hot
Active member
mFT, 5" display
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=algDFH8u9DA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLF_3ihNNNk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=algDFH8u9DA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLF_3ihNNNk
Last edited:
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Agreed. This is very encouraging.This camera should (as expected) have a 32-36MP m43 sensor that is needed for 8k resolution ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiuNM__Fbg
This is exactly great news for m43 as we can expect to see some other vendors bringing >30MP m43 cameras (still and video) over the next years.
Very exciting!
Actually, if it's going to keep the 4:3 aspect ratio for photography and be able to capture 8K video, it must be 44 MP (7680*((7680/4)*3)). Even if going to 3:2 for photography, 39 MP is needed. None of this changes the pixel density though. An oversized sensor, like in the GH5s, will give a somewhat lower pixel density and a lower MP counts in photography mode.This camera should (as expected) have a 32-36MP m43 sensor that is needed for 8k resolution ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiuNM__Fbg
This is exactly great news for m43 as we can expect to see some other vendors bringing >30MP m43 cameras (still and video) over the next years.
Very exciting!
However you see and count this, it means a significant increase in resolution for m43 sensors :thumbup:Actually, if it's going to keep the 4:3 aspect ratio for photography and be able to capture 8K video, it must be 44 MP (7680*((7680/4)*3)). Even if going to 3:2 for photography, 39 MP is needed. None of this changes the pixel density though. An oversized sensor, like in the GH5s, will give a somewhat lower pixel density and a lower MP counts in photography mode.
For stills, that shouldn't be too much of a problem, since photos can always be scaled down. For 8K however, I doubt that low light capabilities would be particularly good at the current state of technology. That however is a small problem compared to the computer power needed for post processing. We are talking minimum 24 33MP images per second, four times as much data as for 4K.I hope that high ISO performance and DR will be useable
I agree with almost everything, but I think this will not stop 8k from getting widely spread in a few years - same as it was with 4k.For stills, that shouldn't be too much of a problem, since photos can always be scaled down. For 8K however, I doubt that low light capabilities would be particularly good at the current state of technology. That however is a small problem compared to the computer power needed for post processing. We are talking minimum 24 33MP images per second, four times as much data as for 4K.
For many purposes, the high resolution will be more of a distraction, quite literally, than a step forward. The high amount of detail is much more than the human brain can process and will detract from the experience of movies etc. This will look great for sports events and Red Bull sponsored daredevils jumping out of airplanes and moon rockets, but will add little to the art of film and documentary making.