pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The GH5 is here (well, soon)  (Read 8111 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2016, 03:35 »
0
A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them :D
Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.

When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..
I like using different sized sensors.  The smaller lenses with MFT mean I can walk around all day with 3 prime lenses in a small camera bag.  I seem to be using it more often than my full frame camera.  The difference in quality isn't a problem, anyone that can't use a MFT camera for stock doesn't know what they're doing.

Sony A7 series e-mount prime lenses are very compact too. And the quality difference is huge for me although I shoot only landscape/cityscape and plenty of low light.
Still bigger and heavier than MFT lenses and the difference in quality is more of an issue for photographers than buyers.  I have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic G7.  Having seen one of my photos from a compact camera, with a sensor much smaller than MFT, used for a poster, I don't see a problem.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2016, 03:44 by sharpshot »


alno

« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2016, 04:10 »
0
I always upload ProRes HQ where it makes sense. Every agency wants it/takes it. No one re-encodes the original.

Most of the Pond5 best-sellers are ProRes HQ these days.

Stock sites re-encode the original :) Never seen a clip at auto generated smaller resolutions in ProRes too.

« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2016, 04:14 »
+1
Stock sites re-encode the original :) Never seen a clip at auto generated smaller resolutions in ProRes too.

Naturally, I meant the original resolution. Smaller versions are inevitably re-encoded...

If you make changes to your 8-bit original in a 16-bit environment, like add a gradient, look etc., it's also beneficial to export 10-bit.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2016, 04:25 by increasingdifficulty »

op

« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2016, 11:55 »
+1
SS has a 4GB limit on footage and last year it was 2,5GB. In 4K Pro-res 422 HQ, that's just few seconds. When I checked VB at their opening they would only host mjpeg/h.264 files, you could upload pro-res but they would re-encode it. I just checked again and they really improve with a 25GB limit and almost all codecs accepted. I should have not mentioned Pond5 since they always were good.

To rectify my point of vue, I am a 10bit supporter and all my footage are pro-res 422 HQ since 2012 but I encountered a lot of frustration when stock companies back then didn't care much about it or being 8 or 10bit.

op

« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2016, 12:18 »
0
A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them :D
Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.

When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..
I like using different sized sensors.  The smaller lenses with MFT mean I can walk around all day with 3 prime lenses in a small camera bag.  I seem to be using it more often than my full frame camera.  The difference in quality isn't a problem, anyone that can't use a MFT camera for stock doesn't know what they're doing.

Sony A7 series e-mount prime lenses are very compact too. And the quality difference is huge for me although I shoot only landscape/cityscape and plenty of low light.
Still bigger and heavier than MFT lenses and the difference in quality is more of an issue for photographers than buyers.  I have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic G7.  Having seen one of my photos from a compact camera, with a sensor much smaller than MFT, used for a poster, I don't see a problem.

I wasn't speaking about resolution but low light sensitivity and dynamic range. High iso and landscape photographers would find MFT very limited compared to full frame.

« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2016, 13:02 »
0
SS has a 4GB limit on footage and last year it was 2,5GB. In 4K Pro-res 422 HQ, that's just few seconds. When I checked VB at their opening they would only host mjpeg/h.264 files, you could upload pro-res but they would re-encode it. I just checked again and they really improve with a 25GB limit and almost all codecs accepted. I should have not mentioned Pond5 since they always were good.

To rectify my point of vue, I am a 10bit supporter and all my footage are pro-res 422 HQ since 2012 but I encountered a lot of frustration when stock companies back then didn't care much about it or being 8 or 10bit.

No, it's not just a few seconds, 4 GB is just under 44 seconds of 4k ProRes HQ 25p (average of 734mbit/sec bitrate) which is longer than 99% of all stock footage needs. 2.5 GB is 27 seconds. A lot has happened in four years regarding storage and bandwidth so today I don't think 4k ProRes HQ is much of a problem anymore.

VB, as you say, now happily accept ProRes HQ. Last year's requirements or numbers from 2012 aren't really relevant today...
« Last Edit: September 21, 2016, 13:10 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2016, 04:31 »
0
A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them :D
Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.

When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..
I like using different sized sensors.  The smaller lenses with MFT mean I can walk around all day with 3 prime lenses in a small camera bag.  I seem to be using it more often than my full frame camera.  The difference in quality isn't a problem, anyone that can't use a MFT camera for stock doesn't know what they're doing.

Sony A7 series e-mount prime lenses are very compact too. And the quality difference is huge for me although I shoot only landscape/cityscape and plenty of low light.
Still bigger and heavier than MFT lenses and the difference in quality is more of an issue for photographers than buyers.  I have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic G7.  Having seen one of my photos from a compact camera, with a sensor much smaller than MFT, used for a poster, I don't see a problem.

I wasn't speaking about resolution but low light sensitivity and dynamic range. High iso and landscape photographers would find MFT very limited compared to full frame.
My ISO never goes above 800, had no problems with the newer MFT cameras.  I haven't tried the metabones speed booster but the reviews look interesting.  The dynamic range with RAW is OK and I use mine for landscapes.  A graduated ND filter or a bit of HDR gets around dynamic range problems.  There's some great low light and landscape lenses for the MFT cameras. 

Obviously the full frame sensor has its advantages but I don't think the differences are as big as they were a few years ago and the Panasonic cameras are great for 4K video.

op

« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2016, 08:17 »
0
SS has a 4GB limit on footage and last year it was 2,5GB. In 4K Pro-res 422 HQ, that's just few seconds. When I checked VB at their opening they would only host mjpeg/h.264 files, you could upload pro-res but they would re-encode it. I just checked again and they really improve with a 25GB limit and almost all codecs accepted. I should have not mentioned Pond5 since they always were good.

To rectify my point of vue, I am a 10bit supporter and all my footage are pro-res 422 HQ since 2012 but I encountered a lot of frustration when stock companies back then didn't care much about it or being 8 or 10bit.

No, it's not just a few seconds, 4 GB is just under 44 seconds of 4k ProRes HQ 25p (average of 734mbit/sec bitrate) which is longer than 99% of all stock footage needs. 2.5 GB is 27 seconds. A lot has happened in four years regarding storage and bandwidth so today I don't think 4k ProRes HQ is much of a problem anymore.

VB, as you say, now happily accept ProRes HQ. Last year's requirements or numbers from 2012 aren't really relevant today...

Indeed.. I never checked back since i'm with getty. Good to know.

op

« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2016, 08:28 »
+1
A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them :D
Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.

When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..
I like using different sized sensors.  The smaller lenses with MFT mean I can walk around all day with 3 prime lenses in a small camera bag.  I seem to be using it more often than my full frame camera.  The difference in quality isn't a problem, anyone that can't use a MFT camera for stock doesn't know what they're doing.

Sony A7 series e-mount prime lenses are very compact too. And the quality difference is huge for me although I shoot only landscape/cityscape and plenty of low light.
Still bigger and heavier than MFT lenses and the difference in quality is more of an issue for photographers than buyers.  I have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic G7.  Having seen one of my photos from a compact camera, with a sensor much smaller than MFT, used for a poster, I don't see a problem.

I wasn't speaking about resolution but low light sensitivity and dynamic range. High iso and landscape photographers would find MFT very limited compared to full frame.
My ISO never goes above 800, had no problems with the newer MFT cameras.  I haven't tried the metabones speed booster but the reviews look interesting.  The dynamic range with RAW is OK and I use mine for landscapes.  A graduated ND filter or a bit of HDR gets around dynamic range problems.  There's some great low light and landscape lenses for the MFT cameras. 

Obviously the full frame sensor has its advantages but I don't think the differences are as big as they were a few years ago and the Panasonic cameras are great for 4K video.

I shoot up to iso 3200/6400 @ 20sec expo when I shoot stars and same iso(s) in video for events when I'm not allowed to use lights. It does happen way too often but with the sony a7sII it comes out very clean.


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors