[Steve.Ledger]

There are professionals using the K-01 for video work - a bit surprising, but an indication that it isn't all that bad.

I think it only indicates that some pro's have been curious enough to give the K-01 a go. It's really quite bad for video.

[kadajawi]

I guess it would come down to the kind of shooting you do, and even more so the lenses available to you. My better, faster lenses that are properly set up for video are all MF - and high quality lenses bring out more with focus peaking than a lot of consumer stuff. With my MF-oriented lens arsenal (on the Pentax side), the K-30 and K-01 are superior to the K5 in terms of getting stills keepers. I would much prefer the K5 for video action, but that is a rare need for me. Not sure that if I even had fast, AF lenses suitable for video that I would be shooting AF - unless it was an unusual action scene, and even then it would take a lot of practice to adjust. There are professionals using the K-01 for video work - a bit surprising, but an indication that it isn't all that bad. In my opinion, neither the K5 nor the K-01 are up to broadcast quality, but both would be adequate for industrial video work (low end pro).

Those MF lenses are best for video. AF rarely ever works, and the Pentax implementation is useless anyway. MF lenses are what you'd want for video, cause they are so buttery smooth when focusing, and it is easier to get the focus right.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I think it only indicates that some pro's have been curious enough to give the K-01 a go. It's really quite bad for video.

Just as an example, all Benjamin Kanarek videos in recent years have been shot with the K-01 (as he indicated in a recent post at the other forum). His clients are major fashion magazines, and his primary focus is stills. It is surprising, but this guy clearly is in the upper tier in his field, so I wouldn't say he is making a mistake if he's putting out quality. Once again, it comes down more to technique than equipment (although I agree that video is greater variable than stills in that regard).

Videos , Benjamin Kanarek

[Steve.Ledger]

I don't think I said or even implied it was a mistake for 'pros' to use a K-01 for video recording did I?
I agree that for short 'arty' clips combined in a short fashion production, a K-01 might produce the sort of video that fits the style. Doesn't make it a good camera for general video use by general owners though.

[osv]

Certainly not the superior bitrates

they use totally different codecs, so that statement is not valid; bitrate can't be used as basis for comparison between the k01 and the k-3.

got to agree with the sr situation, tho, after seeing that video of the k-3 lense following the keyboard

[osv]

I don't think I said or even implied it was a mistake for 'pros' to use a K-01 for video recording did I?
I agree that for short 'arty' clips combined in a short fashion production, a K-01 might produce the sort of video that fits the style. Doesn't make it a good camera for general video use by general owners though.

without being able to use sr or autofocus when shooting video, the k-3 wouldn't make a good video camera for newbies who don't want to make an effort to learn how to shoot video in film-style mode.

that's not relevant to how long the finished production is.

you don't automatically become a good videographer just because you know how to shoot stills... it's totally different, the video part has to be learned from scratch, just like the photography part had to be learned from scratch.

once you learn how to shoot the video, and learn how to edit it as well, you are still faced with learning how to compress it.

not to pick on kadajawi as an example, it's a learning process for all of us, I went through it as well... you can't compare different codecs using bitrates, you can't make multiple separate re-encoding passes through the video, you shouldn't shoot/present using 24fps for action stuff like parkour, you should always use two-pass encoding if you are serious, etc.

good compressionists are artists in their own right.

[Steve.Ledger]

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about what you think I said there, not to mention being somewhat condescending.
I'll unsubscribe from this thread now because it's just getting filled with bloviation, ultracrepidarianism and nonsense.

[Class A]

Just as an example, all Benjamin Kanarek videos in recent years have been shot with the K-01 (as he indicated in a recent post at the other forum).

You cannot use him as an example to give credence to the quality of a tool because by his own account he had been using inadequate equipment (Pentax cameras that cannot focus) for over five years without noticing problems or switching to a better tool. He needed a retoucher to point out to him that his images are flawed. Only recently he switched to Nikon and now gets sharp images.

[kadajawi]

without being able to use sr or autofocus when shooting video, the k-3 wouldn't make a good video camera for newbies who don't want to make an effort to learn how to shoot video in film-style mode.

that's not relevant to how long the finished production is.

you don't automatically become a good videographer just because you know how to shoot stills... it's totally different, the video part has to be learned from scratch, just like the photography part had to be learned from scratch.

once you learn how to shoot the video, and learn how to edit it as well, you are still faced with learning how to compress it.

not to pick on kadajawi as an example, it's a learning process for all of us, I went through it as well... you can't compare different codecs using bitrates, you can't make multiple separate re-encoding passes through the video, you shouldn't shoot/present using 24fps for action stuff like parkour, you should always use two-pass encoding if you are serious, etc.

good compressionists are artists in their own right.

If you do shoot with all the stabilizing gear there is... why not use a GH3 or a Canon? The K-3 would perform well of course, but the more popular cameras for this purpose are better. And there is no advantage for the Pentax. The SR gave it a unique advantage.

Saving Private Ryan was shot at 24p. Banlieue (?) 13 was probably shot at 24p. Mostly because cinema doesn't have more, but it shows it can be done.

As for compression... I didn't want to compare K-01 and K-3 based on the bitrate, what I probably meant to say was the K-3 needs higher bitrates. The encoder it uses just isn't efficient enough. I do think I know a bit about encoding, more than I do about editing. I disagree with two pass encoding, the only time you need it is if you want to get it into a certain bitrate. But since I only encode for PC playback and can demand fast computers to play them back I use CRF. That way I can ensure good quality without wasting space on shots that don't need them.

[benjikan]

Just as an example, all Benjamin Kanarek videos in recent years have been shot with the K-01 (as he indicated in a recent post at the other forum). His clients are major fashion magazines, and his primary focus is stills. It is surprising, but this guy clearly is in the upper tier in his field, so I wouldn't say he is making a mistake if he's putting out quality. Once again, it comes down more to technique than equipment (although I agree that video is greater variable than stills in that regard).

Videos , Benjamin Kanarek

We just won the Silver Medal for Best Video of the Year shot with the Pentax K-01

Here it is: silver medal best fashion video frederique renaut benjamin kanarek fashion magazine 2013 Canadian Online Publishing Awards | Benjamin Kanarek Blog

Best
Ben

[kenyee]

without being able to use sr or autofocus when shooting video, the k-3 wouldn't make a good video camera for newbies who don't want to make an effort to learn how to shoot video in film-style mode.

I'd argue that most DSLRs are not for noobs who want this...they're better off w/ camcorders...or they'll most likely use their smartphones

[TomGarn]

I'd argue that most DSLRs are not for noobs who want this...they're better off w/ camcorders...or they'll most likely use their smartphones

Yes, this is all about marketing. What do my customers want me to do on that new camera ?
Those brands that know their customers want more ... have to find ways ... But with Pentax up to now
we only have a few idealists who want to reach stars with a Pentax - and do low budget broadcasting or art - maybe.

You cannot use him as an example to give credence to the quality of a tool because by his own account he had been using inadequate equipment (Pentax cameras that cannot focus) for over five years without noticing problems or switching to a better tool. He needed a retoucher to point out to him that his images are flawed. Only recently he switched to Nikon and now gets sharp images.

That's a funny story.
Just imagine that one is true !

Btw.: 24 fps ...
To me this is still a mystery and a believe - nothing (much) more.
Up to now I only understand that because you may add video to a movie, then you need those 24 fps for synchronicity
But in terms of quality 25p must be just 1/24 times better than 24p - nothing else - so why throw any interests on 24fps ?

I guess the industry only developped higher bitrates for 24p just to please those who think 24fps might be a great tool,
and those fans do believe it looks more like film ... so the industry followed just to catch customers who dream on that ?
But in fact 24 is just one frame less than 25 and makes almost no difference at all ... Oh, I come from a 25 Hertz-Country !

This, my comment about my 25 Hertz- and 25 fps-country created the idea now, that those 24fps fans want the stuttering
effect of a movie because with their ususal 30 fps they are far more away from it ? For those used to 25 fps here 24 fps
is no big deal and difference. Those 6 pictures less may of course create a bigger DOF and need less lightening, OK.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

[osv]

We just won the Silver Medal for Best Video of the Year shot with the Pentax K-01

Here it is: silver medal best fashion video frederique renaut benjamin kanarek fashion magazine 2013 Canadian Online Publishing Awards | Benjamin Kanarek Blog

good compression technique on that video, look how sharp the credit roll at the end is, even at 720p.

shoot the footage at 50p/60p, and lets see what the slo-mo looks like.

nice work!

[osv]

I'd argue that most DSLRs are not for noobs who want this...they're better off w/ camcorders...or they'll most likely use their smartphones

this ^^^

kadajawi, thanks for pointing out crf again, It appears to be used by the x264 encoder only(?), it's not something that I've seen in vegas, premiere, procoder, squeeze, etc.

the problem with using an external encoding tool is that the editing program has to have frame serving capability, that allows it to output directly to the external application, in real time... both apps running at the same time.

otherwise, you have to spit out a huge lossless or semi-lossless file from the editor, and open that file up in the external encoding app... that can work, it's just a very inefficient workflow, and you'd have to evaluate the results to see if it's worthwhile.

I have used both of those methods in the past... when I looked at the x264 encoder years ago, the quality basically sucked, but I think that it's probably improved a whole lot since then.

[TomGarn]

Quote:
We just won the Silver Medal for Best Video of the Year shot with the Pentax K-01
(silver medal best fashion video frederique renaut benjamin kanarek fashion magazine 2013
Canadian Online Publishing Awards | Benjamin Kanarek Blog)

good compression technique on that video, look how sharp the credit roll at the end is, even at 720p.
shoot the footage at 50p/60p, and lets see what the slo-mo looks like. nice work!

Yes, when grading that much ... no good camera is needed
It's all done and rounded up artistically in the editing room.
Good job !

But watch on minute 0:30 ... I saw that terrible effect in his other video as well.
That seems to be that stupid AF or is it the digital SR ?

It almost all gets hidden by those effects ... it simply gets camouflaged.
Great job to hide a bad camera .. so it is good enough for this kind of video.

(But I still don't like that poor IQ)