Видео

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't afford to shoot much color ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@MaxoticsTV duly noted 😁

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I always used plug in power.

This is one my favorite videos on the subject of what we really want with music. ruclips.net/video/Eitrv4L1v5A/видео.htmlsi=uGHNpVtNVFn-uTmv

32-bit float doesn't allow you to repair previously unsalvageable audio. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that you give me a technical explanation on how it does so. There is no such thing as a 32-bit float ADC. Most people's audio systems don't amplify quiet whispers to blood curdling screams beyond 60db in dynamic range. That 10-bits worth of data. If you listed to true 24-bit you'd either not hear 14 bits of it (soft sounds) or your speakers would explode or your eardrums (loud sounds). YES, one can do post in 32-bit float. There are some benefits there. But they have NOTHING to do with what happens in the analog to digital conversion process. Again, prove to me you can resolve more than 16-bits of data from a microphone (analog source). And if you can't resolve more than 16-bits, how the heck would saving it to 32-bit (or even 24-bit) make a difference? Thanks for comment!

@@MaxoticsTV I'd encourage you to check out the video from Rode entitled "Game-changer: Demonstrating How 32-Bit Float Recording Works" The fact that most people don't understand the application of 32 bit float doesn't really change the really change it's usefulness.

@@nerdicorgi That's funny. It was exactly that Rode video that sent me into this ongoing effort to warn people that 32-bit float doesn't prevent clipping or eliminate the need to set your pre-amp gain. You can find that video on my channel. Again, 32-bit float provides NO benefits for analog to digital recording. It doesn't work the way you think it works. You believe big corporations trying to sell you equipment. Okay ;) One day the lie will fade away because despite what that marketing guy at Rode says, 2+2 will never equal 5. Cheers!

Yeah, I'm a big fan of DJI too. I had trouble with the usb-c to windows too. I think I got it working but don't remember how. It was some unintuitive obscure setting. The sound was fine for me too. I need to sell mine. Just collecting dust.

Why aren't you going to go into the "technicalities of 32-bit audio recording"? It's you who has not done the research. Your whole post is all opinion and has no technical explanation. I've explained in other videos and in my medium essay why 32-bit float cannot capture "more" microphone voltage amplitudes than 24-bit (or even 16-bit IMO). You're citing resources like Zoom or Tascam?! Hilarious! They're in the business of selling audio equipment, not explaining how audio electronics work. Indeed, they hide their proprietary circuits. It's one of my points. If you get your technical knowledge from marketing materials you're gullible indeed! So, good luck on your journey treating marketing claims as fact ;)

Sorry, I didn't mean to say anything about blaming the audience. I'm pointing out a simple phenomenon Aristotle brought up in his Rhetoric. People (myself included) want to feel we made the right decisions. We don't want buyers remorse. We don't want to learn that our hero or friend is bad. We're all NATURALL ADVERSE to criticism (blame). By extension, that means the people we admire. So if one enjoy Gerald and feels a parasocial relationship to him they don't want to hear criticisms of his reviews. That becomes a criticism of him even if the person criticizing (me) does not intend it that way. It's very difficult for us to separate the two. The problem for Gerald, and everyone reviewing cameras, is that the audience can also have emotional attachments to various brands, say. Let's say they love Panasonic cameras. That's what they have. So if Gerald were to point out that Panasonic isn't truthful about 32-bit float that would emotionally challenge those people. They wouldn't want to hear it so might unsubscribe. In short, I'm talking about human nature and how it effects how much we deal with camera emotionally and how much scientifically. Hope that explains it better.

I did these tests early on and there are some flaws because I didn't totally understand all the issues, or remove capsule clipping from some of the experiments. 24-bit has 144db range WAY PAST anything you'd use from a microphone. 32-bit float has more range exponential "float", but it is at the expense of precision; that is, it when mapped back to fixed numbers resolves to 24-bit. 32-bit float was designed for large number financial calcs where precision is put aside. I can understand why some audio mixers might want to use it, but if they understand data, don't understand why they would because unlike large financial numbers, every value MUST be resolved back to a fixed number. Thanks for comment.

Not if you give me the benefit of the doubt and try not to get emotional watching it ;) In a sense using Gerald is clickbait. There's ironically no way around that! However the subject is where do we draw the line between what we "want" our cameras to do, and what they actually do in a scientific sense.

@@MaxoticsTV My comment was a joke. I think it's somewhat funny that you'd do this. I've seen this done before where small youtuber attacks larger youtuber for clicks and views and it usually works. Also... diss tracks are popular. That said... I'm not going to watch the video. It's bad enough you're getting my comment. Perhaps it's time for @geraldundone to respond? Or maybe he just ignores it. I don't know. If he does respond I hope he puts a dope beat in the background to really sell the diss track idea. :P

@@jimhestermanphotography "I'm not going to watch the video"? Now THAT's funny. You made a joke on something you didn't even watch! You prove what I said in the video, that most people don't want to hear anything that might question their allegiance, opinions, etc. Why people would comment on something they didn't watch. It would be like me saying your photography is horrible without even having looked at it. They say don't judge a book by its cover (title), but I guess, if it works for you rock on!

@@maxcanthelpit lol on principle. You get your interaction in the comments but I'm not going to help your views.

@@jimhestermanphotography You are cracking me the f-up. Should you ever buy a piece of electronics and it doesn't do what you expected it to do and you wonder why no one on RUclips pointed it out you can come back and give me that "view". I can hardly watch my videos a 2nd time so I certainly understand why someone wouldn't watch them a 1st time. The 5 people who liked this video. That's who it's for. Most of the stuff I like I'm in a minority of likes. This video is for someone who is ether in, or wants to be in, a group of hard-science photography/filmmakers. Again thanks for the comments. As you can imagine, I'm a very lonely man with no real life!

I might cover his video in a later video. I'll say again. No manufacturer has explained how they remove clipping using 32-bit float. So we have NO IDEA what electronics they're using in the signal chain. I explain why it can't be 32-bit float and others come up with theories but non seem interested in calling the manufacturers themselves and asking how specifically it is done using 32-bit float. And then they can post that in a comment and I can consider! ;)

In my experiments I have not been able to find an improvement in clipping using 32-bit float. Nor have I seen anyone do a test that I can verify. Someone showing me a waveform means nothing. To my knowledge, most microphone ADCs are 16bits or under. Please point me to a SPEC SHEET of an ADC on the market that writes to 32-bit float. Anything about 16bit is beyond what a microphone can resolve to. If you WANT to believe, I can't stop you ;)

@@MaxoticsTV you don't need 32 bit ADCs. You just need 2 or more 24 bit ADCs with different gain levels. When the AFC with the more sensitive preamp clips, the signal from the less sensitive preamp-ADC is still usable. 32 bit float is a container that just makes sure that the entire DR captured from the multiple ADCs remain uncompressed. So it allows you to lift silent sources without introducing a ton of noise while also making sure that the very loud sources don't clip (as long as the capsule isn't overwhelmed)

@@Wildridefilms Think about what you're saying. We have a microphone voltage. If we split it into 2 ADC each will have half the strength. Put aside the "different" gain levels. Just to get each to match the original source you'd have to apply 2x the gain (of what you'd do for the original voltage), creating a boatload of noise. Conservation of Energy. You cannot create that which isn't there. If you take 2 mV and split it between two ADCs each will have 1mV. You can't split a voltage source without weakening its signal. You can do what you suggest now. Get a Y-splitter for your mic and put each end into a separate Audio Interface. Set gain low for one, high for the other, then combine the data in post. If you say, okay, it goes into one ADC, THEN another, how does that work. It's Analog to Digital. Once Digital, why convert to analog and convert that to digital again. And again, you'd get data noise.

@@MaxoticsTV I've been using both 24-bit integer and 32-bit float (in their price category) high-end mikes from the same manufacturer: the Rode Wireless Go II and the Pro, respectively. 24-bit ones are a LOT more prone to clipping. The latter is practically not present with the new Rode Wireless Pros. There's some HUGE difference in there: you just don't need to worry about audio levels during recording. That's a BIG relief for one-man shooters.

@@mostlyfinnishlifeeventsand5112 Yes. Limiters or Automatic Gain Controls are super helpful for the one-man shooter. My argument is that Rode isn't honest about how it's removing clipping; that is, they don't explain HOW 32-bit float removes clipping. Instead other RUclipsrs come up with weird multi-ADCs science fictions ;)

You have knee-jerk reaction to defend Gerald and call me "hollier than thou". I don't believe you watched my whole video or really paid attention to what I was saying. But thanks for the comment!

Thanks. I did this before ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, Gemini etc. Those tools make is child's play to create ffmpeg and imagemagick commands to do whatever your heart desires!

As I mention in my essay, you cannot exceed whatever voltage is expected as a maximum, 0dbfs. So you'd need to explain to me in greater detail how that is possible. Further, 32-bit-float is a different animal than 24-bit fixed. It uses 8-bits to widen the scale which has no effect on the precision. From a fidelity point of view, 24bit and 32-bit float resolve to the same data. And most analog sources don't resolve past 16 bits--and even that a stretch. The sounddevices link you mentioned is flawed IMO. Why I took such great pains to go through each step. To me it is fraudulent. Sorry!

I have 2 A/D converters in parallel fed by my analog audio signal. One converter has a reference voltage of 1V representing O dBfs the other has a reference voltage of 5V representing 0 dBfs. Something that primitive isn’t how sound devices are doing it but it is along those lines, perhaps the reference is variable or perhaps they have broken the digital data across multiple converters. I agree that 16 bits is adequate for reproduction.

@@goaway2174 There can only be one analog stream of electrons from a microphone. Any split of that stream would add noise and/or reduce resolution. I've seen diagrams from Rode where they show a split analog stream...which angers me ;) Of course, you can amplify a source into as many streams as you want, and set them to any voltage, but again, without the inherent resolution between each high and low (more than 16 bits) what can you accomplish? I've asked Sound Devices to clarify that question. No answer. They sent me some files. They must not know I can tell when data has been doctored. All that said, I understand how one can use multiple streams for production reasons. I understand why one might use 32-bit float just to keep the whole workflow standardized. I always want to repeat. Do what works! Just don't make up your own physics ;)

Who says there can only be one stream? If you wanted you could have several outputs using a custom transformer. But let’s say it is a normal microphone and you have one balanced output. What’s the big deal? We measure voltage into high impedances not current (the current actually drawn in this case is seen as insignificant). So sorry but I am not understanding your position of 1 current stream from a microphone, it would get split in any number of different ways in the analog domain anyway. You have attenuators, voltage dividers, feedback networks on op amps, etc. all in the preamp. The signals from microphones are viewed as low voltage (at least in my experience) with voltage gain needed to get them to a useable level. E.g. a Shure SM7B has 1.12mV output with 1 pascal pressure (94 dB) at the microphone diaphragm. I guess I don’t comprehend why you have the belief that splitting this current stream has such significant consequences. There are so many areas that have multiple orders of magnitude greater impact (impedance mismatch, poorly terminated cable, emi fields, wrong microphone choice (pattern, type, sensitivity)).

@@goaway2174 When a magnet moves across the wires it vibrates (theoretically) single electrons. Transformers, impedances, attenuators, voltage dividers, feedback networks, op amps--all word salad. They all have impacts, yes, and all negative to the original signal. Although I have studied each one in turn, none add any information, or improve the accuracy of measuring those electrons, which must be amplified to write memory (in our real world). Some use such terms as these to create an argument that supports what they want to believe--that 32-bit float improves recorded microphone fidelity (reduced clipping). I have not seen any experimental proof that any proposed technique works; that is, anything recorded on two of the same mics going into two pieces of recording equipment, one 24-bit and the other 32-bit float, where, once the gains were set properly for each, resulted in reduced clipping. I have done experiments myself and have found no difference whatsoever. So I have my theoretical explanation of why it's not possible and my tests. Of course, people love to create words and theory about why something works. You can especially see this in skin care products. And btw, I couldn't care less about this subject from an audio point of view. What fascinates me is how so many people can't let go of their preconceptions no matter how much evidence to the contrary they are exposed to.

One can want 32-bit float to prevent clipping all they want that doesn't mean it will do it. I explain in detail here. If I've missed something please tell me. Thanks! maxrottersman.medium.com/the-three-types-of-microphone-clipping-explained-d23ad13a60f7?source=friends_link&sk=2741a5e36687099eb740aa92b80fa8c1

@@MaxoticsTVInteresting article. The biggest benefit of 32-bit float is there is no gain staging involved because there is so much dynamic range. As a solo content creator, it’s impossible for me to actively manage my audio levels while filming. I appreciate that some 24-bit recorders have limiters built in, but the vast majority of the handheld ones don’t. Instead they offer safety tracks which is a huge pain in post. Having used both 24 and 32-bit recorders in the real world, everything else being comparable, I’d choose the 32-bit one every time. It’s saved me more times than I care to mention. 😂

@@RandumbTech "Gain staging" to me is just a fancy name for knowing what you're doing ;) That includes understanding how signal modifiers behave, which is everything between the microphone and the end recording (or production). However, knowing how something "behaves" isn't the same as knowing how it's working. If one uses 32-bit float in their workflow and it works better for them than 24-bit it isn't necessarily because 32-bit float is doing something better than 24-bit. I can happen because the person has learned how to get the behavior they want out of that particular equipment. That's why I also preface everything I say with "if it works for you i do not dispute it!" Most people don't want to understand how their equipment works, they just want it to produce the material they want. As it should be. What I'm saying is that I believe if you are seeing a benefit of 32-bit float which is more about your workflow than it is about 32-bit float. 32-bit float has the same precision as 24-bit so they are EQUAL. The benefit you see is not what you think it is. There's no way for me to prove that because, again 1) your goal is not to prove something scientifically and 2) why would you want to spend time breaking something to figure this out because I said it? ;) I'm glad you got something out of my essay. If you DO have a problem with 32-bit float in the future, some of it may come back and you'll understand why!

Yes, I believe Zoom is more "realistic" in its products. I don't know why Tascam lost its way. I find it difficult to tell the difference between lavs. I bought a couple of Chinese ones for $9 each and they blew me away. I'm also a big fan of the $30 Sony stereo lavs. Depends on what you're plugging it into.

@@MaxoticsTV Thanks for the quick reply. Very nice. I would connect the Lavalier to the Zoom H5

@@calverozara8540 I don't do this professionally so I'd hate to give advice. Unless you're going to be knocking the mic and recorder around a lot I'd just get a 3.5mm lav and put it into a 1/4 inch adapter. You can do that very cheap. Anything XLR is going to be expensive. though you could do a MOVO. In the lavs I've tested I can hear very very small differences, but non so great anyone else would. Where and how you attach it is 99% in my opinion. That's the art of it.

@@MaxoticsTV Don't worry too much about giving advice. Just be intellectually honest and everyone will have the head to process the information they have obtained. Here there is a saying that goes like this: "I don't want to be blessed or cursed". Well, let's say I understand what you mean. Good work 😉

sure you can reach me at maxrottersman gmail you probably want to get your voices with this kind of code: # Open the file and read the API key with open(api_key_file, 'r') as file: myAPI = file.read().strip() # An API key is defined here. You'd normally get this from the service you're accessing. It's a form of authentication. XI_API_KEY = myAPI # This is the URL for the API endpoint we'll be making a GET request to. url = "api.elevenlabs.io/v1/voices" # Here, headers for the HTTP request are being set up. # Headers provide metadata about the request. In this case, we're specifying the content type and including our API key for authentication. headers = { "Accept": "application/json", "xi-api-key": XI_API_KEY, "Content-Type": "application/json" } # A GET request is sent to the API endpoint. The URL and the headers are passed into the request. response = requests.get(url, headers=headers) # The JSON response from the API is parsed using the built-in .json() method from the 'requests' library. # This transforms the JSON data into a Python dictionary for further processing. data = response.json() # A loop is created to iterate over each 'voice' in the 'voices' list from the parsed data. # The 'voices' list consists of dictionaries, each representing a unique voice provided by the API. for voice in data['voices']: # For each 'voice', the 'name' and 'voice_id' are printed out. # These keys in the voice dictionary contain values that provide information about the specific voice. print(f"{voice['name']}; {voice['voice_id']}") # Open the output file in write mode with open('voices.txt', 'w') as file: # Check if the request was successful if response.status_code == 200: # Parse the JSON response voices_data = response.json() # Process the data as needed, for example, writing the list of voices to the file for voice in voices_data['voices']: file.write(f"{voice['name']}|{voice['voice_id']} ") else: file.write(f"Error: {response.status_code} {response.text} ")

Hi sir, I followed same process as you suggested but, voice quality is different from voice generated by chrome browser is best as compared to python code. All mp3 and code I shared on your mail. I am working for Hindi voice language. Could please check once sir. I

If that was true it wouldn't do the "typing" out thing when it's not re-writing the whole page but only giving fixed lines for one to insert in the code here and there. Further, I don't see how it's doing code completion when it is providing a very specific piece of code where references are front to back and back to front. Maybe you're right. We shall see!