was impressive (for me)

Exactly, you can't alter a sensor's sensitivity to light! When I was young there was ISO, ASA and DIN. You can read about them on wiki, they're under "Film Speed". The problem for most photographers/filmmakers for the film era was exposing properly. How could you expose properly if you didn't know how one film stock was going to react compared to another? In early days, film (glass plates) were a cottage industry. Today, we have those ratings so it's generally not a problem but that doesn't mean the issues have gone away. For example, photosites reach full well capacity at different levels of light depending on which filter they have: red, green or blue. That's why you'll see magenta in overexposed clouds. Further, ISO for a Sony S sensor is not exactly the same for ISO 100 on other sensors because it's more sensitive to lower light and less to very bright light. Filmmakers get a feel for it. In other words, it's still a challenge, if you get into the weeds, of understanding on any sensor responds to different types of light. Glad you found something interesting in my video!

ISO 100 doesn't, so much, give the highest dynamic range, it gives the best tonal fidelity that the sensor (or film) is capable of. One could argue you get more "dynamic range" shooting at 800 ISO (amplifying the signal) because you get more tonal range from the shadows, but again, at the expense of tonal fidelity (more noise). That's how LOG shooting GAMMAS work essentially. You can get the same field of view in all sensor sizes. The difference is the aperture and depth of field. Smaller sensors like MFT can't get as shallow a depth of field as APS-C or Full frame. I explain in an old view about webcams. The short answer is that you can get a lower angle of light convergence into a larger sensor (which creates blur). The angles of light convergence on smaller sensors is less. Of course, you can get a "speed booster" and get it that way but those adapters degrade the optics. I don't believe the amount of elements in the lens means much in this stuff. Though of course, gives sharper images because each element fixes an aberration. Hope this answers your questions.

That's your opinion about my behavior. If that's how you feel there's nothing I can do about it. I'm sorry you feel that way. I am only one half of any conversation. The question remains, does 32-bit float reduce clipping? I've made my scientific argument but you insist on talking politics. Your comment supports my argument. In the end, you care more about your feeling than the scientific truth. Should you one day care more about the science of it, I posted a link in the description to my reasoning.

I no longer have the camera, sorry. Nor am I doing DIY tech projects. Good luck!

Can't argue with any of that! ;) For video, however, mirrorless does cut down on the weight because you don't need the mirror mechanism. But if you're already carting around a 5DS or D800E you're probably still strong as an ox!

As I say in this video, you can get amazing bodies for very little. With an adapter you'd be back in business!

@@MaxoticsTV I've yet to adapt it to F mount, or buy an adapter rather. This is rather silly I admit, but I like my Nikkor 50 1.2 so much now that pretty much lives on that camera, and I don't have a spare Nikon. I keep looking at F2's, so one of those will be purchased next, when I do it'll be adapted and used. I don't use auto-exposure or in camera meters any more, so the F2 lacking this is of no concern, the only cameras I have with that feature have been 35mm, so I no longer trust that I'd get the look I'm after unless I use the same spot meter I do on every other format.

@@careypridgeon I forgot to mention REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS are not welcome here ;) I should never have sold my spot meter.

@@MaxoticsTV In terms of spot meters, when I moved up to them I initially had a Sekonic, but I got so sick of it running out of power and the overcomplication of the thing I sold it and bought a Pentax Digital Spotmeter. I absolutely love using this meter, and may well buy the analogue version *just* in case my digital one stops working. Mind you if it does I'll find someone skilled in circuitry repair and try to get it fixed.

I need a button, "You've now made ____ mistakes in your lifetime"

I spend 99% of my time researching, experimenting, and 1% of my time shooting my own video. I am NOT short of nice cameras ;) So why shoot on a webcam? Why hurt my own argument with amateur hour "content"? I wish I had answer. The best I can say is I don't have patience to do that when I have yet ANOTHER thing I want to investigate. I had a mirrorless teleprompter thing on my desk but a few weeks ago I was bugging me (taking up room), so I took it down. I figured the webcam would be good enough--HA! ON the moire. There's a lot of things AI can't do and never will. I spent some time on trying to fix that when I was doing a lot of Magic Lantern stuff with the EOS-M. Back in the day when it could to 1280x720 at best. It seemed a relatively simple problem to fix. I tried every kind of demosaicing algorithm I could try. I finally settled on Amaze. Thanks for comment!!!

@@MaxoticsTV I totally understand. It's really difficult to shoot video and even harder to understand, after all that effort, something like moiré would screw it up! Keep bringing the good content.

I'm not surprised. The software interface screams incompetence. Like someone did a PowerPoint presentation of what they wanted on the display screen, sent it off somewhere, and haven't touched it since.

@@MaxoticsTV Absolutely! I’m so disappointed with the interface software it’s a joke, It was 2022 they came up with an USB-C 2.0, the touch screen is a disaster, I had this on my fist mobile back in 2007, no joke, it is really bad! I just remember that was on my first Chinese mobile phone! Can’t even think why I thought I could use it as an interface