Pentax K-3 Video Discussion

MrStupid · 11-08-2013, 01:51 PM

Maybe I should follow my own advice in my signature (A picture is worth a thousand words, so shut up.) and ask:
Doe's anyone know if the K-3 does this (see photos) like the K-01.

#1 K-01 Still

#2 K-01 Video

#3 K-01 Video frame lined up with Still frame and outlined to show crop.

Isn't technology fun.

grispie · 11-08-2013, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by MrStupid

Doe's anyone know if the K-3 does this (see photos) like the K-01.

believe so, 99% sure, but i don't have one...

johnmflores · 11-08-2013, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by MrStupid

Doe's anyone know if the K-3 does this (see photos) like the K-01.

Yes...

MrStupid · 11-08-2013, 02:41 PM

The good news is you just saved me $1200

MrStupid · 11-08-2013, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by grispie

nice video!

Thanks!

johnmflores · 11-08-2013, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by MrStupid

The good news is you just saved me $1200

What are you going to get instead?

lister6520 · 11-08-2013, 03:13 PM

I'm not understanding why that little cropping is such an issue. I would think all it means is using a slightly shorter focal length and you get anyway the same field of view. Resolution for sure is not an issue as even full HD is way less resolution than what the sensor can give (the image resolution is reduced some 2 to 3 times even if the whole sensor is used)

What am I missing?

grispie · 11-08-2013, 03:18 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by lister6520

What am I missing?

nothing, there is no issue
people just need sthing to complain...

MrStupid · 11-08-2013, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

What are you going to get instead?

I'll just keep the K-01 for film stuff. I've got a few nice old long focus throw lenses that follow nice, I'm a happy guy. Full APSC sensor would be happier but hey.

JohnnyXD · 11-08-2013, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by lister6520

I'm not understanding why that little cropping is such an issue. I would think all it means is using a slightly shorter focal length and you get anyway the same field of view. Resolution for sure is not an issue as even full HD is way less resolution than what the sensor can give (the image resolution is reduced some 2 to 3 times even if the whole sensor is used)

What am I missing?

Well, APSC is already a cropped sensor, it gets double crop in video mode. It's hard to work with a 50mm, you need to get quite far with the video crop. Furthermore, if you need to use SR in post production it gets cropped again.

Basically it's much much worse, especially considering that canon for example can use digital zoom for video with no loss using the sensor crop, so you can choose how cropped you want the video, which is just a tiny variation in firmware programming, same as SR activation and such.

If you shot some video you would see.

MrStupid · 11-08-2013, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by lister6520

I'm not understanding why that little cropping is such an issue. I would think all it means is using a slightly shorter focal length and you get anyway the same field of view. Resolution for sure is not an issue as even full HD is way less resolution than what the sensor can give (the image resolution is reduced some 2 to 3 times even if the whole sensor is used)

What am I missing?

Good question. What your missing is very subtle at first but it's about feel.
Think of it this way. Why is there an 85mm(55mm apsc) and a 105mm(70mm apsc) when they're so close.
Back in the day as a Manhattan fashion/beauty photo bum, I used to do a lot of beauty photography, and almost always with a Nikon 105 2.5 (just pushing the limit of up close and personal feel) later with a Pentax 35-105 3.5 @ 105. Sometimes an 85mm for horizontal shots, and rarely but sometimes a 135mm for when you wanted the women to look less touchable.

In the case of the usability of a 28-70 well it's just not as perfect any more. Your gonna have to think when you want to create your 105 look and where 28-70 might have got you through your entire project/film now your a lot more likely to need something wider.

But it does give reason to seek improvement which gives people like grispie something to complain about so that's good.

kenyee · 11-08-2013, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Ayoh

So in video mode we essentially have a 4/3rds, APS-C camera with terrible image quality with stabilization enabled. But it's great because it has a headphone jack! Brilliant design by Pentax engineers.

Arggh...<facepalm>

Does anyone know what the bitrate is yet? At least the GH3 has a high bitrate. I'm beginning to think that for a video DSLR, the best bets are GH3 and Canon...haven't heard much about using Sony DSLRs for video either

grispie · 11-09-2013, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by kenyee

I'm beginning to think that for a video DSLR, the best bets are GH3 and Canon...haven't heard much about using Sony DSLRs for video either

pure video iq wise, gh3 will be better, canon a bit better, yes. but in the case of the gh3 , the crop is even more so. so putting mf lenses on it, is totally changing the feel for those lenses. now that is sthing to complain about. canon, to me, their lenses are too expensive and there is no SR whatsoever, unless you pay the price for it in every lens you buy.

the sonys are great. focus peaking (during rec) , real AF if you want, object tracking, great lenses, SR that shines, video IQ is there, tilt screen, viewfinder can be used during rec....
oh, and a small crop

ps: ayohs comment is oversimplifying and cynical. I can easily make any camera look like crap in that way.

ArneTorp · 11-09-2013, 02:17 AM

I am working in the TV-business here in Norway and the main DSLR used is the Canon 5D - but this is not flawless. The worst thing about this is the codek. As it is good when looking at it it's almost impossible to do any PP because of the heavy compression of the H264. If K3 has some kind of MJPEG it's better either way. Another thing is that none of the professionals use the onboard LCD nor AF. They always uses external LCD with histogram and focus peak and they also disable any OS and uses shoulder rigs and a focus wheel to do it right. The 5D does not have the option to adjust the aperture while recording.

So from what I can read here, the K3 will deliver better video options than the leading camera in the business - apart from the FF. I would love to see this camera in the hands of someone who really know how to use it properly - like the promo from Allen Birnbach. And I would like to hear exactly what codeks you can choose from and how much info you have in PP.

hopsing · 11-09-2013, 03:30 AM

The K-30 and K-3 have H.264 codec too.
K-30: MPEG-4 (Quicktime) AVC(High@L4.0)(CABAC / 2 Ref Frames), 25MBit/s.
The K-3 ..? It will be AVC (High@Level 4.1) to produce Full-HD video with 60/50fps, I'am shure. We will see later ...

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

11-08-2013, 01:51 PM	#361
MrStupid Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Orlando Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 42	Maybe I should follow my own advice in my signature (A picture is worth a thousand words, so shut up.) and ask: Doe's anyone know if the K-3 does this (see photos) like the K-01. #1 K-01 Still #2 K-01 Video #3 K-01 Video frame lined up with Still frame and outlined to show crop. Isn't technology fun.

11-08-2013, 02:12 PM	#362
grispie Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by MrStupid Doe's anyone know if the K-3 does this (see photos) like the K-01. believe so, 99% sure, but i don't have one...

11-08-2013, 02:27 PM	#363
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by MrStupid Doe's anyone know if the K-3 does this (see photos) like the K-01. Yes...

11-08-2013, 02:41 PM	#364
MrStupid Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Orlando Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 42	The good news is you just saved me $1200

11-08-2013, 02:46 PM	#365
MrStupid Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Orlando Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 42	Originally posted by grispie nice video! Thanks!

11-08-2013, 03:00 PM	#366
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by MrStupid The good news is you just saved me $1200 What are you going to get instead?

11-08-2013, 03:13 PM	#367
lister6520 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 733	I'm not understanding why that little cropping is such an issue. I would think all it means is using a slightly shorter focal length and you get anyway the same field of view. Resolution for sure is not an issue as even full HD is way less resolution than what the sensor can give (the image resolution is reduced some 2 to 3 times even if the whole sensor is used) What am I missing?

11-08-2013, 03:18 PM - 1 Like	#368
grispie Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by lister6520 What am I missing? nothing, there is no issue people just need sthing to complain...

11-08-2013, 03:23 PM	#369
MrStupid Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Orlando Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 42	Originally posted by johnmflores What are you going to get instead? I'll just keep the K-01 for film stuff. I've got a few nice old long focus throw lenses that follow nice, I'm a happy guy. Full APSC sensor would be happier but hey.

11-08-2013, 04:01 PM	#370
JohnnyXD Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 93	Originally posted by lister6520 I'm not understanding why that little cropping is such an issue. I would think all it means is using a slightly shorter focal length and you get anyway the same field of view. Resolution for sure is not an issue as even full HD is way less resolution than what the sensor can give (the image resolution is reduced some 2 to 3 times even if the whole sensor is used) What am I missing? Well, APSC is already a cropped sensor, it gets double crop in video mode. It's hard to work with a 50mm, you need to get quite far with the video crop. Furthermore, if you need to use SR in post production it gets cropped again. Basically it's much much worse, especially considering that canon for example can use digital zoom for video with no loss using the sensor crop, so you can choose how cropped you want the video, which is just a tiny variation in firmware programming, same as SR activation and such. If you shot some video you would see.

11-08-2013, 04:23 PM	#371
MrStupid Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Orlando Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 42	Originally posted by lister6520 I'm not understanding why that little cropping is such an issue. I would think all it means is using a slightly shorter focal length and you get anyway the same field of view. Resolution for sure is not an issue as even full HD is way less resolution than what the sensor can give (the image resolution is reduced some 2 to 3 times even if the whole sensor is used) What am I missing? Good question. What your missing is very subtle at first but it's about feel. Think of it this way. Why is there an 85mm(55mm apsc) and a 105mm(70mm apsc) when they're so close. Back in the day as a Manhattan fashion/beauty photo bum, I used to do a lot of beauty photography, and almost always with a Nikon 105 2.5 (just pushing the limit of up close and personal feel) later with a Pentax 35-105 3.5 @ 105. Sometimes an 85mm for horizontal shots, and rarely but sometimes a 135mm for when you wanted the women to look less touchable. In the case of the usability of a 28-70 well it's just not as perfect any more. Your gonna have to think when you want to create your 105 look and where 28-70 might have got you through your entire project/film now your a lot more likely to need something wider. But it does give reason to seek improvement which gives people like grispie something to complain about so that's good.

11-08-2013, 07:24 PM	#372
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by Ayoh So in video mode we essentially have a 4/3rds, APS-C camera with terrible image quality with stabilization enabled. But it's great because it has a headphone jack! Brilliant design by Pentax engineers. Arggh...<facepalm> Does anyone know what the bitrate is yet? At least the GH3 has a high bitrate. I'm beginning to think that for a video DSLR, the best bets are GH3 and Canon...haven't heard much about using Sony DSLRs for video either

11-09-2013, 02:04 AM	#373
grispie Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by kenyee I'm beginning to think that for a video DSLR, the best bets are GH3 and Canon...haven't heard much about using Sony DSLRs for video either pure video iq wise, gh3 will be better, canon a bit better, yes. but in the case of the gh3 , the crop is even more so. so putting mf lenses on it, is totally changing the feel for those lenses. now that is sthing to complain about. canon, to me, their lenses are too expensive and there is no SR whatsoever, unless you pay the price for it in every lens you buy. the sonys are great. focus peaking (during rec) , real AF if you want, object tracking, great lenses, SR that shines, video IQ is there, tilt screen, viewfinder can be used during rec.... oh, and a small crop ps: ayohs comment is oversimplifying and cynical. I can easily make any camera look like crap in that way.

11-09-2013, 02:17 AM	#374
ArneTorp Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Oslo Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 66	I am working in the TV-business here in Norway and the main DSLR used is the Canon 5D - but this is not flawless. The worst thing about this is the codek. As it is good when looking at it it's almost impossible to do any PP because of the heavy compression of the H264. If K3 has some kind of MJPEG it's better either way. Another thing is that none of the professionals use the onboard LCD nor AF. They always uses external LCD with histogram and focus peak and they also disable any OS and uses shoulder rigs and a focus wheel to do it right. The 5D does not have the option to adjust the aperture while recording. So from what I can read here, the K3 will deliver better video options than the leading camera in the business - apart from the FF. I would love to see this camera in the hands of someone who really know how to use it properly - like the promo from Allen Birnbach. And I would like to hear exactly what codeks you can choose from and how much info you have in PP.

11-09-2013, 03:30 AM	#375
hopsing Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 49	The K-30 and K-3 have H.264 codec too. K-30: MPEG-4 (Quicktime) AVC(High@L4.0)(CABAC / 2 Ref Frames), 25MBit/s. The K-3 ..? It will be AVC (High@Level 4.1) to produce Full-HD video with 60/50fps, I'am shure. We will see later ...