Відео

Everything we watch is in 8-bits. So the endgame is the best 8-bits you can get. 4:2:0 is a way of throwing out color that a viewer won't notice. The root problem is consumer electronics can't handle the amount of data we record in. Colors in the "shadows" or "highlights" are generally of poor quality. It all depends on what colors you want. Sometimes you want bad color (to see clouds), or to see some detail in shadows, etc. Everything is a tradeoff. At the end of the data, you must decide as an artist what colors you want to make it through to the viewer.

I'm not sure Amir banned you. I have a feeling he doesn't pay much attention. I never saw him post about anything related to the thread I was on. Anyway, you're not alone. You're not the one who is disabled. Cheers! Also, the sooner the better, to realize it's not worth investing your time.

I analyze the data directly. I don't use tools made for consumers to modify audio. They aren't designed for testing.

@@MaxoticsTV The best test is still your ears. If you boosted the just low parts, then lowered just the loud parts, that entire recording would be completely clean. You played perfectly clean audio when you played back the loud section with the volume lowered, but for some reason you boosted the entire clip back. That defeats the purpose. Record the whole thing in 24 bit with the gain all the way up, then try the same test. You will likely end up with an unusable recording that can't be lowered enough to sound clear.

Interesting. I thought it came out in 2016, but looking at it now it says 2022. It has its quirks, but I still love it.

First, btw, I went to Curtis HS on Staten Island. Curtis is great! But we are different people. He's very trusting (of manufacturers) and is focused on giving his viewers the best practical advice. I'm well, you probably got the idea. Curtis and I have talked at length about 32-bit float. You wrote, "Had he not used 32-bit, those loud areas would definitely be distorted." I believe that to be false. I've done many videos on the subject explaining why and I've written an essay that is in the description of many of those videos. 32-bit float provides NO BENEFIT in microphone recording. It is only useful in post. As I ask everyone, please PROVE THAT WRONG! The manufacturers are telling lies about it. Sorry ;) Curtis isn't the kind of guy to call people out. Thanks for comment! To be perfectly clear, I'm upset with the manufacturers! Not Curtis!

@@MaxoticsTV I graduated from Port Richmond High School in 1983. Back then, I was literally the only student in the school who owned a computer, and exactly one teacher owned one so they made him the computer teacher. Meanwhile, the only reason he had one is I sold him my old one used. Back then I tinkered with digitizing audio using the analog to digital controllers built into all Atari computer and a hacked cable. The paddles used for games like Pong were just variable resistors, so you could turn the paddle and get a number between 0-255 based on how much power reached the A/D converter, so we tinkered with sending audio signals through the paddle ports and found out it actually worked. The audio was crude for 2 reasons, 0-255 was one byte per sample, just 8 bits. If we pushed more power than that, we still got 255, effectively we stumbled on clipping. Unfortunately the CPU speed and only 48K of RAM meant audio was worse than phone quality, but it blew our mind that we could recognize what we recorded. but I continued playing with samples when my next computers came along (Amiga, Atari ST, Mac), sampling rates improved, but just as important was the bit rate. We could record a wider range of volume variations and had fun playin back hidden messages by playing classic albums backwards. I was hooked on audio from that point on. As you know, you can record audio with only 1 bit. There are toys that do that by carving notches in a strip of plastic that you can hear by running your fingernail over it. People have even tried creating musical streets with perfectly spaced ridges. No variation in volume, but those notches made real sounds. With that context, let's say you recorded at a high sampling rate of 92k for example, but I asked you to limit it to 8 bits, like the Atari. Each sample would only have a value of 0-255, the quietest sound would be zero, the loudest 255. The recording would definitely be clear, but as you mentioned, those numbers represent an amount of power (volume) in any given sample. By recording using 2 bytes, you could store 256x256 possible variations in power levels being recorded, expanding that to 0-65,536 values. Adding another byte multiplies that by another 256... and by using 4 bytes per sample (32-bit), the range is ludicrously wide. I'm sure all of us, including Curtis agree that you can fit a HUGE range of voltage / volume measurements into just 2 or 3 bytes, which is why Curtis does not use 32-bit, and he always recommends getting the gain right because you'll also catch things like overpowering the capsule or putting it too far from the sound. This is where we disagree. I believe the manufacturers are definitely correct in their specifications. Currently to record 32 bits, they use two 16-bit A/D converters, one for the lowest voltages, one for the higher voltages so that they can produce two distinct 16 bit parts of the 32 bit result. So, it's not just software, but hardware, which is why they can't just do a firmware updates to older recorders to capture 32-bits. (In theory, if they used two 24 bit recorders, the 48-bit range would be beyond ludicrous.) With such a range, there is virtually no limit to the potential highest signal it can capture because each bit literally doubles the number of possible values. Because of this, I would imagine that 99.9999% of the bits are unused, but in those rare cases where the volume falls outside the range you set, there is room at both sides to boost or lower it. I fully believe their specifications, and I've done similar tests to what Curtis did. His tests were way more scientific than mine, and he surprisingly determined that for the particular recorder he used, by intentionally pushing the gain way too high vs way too low, the audio when boosted way too much like clip you showed, it sounded slightly better than the one where he kept it too low, and boosted it. That said. I have 5 different 32-bit recorders, including the Zoom F6, and the SoundDevices MixPre-6 II, and 3 body back systems (Deity, Zoom and Rode). I use 24 bits on the F6 and MixPre, but I use 32-bit in the body backs because they really don't have fast and flexible ways to change the gain. So for controlled spaces, I like to set my gain and stick to 24 bit, but for unpredictable situations, or the body packs... I'm more likely to grab my Deity PR-2 than anything else and just let it go.

@@MaxoticsTV One last point, with respect to your challenge to prove you wrong. Do the following. Take a decent quality recorder like a MixPre, put it into 16 or 24 bit mode and push the gain to nearly the top and make a recording. Then push the gain to the middle and make another recording. Lastly push the gain to nearly the bottom and make a recording. If you can adjust all 3 in post so that you can't tell which is which, you've proved your point.

@@AskJoe I have never seen "two 16-bit A/D converters" in a spec sheet for an ADC for one microphone stream. For stereo signals, sure, one microphone, no. I don't see how it is possible since the mic's voltage is so small it's difficult enough to get a good signal at 16 bits, let alone anything higher. After 12-bits, IMO, it's mostly noise. I've heard many talk about multiple ADCs. I read the Sound Devices patent for such an idea that was long on theory and short of specifics. But okay, say they have such a technology, why wouldn't it be just as useful in 24-bit as it is in 32-bit float (which is the same as 24-bit in precision, only differing in scale). Do any of those companies make their own chips? I don't see it. They're using commercial stuff available to anyone. If I'm wrong on that, let me know. You obviously know a bit about electronics--probably more than I do. So you have to explain how such a piece of electronics would work where it could split the high voltage and low voltage. There is only ONE voltage coming from a mic "vibrating" over time. It's very small and I don't see how it can be split in that way. In theory, I get it, could do an alternating gain at 48Khz, say, but if it was possible, and worked, wouldn't we see it by now? Anyway, please explain how you see this working in existing electronics. Thanks!

@@MaxoticsTV I can't seem to find two of my replies where I addressed how they use dual A/D Converters. I posted links to Rode, Sound Devices, Tascam, and Zoom's websites where they not only mention having two converters, but Rode even uses four and perhaps UA-cam doesn't allow that kind of link, so you may need to visit their respective websites to see for yourself. As for how they can do this using existing electronics, that's sort of why they need to use multiple converters. Existing chips can't give numbers in this massive range, but by splitting that task into multiple converters, they can combine them into four bytes (32 bits) instead of two (16 bit) or three (24 bit). I will assume they will eventually redesign the ADCs to expand their range so they don't need more than one. Anyhow, I subscribed so I can see the results of the tests (3 recordings, one with the gain all the way up, one in the middle, one at one click above zero). I'd love to see how you get them all to sound the same.

I've been using it for over a month now. Except for these idiosyncrasies, it's been a total pleasure. Good luck!

Artists always adapt. When MP3 came out I thought it was an abomination but no one talks about that anymore.

Yes, it's a complex subject. IMO, you always want RAW if you can get it. But the truth is it requires gobs of power and storage space. There are so many points I wanted to make in the video but just wanted to focus on the simple proof that while filmmakers are looking for maximum quality the business-end is looking to get through the fewest bits possible to make a buck ;) And more and more, that means when the filmmaker sculpts bronze the consumer gets plastic.

Fascinating! Thanks for comment!

The sound on Blurays is way better too.

Thanks, glad you took it the right way! Telling a good story remains key ;)

I didn't understand then, what I understand now. So I made some mistakes. But I leave the video up so anyone could see how I've worked through these questions. I later wrote an essay that I'd love to hear your comments if you have any. maxrottersman.medium.com/the-three-types-of-microphone-clipping-explained-d23ad13a60f7?source=friends_link&sk=2741a5e36687099eb740aa92b80fa8c1

I did the math over and over because I could barely believe it myself.

I've done many videos on the subject, which you can find. This video is part of an on-going thing with me (and Curtis). I'm the kind of guy who questions authority and would get locked up or worse in other times and places ;) Anyway, "authority" me? Funny!

Learn what he is talking about, then compare it to whatever other people have said, and then come to your own conclusion. It's called using your brain, you know?

I'll have to take your word for it ;)

I don't doubt something you're doing improves audio for you. But sorry, it has nothing to do with 32-bit float. Or you'd have to explain it to me scientifically. Thanks!

Sorry, I have no idea. I cancelled my Adobe cloud subscription a couple of years ago.

Yes and no. Yes, it's "impressive" that you can work with a wide range of values. You have a huge working space. But no, the extra "dynamic range" is not suitable for microphone data acquisition because it's inherently imprecise. It's only useful for computer generated data. DEFINITION: Audio fidelity refers to how accurately a copy of audio reproduces its original source. If you have inaccurate numbers how can you accurately copy the original source? You can't. As I mentioned, microphones don't need more than 12-bits, so 24-bit is overkill, let alone 32-bit float. BUT IF microphones could do more than 24-bit, BELIEVE YOU ME, everyone would use 32-bit FIXED! :)

At the end of the day, whether the device is 16-bits and is using a limiter, or 32-bit-float and is using some "magic" inside, it doesn't make a difference--you'll get usable audio. I agree with you! But if we no longer question what is science and what is not we let our wishful thinking lead us further and further into tyranny, the tyrant using the fears of the population to excuse their actions. You will probably find this quite a stretch, but there it is.

I don't understand what you're saying, sorry. Maybe you can go into greater detail. Floating point is a computational/mathematical way of creating more scale. It does not create more resolution. The resolution remains at 24-bits.

@@MaxoticsTV Floating point is merely a way to express large numbers without having to write the whole number out. This method is good enough because the lower positions are not significant. The resolution of a measurement depends upon the resolution of the scale used to make the measurement. It is obvious you can't get a higher resolution by multiplying two measurements together. The witchcraft in "32 bit float" is combining two measuring devices into one.

I haven't picked a fight with Curtis. I never get comments like this. "I don't understand X...but I know X does this." 32-bit float does not improve anything in the audio acquisition process (mic voltages to preamp then digitization). If it does, please explain how. I explain why it CANNOT work in my essay. Tear it apart! But you have to bring evidence. We are all learning. Curtis, me, you! We all make mistakes. IMO, some manufacturers broke the trust Curtis had in them. We'll see!

"Content creators" and the lowest form of videographers / filmmakers / audio recordists. If you were working in a professional audio or filmmaking setting, then maybe you would care more about the underlying tech and reasoning. I checked your videos and you're just trying to push your opinions on people about gear, instead of actually creating anything as an artist. That, to me, is pretty pointless.

I can't hear a difference. Let me ask Benji ;)

The device works fine! But keep in mind 32-bit float is NO IDFFERENT in audio quality than 24-bit fixed. It's only different in adding 8-bits of expanded scale. I've compared the 24-bit and 32-bit float files in the recorder and they are IDENTICAL. Expected. The device creates 32-bit float by running 24-bit internal data from the ADC into the float algorithm. If your workflow in post is all around 32-bit float, then this is good for you. But don't expect better recording quality, sorry!

@@MaxoticsTV Understood! I really want the 32-bit because it gives me added flexibility in post-production. My final export is always going to be 16 bits at most. I appreciate the warnings you tell everyone! It's a shame what marketing can let manufacturers get away with

@@shamuclone Thanks for the kind words! I want new equipment as much as the next guy, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed haha!

32-bit float works this way. Save you acquire an amplitude value of 5699 at 1/48,000th of a second.. In 32-bit you move a decimal point (float it) to the first digit. So you get 5.699. Then you raise it to an exponent of the remaining digits ^3. What I did is math. I rescaled the original number. Did I acquire additional "audio" information in that process. You can query AI yourself for how 32-bit float works. Sorry, it DOES NOT GET HIGHER DYNAMIC RANGE for the microphone data. It only increases the RANGE (Scale) of the values. Once you need to amplify the data again (listen to it) you must bring it back to 24-bit, or another fixed space. If microphones don't resolve effectively past 12-bits what are you accomplishing? There is no such thing, in my book, of dual ISO sensors. It's a perversion of the ISO concept. ISO was developed to test the sensitivity of film and standardize the scores so you could mix and match films. You could expect the same exposure results whether you used Kodak, Ilford or Fuji film. Today ISO is being used to indicate amplification gain. True, DGO can theoretically provide different values depending on the amplification and circuitry. But it only works by switching the amplification circuit. So for 30 fps it would internally shoot 60 fps, each alternating sensor read going to a difference amplification. The improvement you gain is at the amplification level ONLY. It does not change sensor level sensitivity. The sensor doesn't change, can't change. I can't hear the difference in audio quality in the past 30 years. Of course, I'm getting old. So it might just be that ;) Anyway, sure, I believe it COULD work. I just can't see it in the data or hear or see it with my eyes. Lighting, or setting up your audio recording space and microphones, that's 99.99999% of it. In trying to improve that 0.00001% many lose quality in the double-digits :) My message is to experiment. To think these concepts through. To focus on what's important and not get distracted by the scientifically unproven claims of unscrupulous manufacturers.

"the improvement you gain is amplification level only." YES! That is exactly the point. It doesn't effect the sensitivity of the sensor, but it does effect the signal you are able to store. The microphone is analogous to the sensor. 32bF doesn't change the sensitivity of the microphone. The pre-processing makes the applied "gain" result in a cleaner image. For audio, it's not about making the audio "sound better" per say. If your gain is set correctly, a 16 bit and 32 bF, are going to sound pretty much the same. Again, it's all about the dynamic range of what you ultimately store. And that comes down to the multiple analog amplifiers set to different gains. I'm not sure why they "need" 32bF to capture the (let's call it dual gain) audio. You CAN squeeze it back down to 24 or 16 bit in post and it will probably "sound" just as good. It's all about the dual "gain" or "amplification." With a single gain 24 bit recording, you can very easily clip your signal if the gain is set too high. Let's say you're recording a couple people talking very quietly, and one suddenly shouts. Believe me, I've done it, and you can't fix it. Yes, you can turn on limiters, but that works different. If turn down your gain, you might not clip your highs, but your lows will not be as clean. There will be less signal to noise, and when you digitally amplify it in post, you get more noise than you would have with analog amplification of the raw signal.

@@appads Most audio I record is pathetic, horrible. So I'd love a fix to the problem of pre-amp gain! But I can't see it. But first, as you wonder, what would 32bF have to do with dual gain? Nothing. The same principle should work for 16-bit or any-bit. I've written all the manufacturers who claim 32bF doesn't need gain but they all stop responding once we get into the technical part. Anyway, I don't believe they are doing dual gain in audio because it's one thing to switch gain 30 times a second and quite another every 48,000th of a second (my guess). If one had done it they would give audio proof and have it patented. So, color me skeptical ;) 99% of microphone efficiency comes from the distance of the mic to the source and the strength of the source. I mean, if all this dual ISO stuff worked we'd here, no need to set ISO! Put the mic anywhere! Shoot at any f-stop you want! We'll gain it so it's perfect. Oooookaaaayy ;)

@@MaxoticsTV What 32bF has to do with dual gain, is that you get larger dynamic range without losing accuracy. It's like RAW recording vs compressed recording. For most circumstances, raw recording is overkill, but if you need to significantly adjust your image in post, that additional information becomes very useful. I said above, if you compress a 32bF signal down to 16b, that they will sound the same. But if you have a lot of dynamics that you're trying to resolve; let's say you have to bring it back up to recover some very low signal, you will be losing information, and the amplified part will no longer be as clean. So the dual gain, gives you increased dynamic range, and the 32bF gives you more flexibility in post. Most importantly, the dynamic range avoids clipping, which is not recoverable, but you also get higher accuracy from the 32bF to recover dynamics. You can do a tests, if you want to "test" this. Use a 32bF recorder, record a signal in 16b or 24b, and really push the recorded dynamics to their limit. Lower the gain. Record a very loud signal and a very soft signal with some sort of reproducible pre-recorded source. Do the same thing in 32bF mode. Then look at the signal to noise ratio at the low end of the signal, and see which one is cleaner. I think I recall Curtis doing something similar in one of his videos, and it was a noticeable difference. As for dual ISO, yes it works. You see a clear difference in SNR when you go from one native ISO to the next. For DGO, you still need to set the ISO because the dynamic range is not infinite, it's just larger. And it does increase the rolling shutter. Maybe someday they will have TGO or QGO. Or maybe they'll pack 3 times the sensors, and each set can have its own sensitivity range, maybe with some high sensitivity photomultiplier tubes on the low end. Maybe they can do hyperspectral imaging for perfect color accuracy and not just RGB, and they can stitch those together with a global shutter, and we won't need to set the ISO or even use NDs, but that's not available... YET.

@@tevryan Both audio data and image data are LINEAR streams. When you set the pre-amp gain, in either case, you're setting your maximum voltage, FAIK. There is no such thing as compressing 32bF down to 16 bit; rather okay, but not for 24-bit and I doubt you'd hear a difference for microphones in 16bit. 32bF is SCALED data, the extra dynamic range is mathematical, not a property of the original LINEAR data. I'd like to do full tests as you suggest one day, but they require a bit of equipment, preparation, etc I have done some tests. But you're right, would need to do some very specific things to prove my thesis. I have half a mind to get the GH7 and its XLR adapter to prove that Panasonic is lying--or I don't get it! :) Dual sensor cameras would definitely be interesting!!! Or curved sensors and simpler lenses. So many things they could do instead of letting their marketing departments mangle what the engineers tell them ;)

Ok I understand now that my comment was too early.

Hopefully this makes sense. Oswald Spengler argued that the Greeks could have developed calculus but they chose not to because they didn't see the point of math that didn't represent the "real" physical world. He argued that calculus is more than just math, it's a cultural value system of "growth." That has been born out by our capitalist politics in the 21st century. Of course, without calculus we wouldn't have many of the technologies we have today. Nonetheless, the problem remains. There are many aspects of the physical world they don't apply to. So to answer your question, more differentiation will not improve our integration because we simply won't hear the difference. The physical characteristics of microphones are fully matched with the physical characteristics of our electronics. Indeed, they are so past the accuracy we need that we compress the heck out of it and still no one can tell the difference ;)

Let's say you have 3 data point, 354, 322 and 366. Which was is noise, which one a clipped number, which one a frequency? Let's focus on frequency. Helmholtz and others figured out frequencies LONG before electronics, let along digital electronics. Mind blowing they figured it out! Frequencies DESCRIBE a collection of sounds (data points in the digital world). They are a mathematical model that if enough data points fit it one would say it's X frequency. The frequency does NOT exist in any vibrations, it is a man-made mathematical description of a collection of vibrations. So I don't see how it's false, let alone utterly false. You'd need to explain it more.

He meant in the raw data coming from the sound source, which is true.

@@_Chris390 I think you're the first person to ever help me here ;)

Today I spent all day shooting with a Canon HFR500 Camcorder. You're right and you called it!

That's my limited experience!

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 UA-cam 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: ua-cam.com/video/ONfdarINvmw/v-deo.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!