It's a fun phrase, but I totally agree with you. Camera do have their "look" by all the factors you've listed, but adding the term "science" to it makes it sound like something unique and special when it isn't - it's all in the manufactures preferences. With proper LUTs and grading it really doesn't matter what you shoot with anymore.
@everydayponyКүн бұрын
спасибо, чуть не купил себе этот мусор
@MaxoticsTVКүн бұрын
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.
@PlaybackMansion2 күн бұрын
Excellent explanaition
@MaxoticsTV2 күн бұрын
Thanks for the kind words!
@csc-photo2 күн бұрын
Interesting topic. I do feel that "color science" has become an acceptable universal term in digital photography. It combines the two words used in the overall process, one being subjective and other involving science / technology. At the end of the day we know what it means, and the RAW file results are consistent and generally easy to differentiate.
@MaxoticsTV2 күн бұрын
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.
@singaporehikers2 күн бұрын
Beside preferences, our eyes also see depth of color very differently very similar to taste bud.
@MaxoticsTV2 күн бұрын
Yes, and females have more refined tastes than men--empirically.
@mintflicks83194 күн бұрын
Interesting assessment definitely a trade off. Shooting 10 bit and above would seemingly mitigate that trade to an extent although for colour fidelity in a studio setting I take your point. There are also grading techniques like subtractive saturation that would bring your two examples closer together although I appreciate you're binning colour information with 8 bit log so to replicate exactly wouldn't be possible. I think generally your room for post work and grading with 8 bit footage is more limited in general and Log is designed for heavier post work so shooting 8 bit log is inviting a loss of quality in general but especially in colour accuracy and detail as you rightly suggest. I think bit depth and bit rate is going to play a big part in how useful log is.
@MaxoticsTV4 күн бұрын
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 ;)
@mintflicks83194 күн бұрын
@@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
@MaxoticsTV4 күн бұрын
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.
@mintflicks83194 күн бұрын
@@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.
@MaxoticsTV4 күн бұрын
@@mintflicks8319 Exactly! Trust, but verify ;)
@johnd75649 күн бұрын
There are some sensors used on cameras from multiple brands. I do not know whether the sensor filters are similarly shared. If so, I should think that the raw data should be invariant across the brands even if the file format is different (NEF for NIkon etc.). But I don't know if raw formats all give the exposure received by each individual photosite, or whether the conversion to the output resolution is done in-camera even for raws. If the sensor data is fully recorded, you'd expect the exact same image to result regardless of brand, but I think it actually wouldn't. Raw files contain not only sensor data, but a lot of other information including the sensor metadata's color profile. And then the program reading the file gets its chance to modify what you'll end up seeing too. :) I can remember lots of times I'd open a raw for a new camera in Lightroom and find unexpectedly low image quality, which improved with Lightroom updates. :)
@MaxoticsTV9 күн бұрын
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.
@jaykish3659 күн бұрын
This video transcends the ordinary so I saved it under Philosophy.
@MaxoticsTV9 күн бұрын
You made my night!
@Calgothits11 күн бұрын
Color science is just the current gimmick they’re pushing now, it was megapixels, codecs and pixel size just a few years ago. Ironically a lot of older cameras had better “color science”, Canon C300 mk1, Sony F3/F35/F23, Red One, etc all had a distinctive film look and feel to their image.
@dance2jam12 күн бұрын
Couldn't agree with this line of reasoning (or experience). I just posted a similar sentiment on a forum on Facebook (photography). I disagreed, in part, with the poster, but gave my reasons for it in detail. He came back with the statement that "I agree with you, and perhaps should have stated it better" - and then went on to clarify what he meant. I returned the favor by stating that discussion like this are good because they promote understanding of anyone that joins the conversation. My experience on KZfaq has been mixed, at best. Some respond, and request further information. Some just ignore the comment entirely. Some believe I'm "Trolling" them even though I had never been to the channel before and only asked them to provide evidence for the statements they made. Then you get the classic response: "This is the way it is because I believe it to be so" or equivalent. I suppose when I challenge popular KZfaq channels to remain factually correct (as I did recently to a recent Photography Life video) - within the first 5 minutes there were at least 5 points made that were incorrect - and subjective - with objective evidence that refutes it. I would rather watch a video now and then that is of interest, and not feel the obligation to point out so many inaccuracies - or ask "where did you get this information?" - that will now influence a bunch of new photographers. Most often, even though I am respectful, and polite, many just rather I pack up my bag and move down the road. Go figure. .
@MaxoticsTV12 күн бұрын
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?
@dance2jam11 күн бұрын
@@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.
@dance2jam12 күн бұрын
I am relatively new to photography, but after a few years, I'm at the point of trying to educate myself on the many terms "erroneously" thrown around in the photography world. I see much the same in the dance world - and very few who attempt to be accurate. I started tackling this area about 2 weeks ago - so I understand where you are coming from (i.e. light is composed of spectra (not colors - the label we put on a certain spectra) and colors are subjective depending on what type of vision you have (i.e. if you are color blind or have an extra type of cone). I also understand that the color recorded is a byproduct of the Bayer filter dyes, infra-red filter (surprised you left that one out), and the silicone composition in the sensor - to to mention the post capture picture profiles and processing - if shooting JPG. I really appreciate your efforts here and details outlining this. Can I ask you a favor? In the last week, I have reviewed no less than 10 articles - and a few KZfaq videos - attempting to explain "gamma" as it relates to photography. In my review, noone I can find has done a start to finish (us humans visualizing the final image) explanation that is consumer friendly. While I believe I finally understand this concept from beginning to end, I'd love to hear someone else tell it to confirm my understanding, and then outline it's relevance to post-processing. This is to say, I do get how are eyes see a dynamic range scene differently (not linear secondary to pupil constriction or dilatation) compared to the luminance seen by the sensor. I'd love for someone to take it from the beginning and also show how the bit-depth can allow a smoother luminance gradient (i.e. where in the process that is applied and how) to the final output. Just thought I would ask, even though I'm not sure how popular the video would be - That said, it would be one of the few of it's kind. Thanks in advance.
@MaxoticsTV12 күн бұрын
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.
@dance2jam11 күн бұрын
@@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.
@davidtripp422113 күн бұрын
Great video! The third piece of the puzzle (in addition to sensors & displays) is how our eyes work. We have three types of cones, each sensitive to a different wavelength range. This is why filtering the light entering a camera into red, green & blue allows us to produce images that are interpreted by our brains to have colors which are the same (or very similar to) the original objects. If our eyes were able to detect the wavelength of light (instead of which wavelength range it is in) it would be much harder to produce images that looked right to our brains.
@MaxoticsTV13 күн бұрын
Interesting! I had never thought about wavelength precision might actually be harder!
@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg3414 күн бұрын
As for the war, as a resident of Belarus, and relatives in Ukraine, I can explain why your bombs and planes are needed. You see, in my country, the president falsified the election results, as a result of which you could see 300 thousand protests of residents of my country. But since the residents of my country, ordinary people did not want to become murderers, to destroy the police who supported the dictator. We began repressions, approximately 10 thousand were imprisoned, about 50 thousand were forced to leave. If I wrote a comment in public media on the Internet, I would have already been given a term. And why are your bombs and planes needed? So that this does not happen to Ukraine, what happened to my country, since the Russian government has always supported our dictator and even in 2020, during the elections, some of the people dressed as police were people from the Russian PMC Wagner. Understand that while Russia has such a government, they will seize new territories. If the US had not helped Ukraine, the next country to be captured would have been the Baltic States. No one is saying that the US was right to start the war in Iraq or Vietnam or when it bails out Yugoslavia. But I can tell you one thing for sure, by supporting Ukraine, the US is resisting the start of an even bigger war.
@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg3414 күн бұрын
The beauty of the GH7 is the best stabilization on the market, this is the first time you can not use a stabilizer! Of course, this applies to lenses 24mm to 50mm, if you need to add electronic stabilization below, here are examples kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i9GibJWnrL7Nlok.html and here kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y96Wg5akxJzdgWw.html. The GH7 is simply convenient, as you correctly said, no one cares what kind of camera you have, the main thing is that it is convenient and believe me, on no movie camera will you be able to instantly change the modes of 25, 50, and 200 frames with the movement of just one wheel, but hybrids can do this. Movie cameras are about quality, hybrids are about convenience!
@MaxoticsTV14 күн бұрын
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!
@kindion14 күн бұрын
Love your thoughts, insights, and reflections. Thank you for sharing them and teaching us!
@MaxoticsTV14 күн бұрын
Thanks for the nice words!!!
@DaTPs3GaMer15 күн бұрын
I learned a lot from this video thank you
@MaxoticsTV14 күн бұрын
I'm thrilled my exploration was interesting! Thanks!
@scotthullinger468415 күн бұрын
Keep in mind that "color science" is different for different sorts of media - You'd be mixing apples & oranges if you compare physical pigments, for example, with electronic media.
@MaxoticsTV15 күн бұрын
Yes, I should have made it clear that I'm talking about filmmakers who talk about "better color science." Thanks for comment!
@brugj0316 күн бұрын
Hey man, colors are colors to me. And some camera colors just suck, you won`t get them right in post. Some camera colors are great and are easily adjusted in post, that`s how i see it. And that why i choose Sony.
@MaxoticsTV16 күн бұрын
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!
@LoremIpsumProd16 күн бұрын
Thanks for the review, I do agree with other comments here. Worked with the 70D for a while then moved to Zoom and Sound Devices. At this price range you just gotta put up with what's thrown at you, and the X6 is really not that bad, for context just look at the embarrassing attempts from Zoom new update.
@MaxoticsTV16 күн бұрын
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!
@Getoffmycloud5317 күн бұрын
😊 Replace color science with color reproduction, which is a combination of the censor and the processing, that’s why a censor of brand x might look different in a camera produced by brand y compared to the same censor used in camera produced by brand z. Color science is just another popular term like full frame, which we all understand. The Canon 5D has a certain look, the Nikon D700 has a certain look, the Fujifilm XPro1 has a certain look etc. I understand why you dislike the word science here, but you can argue about the meaning and interpretation of many words, while ignoring the fact we all understand what is meant. So I’ll stick to Canon vs Nikon vs Fujifilm color science - none of which are even fixed.
@MaxoticsTV17 күн бұрын
You're right, a better title would have been "Better" Color Science makes me laugh.
@Getoffmycloud5316 күн бұрын
@@MaxoticsTV well looks like I mixed up sensors and censors, the latter I have been encountering too frequently on YT 😬
@RetrieverTrainingAlone18 күн бұрын
Excellent! Most camera detectors are sensitive to the spectrum of visible light, filtered to red, green, blue primary colors. The RBG values are stored in 8-bit RGB values of 0-255 in jpg files. A 16-bit RAW or Tiff file stores values in 16 bits as 0-65,535 RGB values. There are 2 types of primary colors: additive primary colors as light with Red, Green, Blue the primary colors; this is how color display devices such as TV, computer screen work. Subtractive primary color or pigments: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow which is how most color printers work (usually including black pigment also).
@MaxoticsTV18 күн бұрын
Yes, a lot of the technology was adapted to work with legacy TV (NTSC/PAL) and printing.
@RetrieverTrainingAlone17 күн бұрын
@@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.
@MaxoticsTV17 күн бұрын
@@RetrieverTrainingAlone How do you infer what wavelength you're reading, or do you just assume a range?
@RetrieverTrainingAlone17 күн бұрын
@@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.
@quasar_7819 күн бұрын
3:20 the clipping is a result of the microfon possibilities, not the recorder... use a dynamic Microfon, this can handle loud signals better... ok you do so at 7:40 ^^
@stevek.45619 күн бұрын
All you say makes sense, no matter how fantastic the tech its what we perceive that is important. Whats the biggest selling tool in the world today, in my part of the world we call it Kidology! Just subscribed to your channel, I like your independent thinking.
@MaxoticsTV19 күн бұрын
Thanks for the encouragement! "Independent thinking" is not always welcome ;)
@fredyellowsnow749220 күн бұрын
Yep. I tend to have all my cameras of differing makes as neutral as possible, so that I can dodge the in-camera jiggery-pokery that's going on before the raw is saved (and let no one try to tell you the raw is unadulterated).
@adrianvanleeuwen21 күн бұрын
Current full frame cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony with professional lenses that are used in product photography have settings for optimum color balance settings. Color science matters a lot to the pros, whose advertising clients want the correct colors for clothing, products, shoes, in their advertising on Amazon and websites. Wedding photos, not so much, however white dresses can be important. In studio, the flash softbox settings (or LED lights) are set to 5600 kelvin, the camera settings can be set to 5600 Kelvin which is an accurate neutral white balance uniform among many brands. That way the images have the correct color balance of neutral RGB which shows up in the histogram or levels on computer. So yes, for pros in advertising photos, color science is essential for client work. For amateurs and hobbyists, perfect color science does not matter as much, including for general portraits, as the colours can be pushed in any direction to convey a mood in the image. For cameras, there is a slight difference in brands, Nikon bit more red, Canon a bit more orange, Sony often similar to Nikon (could be same sensor used), Fuji often has hot reds. Using Kelvin settings in camera help keep the settings closer between brands. Brightness and intensity can still vary a bit among brands even using the same Kelvin. 5600 Kelvin settings keep the color balanced on R, G B so that the highlights line up among colors. Capture white or neutral grey and the histogram curves look similar for these colors to be neutral.
@MaxoticsTV21 күн бұрын
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!
@adrianvanleeuwen21 күн бұрын
@@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.
@adrianvanleeuwen21 күн бұрын
@@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.
@MaxoticsTV21 күн бұрын
@@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.
@Janihonkalaxxx22 күн бұрын
What a hell are you talking about😂😂😂 remember take your head medicine😂😂
@oldfilmguy941322 күн бұрын
Excellent video. For those of us who started photography in the film days (and particularly for those who worked in photo labs), this was common knowledge with regard to film choices. Kodak typically emphasized reds and yellows, Fujifilm blues and greens, etc. The same people who loved the exaggerated greens of the grass in Fujifilm thought Kodak made landscapes look dull. Conversely, people who wanted Kodak's skin tones wondered why Fujifilm looked a little sickly. It's really the same thing - it all depended on the emulsion coating on the film, and even the color of the film base itself. Cheers!
@MaxoticsTV22 күн бұрын
I couldn't afford to shoot much color ;)
@thomasa.24322 күн бұрын
Actually, we are very bad at getting „absolute colours“. We can discern between two shades of colours (if they are far enough apart) but when I show a single sheet of „red“ paper, we all may see a slightly different shade of red (or maybe not, we do not know…). This makes it very hard for manufacturers to get „good colours“. We are probably seeing the preferences of the execs of the company in the JPEGs 😂
@MaxoticsTV22 күн бұрын
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 ;)
@JR-lx8nn22 күн бұрын
Colossal waste of time. After you get your glasses adjusted by a qualified optician, organize your thoughts, select a single point to make, write a short script, and stick to it. Get right to the point and A/B demonstrate the equipment, and skip all the rest of your side comments. Nobody cares about your Adobe account. Nobody wants to know about your other cheap equipment. You come off as a teenager bragging about your toys. You could demo the microphones and make your point is less than on minute. Drop the conversation and get your glasses properly fitted, because adjusting while recording is so high school! Good luck. JT
@donatzsky22 күн бұрын
What really gets me is when someone compares different manufacturer's color "science" by opening the raw in Lightroom, since at that point they are not even looking at manufacturer colors, but Adobe colors. Even the camera standard profiles are (as far as I know) made by Adobe engineers trying to match the camera JPEG.
@MaxoticsTV22 күн бұрын
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.
@csc-photo2 күн бұрын
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.
@astraeusone23 күн бұрын
I agree "color science" is not an accurate term, it is simply a hardware encoded way to represent colors. I am interested in how skin tones are represented. In case of Nikon d850 would argue against coolness, it errs on yellow side...
@MaxoticsTV23 күн бұрын
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.
@astraeusone21 күн бұрын
@@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.
@MaxoticsTV21 күн бұрын
@@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.
@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg3424 күн бұрын
I can't understand why in movies in bright light they say that you need to shoot on the second 2nd ISO, say 12800 with ND filters (to catch all the highlights), and in dark light on the first ISO 800. Why not the other way around? They said that the dynamic range somehow captures the largest shadows and damn, do you also agree with this statement?
@MaxoticsTV24 күн бұрын
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 ;)
@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg3424 күн бұрын
@@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.
@MaxoticsTV23 күн бұрын
@@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg34 Interesting. Anywhere I can read/learn more about that?
@AnirbanBasakClicks24 күн бұрын
As someone who works with an aerial imaging solutions company and with over a decade of experience as a commercial photographer, I could attest that you've done a great job of putting across the point. When working with RAW images, there are options for the editor(read interpreter) to balance these different colors to output the final image. Commercial photographers and editors anyway perform color transforms on the images to achieve the desirable color palette for images based on color theory. The RAW image is a great starting point as far as I can see. I believe what the average person confuses with color science is color theory and its perception.
@gerhardbotha733625 күн бұрын
Even worse. The colour of brand X is very little more than the default setup for the Raw data interpretation. So like you say, there is no such thing as "Canon colours" or "Leica colours" etc. If you shoot Raw, the "colour" you see is nothing more than an interpretation of the data. Yet, people who know this still push this nonsense on their reviews
@MaxoticsTV25 күн бұрын
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!
@michaelajoseph685622 күн бұрын
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.
@csc-photo2 күн бұрын
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.
@NickP33325 күн бұрын
Sorry this happened to you. I’ve asked only 2 questions there over the years and was immediately attacked and told basically how dumb my questions were. It’s exactly why I’ll have nothing to do with ASR. It seems everyone has ideas that are unfortunately either black or white to them. It’s a measurement cult, where sound isn’t necessarily always taken into account. I managed a music store for a decade, was a professional touring musician, and have been into HiFi and collecting records for over 3 decades, etc., etc. I’ve heard many pieces of gear that measure terribly but sound great. You are far from being alone in petty situations they feel are so important. Again, I feel badly about what happened to you over there, no matter how low on the totem pole of important issues to the human race it was.
@MaxoticsTV25 күн бұрын
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.
@sky.london25 күн бұрын
You’re completely, and I mean completely wrong about 32bit float audio. You need to look into how that actually work my friend. Hard to listen pass that mistake, but I did.
@MaxoticsTV25 күн бұрын
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!
@BackusCreativeImaging27 күн бұрын
7:45 - Yep, it's true. I think shooting VLOG has a few advantages but color fidelity isn't one of them; you can preserve some extra details in the shadows and highlights by like 2 stops overall, depending on camera model. However, let's say you're shooting on a cloudy day, outside, where there's not much dynamic range. This is where a Standard or Natural profile in 10-bit (without anything clipping) is a little more logical of a choice over VLOG, so long as you get the exposure mostly right in camera, your colors will be objectively better than someone shooting the same scene in VLOG 10-bit. I use the GH5 II. I'll eventually upgrade to the GH7 but I am not interested in RAW video. I know how to get exposure and white balance right in camera using tone mapping and the Zone System along with the waveform monitor as a guide. I'll use a SanDisk V60 card in the second slot; this allows for up to 480mbps constant write speed, more than enough for the LongGOP modes and the 4K120 LongGOP :)
@MaxoticsTV27 күн бұрын
Yeah, the write speed on the GH7, to handle RAW, is definitely a nice to have! Thanks for comment!
@declanb698528 күн бұрын
Fascinating! Thanks for making this
@MaxoticsTV28 күн бұрын
Always makes my day to get a nice comment. THANKS!
@3dtrip870Ай бұрын
I have an a7r3 and a GH6. I can tell you without a doubt the level of video quality you can get out of the Panasonic is far beyond the older generation 8 bit only video that comes out of the Sony. With the Panasonic 10 bit, you get over 1000 levels of gradation in the value; the Sony only 256. The only place is Sony might have a beat is low light performance. Take it from somebody who uses both buying the older generation Sony is not gonna beat the newer generation MFT. And I don’t think it’s a detriment to Panasonic at all to have internal raw, they need to throw everything they can to keep this platform alive. I would say their biggest problem is they need to lower the price to compete with aps-c cameras that have similar specs.
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
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!
@3dtrip870Ай бұрын
@@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.
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
@@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.
@3dtrip870Ай бұрын
@@MaxoticsTV yep, the autofocus isn’t too bad…but I’d rather have the GH7 🤣
@thiskidkills7806Ай бұрын
dude - your shit is a level-up - refreshing to hear succinct conviction and the facts to back - subbed - hey, i have an a7siii and want to trade for a cam that shoots raw internally - i swear i can truly see the color in raw video - the filmic nature - am i nuts/placebo? - i know a7sii has external 16 bit but i love a teeny/weeny/tiny rig and atomos monitors are a big fat ass - anyway, is my desire for raw unfounded? also, 12/14/16bit - what/s the difference and if one is making the jump to raw, does it matter? what about the differences for proprietary i.e. prores, canon raw lite< n-raw, dng, etc etc. The Sigma fp beckons - do you know why? Anyway, bunch of stuffe here, but hopefully there some gist/cohesion that might inspire you to do a vid. p.s. - what about raw for AI imports - do you think AI is going to love RAW for manipulation? As I'm shooting more abstract/music video/art type stuff - i think i might qualify as someone who manipulates video intensley - lastly, cheers again for the vid ✌🏻
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
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!!!
@thiskidkills7806Ай бұрын
@@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?
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
@@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
@thiskidkills7806Ай бұрын
@@MaxoticsTV duly noted 😁
@skepsysАй бұрын
@@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)
@KniesoorАй бұрын
I thought that a digital sensor does not have a sensitivity to light, or at least not one that you can alter through a setting. It just has these buckets/wells that are able to catch light and iso is something that comes into play only after this light is collected. I do find it interesting what you're saying, that iso is a measurement instead of a function. Do you have some articles where this is more throrouglhy explained?
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
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!
@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg34Ай бұрын
You have a very interesting point of view! Then the question arises: to get the most accurate color you need to shoot at ISO 100, but will this give you the highest dynamic range? Have you heard that Nikon has raw? Does it make sense to shoot in Nraw at iso 100? And what do you think about the difference between full frame and 4/3 perspective? Field of view 50 is equivalent to 25 mm by 4/3. But the picture on video will be 4/3 flatter, provided the fields of view are the same, because at 4/3, the 25 mm lens still has the properties of a wide angle, which means it stretches the image making it flatter compared to a full frame, which with a 50 mm lens makes an image close to real while maintaining real dimensions between visible objects? Or does perspective have a greater influence in photography and the 3D effect of a lens is outweighed by its design (the fewer elements, the higher this effect)?
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
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.
@cmprodutionsАй бұрын
You went into that thread, demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of the subject matter, flung insults at anyone refuting you, and generally disrupted the conversation. A conversation, btw, that already had multiple users working through their differences in a constructive manner.
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
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.
@ericd1084Ай бұрын
Do you still sell this? I want one. Amazon link is sold out.
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
I no longer have the camera, sorry. Nor am I doing DIY tech projects. Good luck!
@danncorbit3623Ай бұрын
To a large degree, the equipment doesn't matter. For photography, people take breathtaking photographs with pinhole cameras and ancient gear. I have cameras and lenses that are older than I am, and I am 67. For making a vlog, 1080p is sharp enough for the internet. There is a fun factor to slow motion. The camera conspiracies channel is intended as humor, and I like to watch his videos. There is a problem on the internet now with people approaching things in an almost mystical way. An example is 3D pop. Now, a photograph is two dimensional, so there is nothing 3D about it. I have used stereograms when I was working for the geophysics department at the University of Washington. Now that is 3D pop. Anyway, what people confuse for 3D pop is large depth of field + sharp focus + good contrast. It gives an illusion of 3D because our eyes can't really see the whole scene and the camera can at f32 or f45. So it jumps off the image in a surprising way. But it isn't something I will get my bun in a knot over. Here is my opinion about equipment: Nobody can give you good advice about the best camera equipment to use. There are too many variables. What do I like to shoot? You need different equipment for macro and landscape and portrait and sports, etc. What do I consider fun and interesting? I like the satisfying clunk of the shutter on my old TLR cameras. I like the slow pace of photography with my Canon 1N HS and Nikon f4 cameras. I like the incredible fidelity of my Canon 5Ds and Nikon D800e cameras. I don't want a mirrorless camera. All the advice from the pro channels that talk about equipment would be to get one of those. But I have used them and I don't care for them. I learn the most from film photographers, because they talk about how to take good pictures and not about equipment. But I want to learn more about doing videos too. I think the bottom like is, "The equipment does not matter much, it is the willingness to learn and experiment" and "Great pictures do not rely on great equipment, they rely on great photographers."
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
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!
@careypridgeonАй бұрын
I loved Plus X Pan, since I still shoot film I've not really found a film that matches the results I got from it. I'm well aware that no film stock or even camera can improve your photographs. I used the same camera and lens for 20 years. I still have the lens, a Ziess 50mm 1.8, but not the camera.
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
As I say in this video, you can get amazing bodies for very little. With an adapter you'd be back in business!
@careypridgeonАй бұрын
@@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.
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
@@careypridgeon I forgot to mention REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS are not welcome here ;) I should never have sold my spot meter.
@careypridgeonАй бұрын
@@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.
@jamessalomon9343Ай бұрын
I am looking for a camera that has a button on the back labeled automatic Pulitzer Prize material.
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
I need a button, "You've now made ____ mistakes in your lifetime"
@BalloonInTheBalloonАй бұрын
He's got a style of his own , and I like it a lot. Tongue in cheek :D
@JohnsClicksАй бұрын
Good comments that I mainly agree with. Some would say though that manufacturers have found ways to improve video quality in the past few years. I take point to the moiré found on your shirt in this video. However, I think you could eliminate it by sitting further from your camera or simply changing your shirt. Moiré is near impossible to get rid of once it's there- not even the most recent AI can do anything about it.
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
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!!!
@JohnsClicksАй бұрын
@@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.
@elizeusantos93Ай бұрын
For me the worse thing about this Portacapture series is that they said it is a interface as well: Which is true, on my Tascam X8 I have 8 tracks on my daw, but I can monitoring the daw output on the Tascam X8, the USB send the 8 tracks to record on computer but it doesn’t send audio back so we can monitoring the whole mixing it only has direct monitor, for me to monitoring what is being output from computer I had to Change a pair of XLR inputs on tascam, changing it to USB input! It makes no sense at all
@MaxoticsTVАй бұрын
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.
@elizeusantos93Ай бұрын
@@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