[Dave L]

Wow - great test you did here. It really works and you can watch it while compensating
Nice to see it really caught all those nasty roll-backs well - except that very quick one ...
It works ! ... and I know those painfull outtakes of mine by heart. I am amazed it can see
what it has to do: That's fun to watch - interesting work in progress while compensating.

Just what we love - the sharp resolution and the original wider angle - that loose a lot - but
that may be acceptable for some shots you really need - but correct them - if possible.

Powerdirector 12 - Can that be added to Premiere CS6 ?
I didn't look for software like that before ... taht may even be allready included on Premiere ?

P.S. You may leave that video online of course - but please just give it a new title. Thank you !

Thanks and yes, it handled the roll-backs quite well, just with some remaining jello but I didn't mind that in this case. It tries to compensate for camera roll too, not entirely successfully but seems to reduce it in places. You can control the amount of edge cropping by changing the SR strength, which is how I brought all your subtitles back onto the screen and of course, you can apply different settings (or no SR) to each scene.

As kadajawi says, PowerDirector 12 is just the latest version of a consumer video editing programme by Cyberlink:
CyberLink PowerDirector 12 Ultra It isn't perfect and offers less control than Premiere but I never did get on with Premiere anyway and I use workarounds (other programs) for missing features and in cases where it tries to do too much. Of course, it's not the only video editor to offer software shake reduction and even YouTube will do it these days but Youtube tries to do too much in my opinion, so I never use that, it usually makes me feel seasick!

I have updated the video title as requested and the video is Unlisted, so only people with the direct link (such as in this forum) can see it.

@Tom: Powerdirector is probably some editing software like Premiere, just more consumer focused. Just play with the warp stabilizer that's included with Premiere. Electronic SR, regardless of in camera or on the computer, only works with short exposure times. As soon as you get motion blur due to camera shake it's game over. That's where mechanical SR shines.

That's the exact reason why I prefer mechanical SR as in K-7 and K-5, it acts differently from software SR in some conditions and if the results are unsatisfactory, you retain the option of applying software SR on a scene by scene basis in post production. I'm not certain of this, but I assume that in-camera software SR provides less flexibility in that respect and it's why I am disappointed that K-3 doesn't offer both.

[kadajawi]

That's the exact reason why I prefer mechanical SR as in K-7 and K-5, it acts differently from software SR in some conditions and if the results are unsatisfactory, you retain the option of applying software SR on a scene by scene basis in post production. I'm not certain of this, but I assume that in-camera software SR provides less flexibility in that respect and it's why I am disappointed that K-3 doesn't offer both.

Sadly the K-3 SR isn't even accelerometer (?) based, it's a system that analyses the video content. In that regard it isn't any better than what Premiere or even YouTube offer, the only advantage is that it seems to be able to get more resolution to do it. Then again, aparently the camera IS able to record in higher than 1920x1080 resolution (at least the sensor readout), since it has to read the whole sensor first, before it crops. If that is the case, wouldn't it be possible to record at that full resolution? That would be pretty nice. If that were possible with a deactivated electronic SR... you could at least use your computer for better SR. And if you were able to use the mechanic SR system too... at the same time while recording more than FullHD... that would be pretty sweet. Then you could get quite stable video, and have the resolution to stabilize it further. I've used warp stabilizer on my K-5 footage, and the smoothness is ridiculous. Might as well shoot with a dolly or a steadicam.

[kenyee]

That's the exact reason why I prefer mechanical SR as in K-7 and K-5, it acts differently from software SR in some conditions and if the results are unsatisfactory, you retain the option of applying software SR on a scene by scene basis in post production.

Wait, you understand how software SR works, right?
e.g., for 1080p, you actually need more resolution than 1920x1080 so that you can "warp stabilize" by cropping out a 1080p image from something that's larger.

If anything, using mechanical SR would be truncating what you actually want from the 1080p image. So if you want to software SR 720p video from a 1080p stream, you're probably ok, but not if you want stabilized 1080p from 1080p.

That's why I was asking what the actual resolution the K-3 is operating on internally is. I'm assuming it's more than 1080p. And I wish they had some way of outputting it to the SD card we could actually use Warp Stabilizer on it...

[Dave L]

Wait, you understand how software SR works, right?
e.g., for 1080p, you actually need more resolution than 1920x1080 so that you can "warp stabilize" by cropping out a 1080p image from something that's larger.

If anything, using mechanical SR would be truncating what you actually want from the 1080p image. So if you want to software SR 720p video from a 1080p stream, you're probably ok, but not if you want stabilized 1080p from 1080p.

That's why I was asking what the actual resolution the K-3 is operating on internally is. I'm assuming it's more than 1080p. And I wish they had some way of outputting it to the SD card we could actually use Warp Stabilizer on it...

Yes, software SR crops the image but I think mechanical SR doesn't. But mechanical SR might not work as well as software SR under all conditions, which is why I would prefer to record using mechanical SR or no SR, which still leaves the option of applying software SR in post production (at the expense of cropping into the video). But I don't think we are yet certain exactly how Pentax software SR works are we, and if/how it crops? But either way, I'd have liked the option of choosing one or the other type of SR "in-camera" according to my personal preference at the time and after gaining experience with the camera.

On the other hand, if it can be demonstrated that K-3 software SR is under all conditions and in all respects equal to or better than K-5 mechanical SR, I am willing to change my opinion.

[hopsing]

... But I don't think we are yet certain exactly how Pentax software SR works are we, and if/how it crops?...

Hi,
the colored area of the image below shows you the crop of K-30 video area I determined by comparison photo picture and video image sizes - about one aperture loss of DOF.

[TomGarn]

Hi,
the colored area of the image below shows you the crop of K-30 video area I determined
by comparison photo picture and video image sizes - about one aperture loss of DOF.

Ahhh ... good idea !
...
It seems I will change my K-7 to a K-5 (II) soon as possible.
I don't like it too much but I can see the potential and before
getting money for a REAL change I will go on learning with these
two sensor SR's and try to live with that ugly Auto-ISO-shutterspeed.
...

Noise - Question:
Reports and reviews mostly (sometimes) say that the K-5II got lower ISO-noise than K-5
Can anyone say something exact or well-conformed on that possible quality-difference for video ?

Bitrate - Question:
The bitrate for the K-7 with 720p is between 44 to 50 Mbps
What is it for 1080p on the K-5 ?

ND / Grey-filter / Polarizing filter - Question:
To prevent a fast shutter speed at bright light on K-5 and 7 one will need a variable greyfilter,
which basically is a polarized-filter. Is the only difference that you have fixed steps on that variable ND ?
I mean, can I take my polarizing filter just as well ? Who knows ?

[kadajawi]

The 1080p bitrate options are 40, 60 and 80 Mbps. It does vary though, so 80 can mean between 70 and 90 for example.


The hot pixels are an issue, and so is being limited to 25 fps at 1080p. 720p will give you 25 and 30 fps.


Aliasing will also give you a headache, though it does help with focusing (yes, you can actually see the aliasing on the relatively low res screen!).


To be honest if video is your priority, then really just wait for the GH5 (?) launch, at which point GH3 prices should drop (and you will want the GH5). The rumours seem to go towards RAW and/or 4K... get an adapter for your lenses, and perhaps something wide angle meant for the mFT mount (perhaps the kit lens will do?), and you're ready.


A variable ND filter is 2 polarized filters stacked on top of each other. They may be thicker than your variable ND filter though, so when shooting wide angle you may see the corners of the filters. Also I suppose variable ND filters are more user friendly?

[pTom]

@TomGam:
Just check for you with my K-5 :
@ 77 Mbps - MJPG for 1080p/25 (PAL)
@ 45 Mbps for 720p

You will be disappointed with K-5.
Listen to Kajawaki's advice

[TomGarn]

Thanks !
Yes, the only thing better about the K-5 seems to be the full HD resolution.
K-5II is just the same as K-5 in every video-function ? Nobody knows ... ?

I have watched the 720p to be the reason for superimposing a certain pattern
while being scaled up / magnified / to the Full-HD-screen.
So the image of the K-5 looks better, more detailed, and more smooth.
If the K-5 full bitrate really is just as high as the for the K-7 that's good news.

Anything else will just be as poor as for the K-7. I do get that right that nothing is worse ?
Alliasing I have too quite heavily in my K-7 - so that must be same also ... ?

The K-5 can only be a step inbetween Pentax and a Lumix GH3 for example ... yes, I know.
But to get minimal access to a parfocal fast MFT-glass, will be another 700,- € just for one
wide-angle-zoom-lense ... and another 800,- for a fast tele-zoom ... I must earn this first.

With a used K-5(or5II) I can use my old Pentax-glasses. And with adapters I guess not all functions
really get transported towards the MFT-body, I guess. And I would run out of a good wide-angle then.

---

About polarization filter and variable ND-filter I didn't get the difference here, kadajawi.
I got no variable ND filter- but just a pole-filter (two glasses in that as well) You mean
the difference is in userfriendlyness - you are talking about the differentiated steps I guess.
But it sounds as if the principle is just the same ?
And if I buy the right filter I don't think there sholud be anything disturbing in the corners.
Right ?
You wrote:
A variable ND filter is 2 polarized filters stacked on top of each other. They may be thicker than your variable ND filter though,
so when shooting wide angle you may see the corners of the filters. Also I suppose variable ND filters are more user friendly?

[kenyee]

I would prefer to record using mechanical SR or no SR, which still leaves the option of applying software SR in post production (at the expense of cropping into the video).

Sorry...I thought you meant you could fix the mechanical SR jello pan stutter w/ software SR. You could probably crop down to 720p w/o too many issues.
And ditto wishing they had mechanical SR...would be an interesting thing for Adam to ask them if he ever gets another audience w/ their designers...

[kadajawi]

Or quit screwing around with a still camera form factor and get something purpose-built for ultra res video that's available now, like a BMCC, along with a real, robust stabilization system rather than a jury-rigged solution.

I LOVE Pentax DSLRs, but a viable serious video platform they ain't, nor will they ever likely be, given the inherent tradeoffs inherent in what is essentially a "bonus" feature in any high-end enthusiast DSLR. Heck, after the initial 5d2 excitement, the warts of even Canon's vaunted video-capable DSLRs have become increasingly apparent over time, leading to the new focus on dedicated EOS video cams among Canon-oriented pros and other serious videographers.

For me video is just a bit of fun, it's nothing serious at this point. Stills is what I really need. Of course having a better tool for video would be nice, but I wouldn't invest in it.

[kadajawi]

Thanks !
Yes, the only thing better about the K-5 seems to be the full HD resolution.
K-5II is just the same as K-5 in every video-function ? Nobody knows ... ?

I have watched the 720p to be the reason for superimposing a certain pattern
while being scaled up / magnified / to the Full-HD-screen.
So the image of the K-5 looks better, more detailed, and more smooth.
If the K-5 full bitrate really is just as high as the for the K-7 that's good news.

Anything else will just be as poor as for the K-7. I do get that right that nothing is worse ?
Alliasing I have too quite heavily in my K-7 - so that must be same also ... ?

The K-5 can only be a step inbetween Pentax and a Lumix GH3 for example ... yes, I know.
But to get minimal access to a parfocal fast MFT-glass, will be another 700,- € just for one
wide-angle-zoom-lense ... and another 800,- for a fast tele-zoom ... I must earn this first.

With a used K-5(or5II) I can use my old Pentax-glasses. And with adapters I guess not all functions
really get transported towards the MFT-body, I guess. And I would run out of a good wide-angle then.

---

About polarization filter and variable ND-filter I didn't get the difference here, kadajawi.
I got no variable ND filter- but just a pole-filter (two glasses in that as well) You mean
the difference is in userfriendlyness - you are talking about the differentiated steps I guess.
But it sounds as if the principle is just the same ?
And if I buy the right filter I don't think there sholud be anything disturbing in the corners.
Right ?
You wrote:
A variable ND filter is 2 polarized filters stacked on top of each other. They may be thicker than your variable ND filter though,
so when shooting wide angle you may see the corners of the filters. Also I suppose variable ND filters are more user friendly?

I'm not sure about the K-5 and K-5 II being identical... they should be AFAIK, according to what Pentax is supposed to have changed. But... if they actually are...? At this point I'd rather get a K-5 II though, for the better AF. What features would you like to have transported over to the mFT body? The crop is different, that's the major difference. And you will lose AF, not a big deal if you ask me cause the normal CDAF systems are pretty useless with these big sensors (they work, but you can really see them at work. With video cameras it seems less obvious, even though they too use such a system...). Apertures could be an issue, not sure about that. But there are plenty of people using Pentax glass on their Panasonic... basically for video shooting all those automatic features aren't too important.

[TomGarn]

The wobble near the end is quite bad...

Yes, this video is full of wobbles - but why ?

Did he / did you / put SR on while shooting on tripod ?
Is that wobbling the usual jello in this camera ? ... Really ?

I just don't get it why all footage of Pentax K-01/-30/-3 is that unstable.
But I start doubting my own sanity to still ask these things in despair.

And the owner of that camera is even proud on what he got out of it.
So let's just keep quite - we may just be on the wrong marriage here.
I doubt I will get more answers, and: I don't just want be a Ney-sayer.

[kadajawi]

Yes, this video is full of wobbles - but why ?

Did he / did you / put SR on while shooting on tripod ?
Is that wobbling the usual jello in this camera ? ... Really ?

I just don't get it why all footage of Pentax K-01/-30/-3 is that unstable.
But I start doubting my own sanity to still ask these things in despair.

And the owner of that camera is even proud on what he got out of it.
So let's just keep quite - we may just be on the wrong marriage here.
I doubt I will get more answers, and: I don't just want be a Ney-sayer.

I haven't rewatched the video, but sure he used a tripod?


Almost every camera has rolling shutter problems (since most use CMOS now, even dedicated video cameras, and only very few have a global shutter). Usually it is hidden though, either through the whole picture shaking anyway, or through optical/mechanical stabilization. But if you shoot with a K-5 without SR, and then use a computer to stabilize it, you will get bad wobbling.

[commando_aka]