Pentax K-3 Video Discussion

JohnnyXD · 11-10-2013, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by derekkite

There is in fact autofocus in video. Hit the AF button while shooting and it focuses. A bit unsatisfactory as it is slow and CDAF (hunts), but it is there.

Yes, there is, you are right, what we don't have is continuous focusing. My mistake

hopsing · 11-10-2013, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Vylen

http://110.232.142.16/~vylencom/other/pentax/IMGP0082.MOV

Just for you... recorded with Sigma 10-20 3.5
...

These video looks like K-30 video

.

Vylen · 11-10-2013, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by hopsing

These video looks like K-30 video

.

Is that good or bad?

pTom · 11-10-2013, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by derekkite

There is in fact autofocus in video. Hit the AF button while shooting and it focuses. A bit unsatisfactory as it is slow and CDAF (hunts), but it is there.

I confirm that .

hopsing · 11-10-2013, 04:08 PM

@Vylen,
that's good .. and not enough for professionals

. There is nothing changed without some specs (50fps 1080i, Tv-Mode, Audio e.g.).

Paul Hunt · 11-10-2013, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by hopsing

@Vylen,
that's good .. and not enough for professionals . There is nothing changed without some specs (50fps 1080i, Tv-Mode, Audio e.g.).

This question is not intended to be facetious...

Apart for reasons of convenience, why would a professional choose a DSLR for video, over a dedicated video camera?

fuent104 · 11-10-2013, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Paul Hunt

This question is not intended to be facetious...

Apart for reasons of convenience, why would a professional choose a DSLR for video, over a dedicated video camera?

They don't make dedicated video cameras with large sensors for dslr prices. Well, not under $1k.

**Fries** · 11-10-2013, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Paul Hunt

This question is not intended to be facetious...

Apart for reasons of convenience, why would a professional choose a DSLR for video, over a dedicated video camera?

I recently used my K-5 instead of the dedicated video cam I normally use for work and have done that before. My normal video cam is this one:. There was news to be had at a nature reserve and although I went there for a radio item I was asked to shoot some video for a short segment in our newscast. Due to budget cuts there is only one cameraman available. So some of us have had some training to shoot and edit video. I chose my DSLR because its portability and handling; so basically because it was more conveniant.

The video cam isn't very heavy but bigger and there are controls everywhere which can be a problem when you try to concentrate on doing two things (radio&video) well. The tripod for the video cam is also significant more heavy than my own Gitzo tripod (without video head). Further more I knew I didn't have to interview anybody and that sound wasn't important in this instance (and if needed I can alway's record some background noise with my small Nagra audiorecorder.) And I knew I could get some good footage with just steady shots without panning or zooming (I've made many fine news video's with my video cam without those are techniques before). I still managed to do some usable hand held shots though.

So in this instance taking my K-5 with me instead of lugging the whole video setup with me hiking in to meadows was the right compromise and the video editor did like the 'feel' of the footage out of the Pentax with it's bigger sensor. If I had known about this assignment beforehand I would have brought my macro lens because the story had to do with very, very rare mushrooms, but for close focussing the DA*16-50 did the job. Professional use of video in the publicly funded regional news industrie over here is more and more about getting acceptable images as cheap and efficient as possible because of those big budget cuts which the national, publicly funded, broadcasting industrie is also dealing with. Gradually I see a bit more colleagues using a DSLR for work or wanting to use one although I don't expect them to become a mainstream newscam for video. If see no reason why a K-3 on a tripod wouldn't be at least as useful as my K-5 on a tripod and with the newly added video functionality's it will probably be better.

Dave L · 11-10-2013, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by hopsing

These video looks like K-30 video

.

Yes, from original videos I've downloaded, K-3 video bitrate is the same as K-30 (21Mbps). But... does K-30 allow you to autofocus again while shooting? If not, K-3 is an advance (even if it's slow to re-autofocus).

TomGarn · 11-10-2013, 07:42 PM

About bit rate:

21 Mbps you said above, Dave L ... Are you shure about that ?
That is very poor ...

I am weeping again ... because 50 MBit should be minimum nowadays, I think

grispie · 11-11-2013, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by TomGarn

because 50 MBit should be minimum nowadays, I think

i am by far an expert, but i don't think most dslrs hit 50. could be wrong though...

gambadilegno · 11-11-2013, 02:50 AM

SO , video quality of K5 (mjpeg with lot of bitrate) is better ok K3 "mov" 21 Mbsec ?!... we must think well before buy a new dlsr and have video more poor of the k5 (that also is not so good)...

hopsing · 11-11-2013, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Dave L

Yes, from original videos I've downloaded, K-3 video bitrate is the same as K-30 (21Mbps). But... does K-30 allow you to autofocus again while shooting? If not, K-3 is an advance (even if it's slow to re-autofocus).

Yes, K-30 allow you to re-autofocus while shooting. But you have to know, it's as slow as K-3 while shooting. K-30 is also good in M-Mode like K-3: with Auto-ISO exposure will be fit self-controled, with fixed ISO exposure will be fixed while shooting :-). You can adjust ISO and shutter speed while shooting. Aperture is fixed during shooting in each mode (P, Av, M).

Listen, K-3 has more capabilities in audio and other adjustments.

TomGarn · 11-11-2013, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by gambadilegno

SO , video quality of K5 (mjpeg with lot of bitrate) is better ok K3 "mov" 21 Mbsec ?!... we must think well before buy a new dlsr and have video more poor of the k5 (that also is not so good)...

I (of course) had the Pana Lumix GH3 in my mind - one year old - that goes up to 72 Mbit
This is very positive because more information prevents compression artefacts ("dirt")
Broadcasters btw. only accept a minimum of 50 Mbit ...

MJPEG may have more of whatever - but it's just a codec with lots of aliasing bad informations.
When I first tried my K-7 I fell of my seat watching the incredible phantasy of green, red, purple
fillings in all contrast-boarders on the sunny buildings and even the landscape, not talking of the
intense coloured noise in most of the darker parts of the picture. This was a complete No-Go-Codec

gambadilegno · 11-11-2013, 06:01 AM

so..you can think k3 is better for quality (mov at 21mb/s max) about the k7/5 mjpeg ?
I like change body...but I'm afraid...I must put near many money (for me) and IF the quality of the clips are bad of the k7/5..for the codec and crop what hete talking...is a disaster!!! I need more info about, for be sure...

11-11-2013, 03:04 AM	#418
hopsing Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 49	Originally posted by Dave L Yes, from original videos I've downloaded, K-3 video bitrate is the same as K-30 (21Mbps). But... does K-30 allow you to autofocus again while shooting? If not, K-3 is an advance (even if it's slow to re-autofocus). Yes, K-30 allow you to re-autofocus while shooting. But you have to know, it's as slow as K-3 while shooting. K-30 is also good in M-Mode like K-3: with Auto-ISO exposure will be fit self-controled, with fixed ISO exposure will be fixed while shooting :-). You can adjust ISO and shutter speed while shooting. Aperture is fixed during shooting in each mode (P, Av, M). Listen, K-3 has more capabilities in audio and other adjustments. Last edited by hopsing; 11-11-2013 at 06:18 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Now that official K-3 specs are released, how good for video?	jake14mw	Video Recording and Processing	20	10-14-2013 12:56 PM
Pentax Optio WG-3 video download challenge	Eric Z.	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	09-06-2013 06:33 PM
With HDMI out & 3.5mm stereo mic in the K-01 is better than the K-30 for video	jogiba	Pentax K-01	2	05-22-2012 01:52 PM
Spot one! robertstech.com discussion on K-01	hcc	Pentax K-01	18	02-08-2012 07:22 AM
Short Movie - Robot Warriors + Discussion on DSLR for Video	tiny	Video Recording and Processing	2	06-21-2010 12:29 PM

11-10-2013, 11:25 AM	#406
JohnnyXD Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 93	Originally posted by derekkite There is in fact autofocus in video. Hit the AF button while shooting and it focuses. A bit unsatisfactory as it is slow and CDAF (hunts), but it is there. Yes, there is, you are right, what we don't have is continuous focusing. My mistake

11-10-2013, 01:01 PM	#407
hopsing Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 49	Originally posted by Vylen http://110.232.142.16/~vylencom/other/pentax/IMGP0082.MOV Just for you... recorded with Sigma 10-20 3.5 ... These video looks like K-30 video .

11-10-2013, 01:35 PM	#408
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	Originally posted by hopsing These video looks like K-30 video . Is that good or bad?

11-10-2013, 03:06 PM	#409
pTom Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 77	Originally posted by derekkite There is in fact autofocus in video. Hit the AF button while shooting and it focuses. A bit unsatisfactory as it is slow and CDAF (hunts), but it is there. I confirm that .

11-10-2013, 04:08 PM	#410
hopsing Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 49	@Vylen, that's good .. and not enough for professionals . There is nothing changed without some specs (50fps 1080i, Tv-Mode, Audio e.g.).

11-10-2013, 04:20 PM	#411
Paul Hunt Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 81	Originally posted by hopsing @Vylen, that's good .. and not enough for professionals . There is nothing changed without some specs (50fps 1080i, Tv-Mode, Audio e.g.). This question is not intended to be facetious... Apart for reasons of convenience, why would a professional choose a DSLR for video, over a dedicated video camera?

11-10-2013, 04:25 PM	#412
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	Originally posted by Paul Hunt This question is not intended to be facetious... Apart for reasons of convenience, why would a professional choose a DSLR for video, over a dedicated video camera? They don't make dedicated video cameras with large sensors for dslr prices. Well, not under $1k.

11-10-2013, 06:37 PM	#413
Fries Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Gauw Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,582	Originally posted by Paul Hunt This question is not intended to be facetious... Apart for reasons of convenience, why would a professional choose a DSLR for video, over a dedicated video camera? I recently used my K-5 instead of the dedicated video cam I normally use for work and have done that before. My normal video cam is this one:. There was news to be had at a nature reserve and although I went there for a radio item I was asked to shoot some video for a short segment in our newscast. Due to budget cuts there is only one cameraman available. So some of us have had some training to shoot and edit video. I chose my DSLR because its portability and handling; so basically because it was more conveniant. The video cam isn't very heavy but bigger and there are controls everywhere which can be a problem when you try to concentrate on doing two things (radio&video) well. The tripod for the video cam is also significant more heavy than my own Gitzo tripod (without video head). Further more I knew I didn't have to interview anybody and that sound wasn't important in this instance (and if needed I can alway's record some background noise with my small Nagra audiorecorder.) And I knew I could get some good footage with just steady shots without panning or zooming (I've made many fine news video's with my video cam without those are techniques before). I still managed to do some usable hand held shots though. So in this instance taking my K-5 with me instead of lugging the whole video setup with me hiking in to meadows was the right compromise and the video editor did like the 'feel' of the footage out of the Pentax with it's bigger sensor. If I had known about this assignment beforehand I would have brought my macro lens because the story had to do with very, very rare mushrooms, but for close focussing the DA*16-50 did the job. Professional use of video in the publicly funded regional news industrie over here is more and more about getting acceptable images as cheap and efficient as possible because of those big budget cuts which the national, publicly funded, broadcasting industrie is also dealing with. Gradually I see a bit more colleagues using a DSLR for work or wanting to use one although I don't expect them to become a mainstream newscam for video. If see no reason why a K-3 on a tripod wouldn't be at least as useful as my K-5 on a tripod and with the newly added video functionality's it will probably be better.

11-10-2013, 07:18 PM	#414
Dave L Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Hampshire UK Posts: 306	Originally posted by hopsing These video looks like K-30 video . Yes, from original videos I've downloaded, K-3 video bitrate is the same as K-30 (21Mbps). But... does K-30 allow you to autofocus again while shooting? If not, K-3 is an advance (even if it's slow to re-autofocus).

11-10-2013, 07:42 PM	#415
TomGarn Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Hamburg Posts: 339	About bit rate: 21 Mbps you said above, Dave L ... Are you shure about that ? That is very poor ... I am weeping again ... because 50 MBit should be minimum nowadays, I think

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-11-2013, 01:01 AM	#416
grispie Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by TomGarn because 50 MBit should be minimum nowadays, I think i am by far an expert, but i don't think most dslrs hit 50. could be wrong though...

11-11-2013, 02:50 AM	#417
gambadilegno Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 8	SO , video quality of K5 (mjpeg with lot of bitrate) is better ok K3 "mov" 21 Mbsec ?!... we must think well before buy a new dlsr and have video more poor of the k5 (that also is not so good)...

11-11-2013, 05:53 AM	#419
TomGarn Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Hamburg Posts: 339	Originally posted by gambadilegno SO , video quality of K5 (mjpeg with lot of bitrate) is better ok K3 "mov" 21 Mbsec ?!... we must think well before buy a new dlsr and have video more poor of the k5 (that also is not so good)... I (of course) had the Pana Lumix GH3 in my mind - one year old - that goes up to 72 Mbit This is very positive because more information prevents compression artefacts ("dirt") Broadcasters btw. only accept a minimum of 50 Mbit ... MJPEG may have more of whatever - but it's just a codec with lots of aliasing bad informations. When I first tried my K-7 I fell of my seat watching the incredible phantasy of green, red, purple fillings in all contrast-boarders on the sunny buildings and even the landscape, not talking of the intense coloured noise in most of the darker parts of the picture. This was a complete No-Go-Codec

11-11-2013, 06:01 AM	#420
gambadilegno Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 8	so..you can think k3 is better for quality (mov at 21mb/s max) about the k7/5 mjpeg ? I like change body...but I'm afraid...I must put near many money (for me) and IF the quality of the clips are bad of the k7/5..for the codec and crop what hete talking...is a disaster!!! I need more info about, for be sure...