What's The Verdict On Video...

CDW · 02-28-2014, 09:55 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by PiDicus Rex

I can see it being the replacement in homes for Blu-Ray, but I don't see it being picked up for broadcast (DVT or Cable) anytime soon - SD and HD ( 720x520 and 1440x1080 / rectangular pixels ) take up huge bandwidth already, 4K would eat several current channels for a single 4K channel, and broadcasters want to maximise the number of channels, and the number of places they can put ad-breaks, so maximise the income they generate.

Personally, I think HD will stay to top of DTV and Cable for a long while yet, and 4K, and then 8K, will become Digital Cinema acquisition formats, and low volume distribution.

A lot of cinema chains are still gearing up to digital projection at HD and 4K, they won't want to be paying out for 8K projectors for a long time yet.

The majority of cinemas in the US have or are in the process of converting to digital projection. 720 and 1080 will likely remain the standards for over the air DTV for the near future as the ATSC standards don't include an over the air standard for 1080P, only 1080i. Don't under estimate players in the cable and satellite market who like to shake things up. Charlie Ergen, DISH Network, as an example, was the first satellite provider to introduce 1080P PPV. He could easily give up a few non-essential channels to introduce a 4K service. Mark Cuban is another example of an individual who stepped in and created one of the very first HD channels on satellite and cable, HDNet, simply because of his belief in HD at a time when commercial broadcasters and station owners were trying to kill it or delay it... FOX along with Sinclair Broadcasting being prime examples.

tabl10s · 02-28-2014, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by CDW

FWIW, I originally selected an M41 as an inexpensive camcorder solution for my style of video shooting. I don't make 'films' and in fact, I personally dislike the so-called film look (24fps). I fully understand the depth of field issue. Again, it is of no interest to me. The M41 has a native 2K pixel wide sensor of reasonable size and it performs respectably well in low light.

I can't stand the "Soap opera" effect(120/240hz)of modern TV and video games. 24fps has it's place.

CDW · 02-28-2014, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by tabl10s

I can't stand the "Soap opera" effect(120/240hz)of modern TV and video games. 24fps has it's place.

To each his/her own. The truth is that 24fps wound up as standard because early frame rates were too slow to support optical audio tracks with the introduction of 'talkies', and has remained as a standard that some see as enhancing cinema 'art' and others (myself included) see as archaic and backward. 24fps certainly doesn't enhance documentaries or news coverage when immediacy/realism is the intent.

kadajawi · 02-28-2014, 09:29 PM

Don't forget that 4K will be rolled out with h265, which should give a decent reduction in size. There may be higher bandwidth requirements, but they won't be so much higher. Of course, new set top boxes etc. are needed for that, or newer TVs (that haven't arrived yet).

Also, don't forget that at least in Europe and SE Asia people had cameras capable of recording 1080i/1080p long before they had it over the telly or on a disc... in fact many still use SDTV sources and DVD players with their HDTVs, even though everyones phone probably already records in FullHD. I guess it will be the same with 4K, people will be able to produce 4K content long before they can watch professionally produced 4K content.

4K is a buzz word that camera makers probably think will have to be on the box. Just like every camera needs to have 1080p printed on it these days, no matter how useless or useful it actually is.

As for 24p or higher frame rates... 24p creates a suspension of disbelief, which allows movies to work. If you increase the frame rate, it will look more real. Until you either a) get such a sharp picture during movements due to high shutter speeds that you would not get if you followed the scene live, with your eyes or b) notice that the dwarves are just men wearing some rubber prosthetics, and the rocks are really just foam and plastic etc. Creating a movie that will actually look and feel real and that lets you immerse yourself in the scene is probably possible, but it will be so much harder. I also feel that movements, especially camera movements feel way faster at 48 fps than at 24 fps. It requires an entirely different way of filmmaking, pacing etc. Filmmakers know how to shoot 24p. But 48p? I mean, if Peter Jackson, with his hundreds of millions, couldn't pull it off, then it seems to be really quite a challenge.

IMHO 48p etc. only have a place (for the moment) for documentaries or movies that are very close to reality, i.e. playing in the actors actual house, as it is. Something like the Dogme 95 movies. Where you want it to feel extremely real, and can actually pull it off, because basically it is.

@Stagnant: Not sure if it is because of flickr, but that looks awful.

Last edited by kadajawi; 02-28-2014 at 09:39 PM.

Steve.Ledger · 03-01-2014, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

@Stagnant: Not sure if it is because of flickr, but that looks awful.

Did you hit the HD icon bottom right?
Looked typical K-01 to me.

kadajawi · 03-01-2014, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Steve.Ledger

Did you hit the HD icon bottom right?
Looked typical K-01 to me.

I did. I think the bitrate is waaaaay too low, I get massive blocking (if I click HD then it gets worse, lower resolution, so I guess it was HD already). The blocking seems to lead to something that looks like aliasing to me... it's all quite weird.

Steve.Ledger · 03-01-2014, 04:11 AM

Yes, that water movement get's a little blocky at times, the only way the K-01 can keep up.
If Stagnant feels the K-3 is not better, then I'm definitely skipping the upgrade, I personally don't need anything better than the K-7 and K-01 for stills.

kadajawi · 03-01-2014, 04:39 AM

If THAT is how bad the actual video looked like, then... oh my god. Cause not only the water got blocky, the ship itself too. It looks like massive aliasing.

Stagnant · 03-01-2014, 02:46 PM

I can upload a short clip to exclude possible degradation by the flick and youtube.

Steve.Ledger · 03-01-2014, 04:58 PM

Sure, why not - thanks.
I did try flickr for a couple of my vids but felt they got a little soft and playback wasn't as smooth.

PiDicus Rex · 03-02-2014, 12:45 AM

Stagnant - Try Vimeo and enable the download of the original files.

kadajawi · 03-02-2014, 03:02 AM

Hm. Don't you have to pay for that option, or do I have to pay to be able to download? I believe there was something like that.

Dropbox, Mediafire etc. would be an option. I'd like to see a K-3 clip, interlaced, maybe 10 seconds long. That would be great.

PiDicus Rex · 03-02-2014, 07:12 AM

Paid on Vimeo for downloads? Not sure to be honest - just noted there's often a Downloads option for a lot of industry bods.

Water,.. Ripples of waves,.. That is the sort of thing that requires a lot of any Inter-Frame CoDec, as there is so much changing from frame to frame that not much can be copied down the GOP sequence.

On h.264 you need something like the All I-Frame option in the Canon's to get it compressed with the least amount of artifacts.

Mjpeg doesn't have that issue, so long as the data rate is high enough to avoid errors within each frame. Neither do Wavelet Compressed CoDecs like Red Raw, and other high-bandwidth Intra-Frame compression methods.

Harking back to the firmware in the K-01, there was a fair difference in the v1.03 and v1.04 versions, regarding the way it dealt with similarly complex levels of movement - rain on windows and in puddles, water in showers and splashing about in basins ( I've done a few home tests.... )

I would hope the K3 would have the same way of dealing with it as the v1.04 firmware.

Stagnant · 03-02-2014, 07:42 AM

A Short clip from that K-01 video I uploaded.

PiDicus Rex · 03-02-2014, 12:07 PM

Woah,... Yeah, Google/Youtube compression bites on that - I used Firefox's "Download them all" add-on to save the video, so I could open it in Quicktime and use the Movie Inspector,..

That showed me the online version of the file 4.6Mb file has a datarate of 1.2mbits/sec, that's 1/10th the datarate the K-01 shoots at, so for sure the online video file is going to show a shedload of distortions.

I had a look for some sample shots, edited a quick n dirty video together, will upload to vimeo and see how that compares for compression.
Link will come once upload done.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's on film vs what's in the 'print'	Nesster	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	18	01-01-2014 04:04 AM
D800 guys / gals...what is the verdict?	slackercruster	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	56	07-03-2012 10:30 PM
What's the verdict on the 18-135?	climbertrev	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	02-15-2012 06:11 AM
What's the hands-on verdict - K-7 vs. K20D AF?	emr	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	05-25-2009 06:45 AM
got the 18-250/AG360FGZ's and a new FA50 1.4... verdict? passing on the 50-135 was a	123K10D	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	12-05-2007 07:51 AM

02-28-2014, 09:55 AM - 1 Like	#181
CDW Site Supporter Join Date: May 2011 Location: Big Island, Hawaii & Utah Posts: 457	Originally posted by PiDicus Rex I can see it being the replacement in homes for Blu-Ray, but I don't see it being picked up for broadcast (DVT or Cable) anytime soon - SD and HD ( 720x520 and 1440x1080 / rectangular pixels ) take up huge bandwidth already, 4K would eat several current channels for a single 4K channel, and broadcasters want to maximise the number of channels, and the number of places they can put ad-breaks, so maximise the income they generate. Personally, I think HD will stay to top of DTV and Cable for a long while yet, and 4K, and then 8K, will become Digital Cinema acquisition formats, and low volume distribution. A lot of cinema chains are still gearing up to digital projection at HD and 4K, they won't want to be paying out for 8K projectors for a long time yet. The majority of cinemas in the US have or are in the process of converting to digital projection. 720 and 1080 will likely remain the standards for over the air DTV for the near future as the ATSC standards don't include an over the air standard for 1080P, only 1080i. Don't under estimate players in the cable and satellite market who like to shake things up. Charlie Ergen, DISH Network, as an example, was the first satellite provider to introduce 1080P PPV. He could easily give up a few non-essential channels to introduce a 4K service. Mark Cuban is another example of an individual who stepped in and created one of the very first HD channels on satellite and cable, HDNet, simply because of his belief in HD at a time when commercial broadcasters and station owners were trying to kill it or delay it... FOX along with Sinclair Broadcasting being prime examples.

02-28-2014, 03:39 PM	#182
tabl10s Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Sacramento(formerly from B'Ham, England). Posts: 1,424 Original Poster	Originally posted by CDW FWIW, I originally selected an M41 as an inexpensive camcorder solution for my style of video shooting. I don't make 'films' and in fact, I personally dislike the so-called film look (24fps). I fully understand the depth of field issue. Again, it is of no interest to me. The M41 has a native 2K pixel wide sensor of reasonable size and it performs respectably well in low light. I can't stand the "Soap opera" effect(120/240hz)of modern TV and video games. 24fps has it's place.

02-28-2014, 05:47 PM	#183
CDW Site Supporter Join Date: May 2011 Location: Big Island, Hawaii & Utah Posts: 457	Originally posted by tabl10s I can't stand the "Soap opera" effect(120/240hz)of modern TV and video games. 24fps has it's place. To each his/her own. The truth is that 24fps wound up as standard because early frame rates were too slow to support optical audio tracks with the introduction of 'talkies', and has remained as a standard that some see as enhancing cinema 'art' and others (myself included) see as archaic and backward. 24fps certainly doesn't enhance documentaries or news coverage when immediacy/realism is the intent.

02-28-2014, 09:29 PM	#184
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Don't forget that 4K will be rolled out with h265, which should give a decent reduction in size. There may be higher bandwidth requirements, but they won't be so much higher. Of course, new set top boxes etc. are needed for that, or newer TVs (that haven't arrived yet). Also, don't forget that at least in Europe and SE Asia people had cameras capable of recording 1080i/1080p long before they had it over the telly or on a disc... in fact many still use SDTV sources and DVD players with their HDTVs, even though everyones phone probably already records in FullHD. I guess it will be the same with 4K, people will be able to produce 4K content long before they can watch professionally produced 4K content. 4K is a buzz word that camera makers probably think will have to be on the box. Just like every camera needs to have 1080p printed on it these days, no matter how useless or useful it actually is. As for 24p or higher frame rates... 24p creates a suspension of disbelief, which allows movies to work. If you increase the frame rate, it will look more real. Until you either a) get such a sharp picture during movements due to high shutter speeds that you would not get if you followed the scene live, with your eyes or b) notice that the dwarves are just men wearing some rubber prosthetics, and the rocks are really just foam and plastic etc. Creating a movie that will actually look and feel real and that lets you immerse yourself in the scene is probably possible, but it will be so much harder. I also feel that movements, especially camera movements feel way faster at 48 fps than at 24 fps. It requires an entirely different way of filmmaking, pacing etc. Filmmakers know how to shoot 24p. But 48p? I mean, if Peter Jackson, with his hundreds of millions, couldn't pull it off, then it seems to be really quite a challenge. IMHO 48p etc. only have a place (for the moment) for documentaries or movies that are very close to reality, i.e. playing in the actors actual house, as it is. Something like the Dogme 95 movies. Where you want it to feel extremely real, and can actually pull it off, because basically it is. @Stagnant: Not sure if it is because of flickr, but that looks awful. Last edited by kadajawi; 02-28-2014 at 09:39 PM.

03-01-2014, 12:35 AM	#185
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Originally posted by kadajawi @Stagnant: Not sure if it is because of flickr, but that looks awful. Did you hit the HD icon bottom right? Looked typical K-01 to me.

03-01-2014, 01:33 AM	#186
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by Steve.Ledger Did you hit the HD icon bottom right? Looked typical K-01 to me. I did. I think the bitrate is waaaaay too low, I get massive blocking (if I click HD then it gets worse, lower resolution, so I guess it was HD already). The blocking seems to lead to something that looks like aliasing to me... it's all quite weird.

03-01-2014, 04:11 AM	#187
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Yes, that water movement get's a little blocky at times, the only way the K-01 can keep up. If Stagnant feels the K-3 is not better, then I'm definitely skipping the upgrade, I personally don't need anything better than the K-7 and K-01 for stills.

03-01-2014, 04:39 AM	#188
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	If THAT is how bad the actual video looked like, then... oh my god. Cause not only the water got blocky, the ship itself too. It looks like massive aliasing.

03-01-2014, 02:46 PM	#189
Stagnant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	I can upload a short clip to exclude possible degradation by the flick and youtube.

03-01-2014, 04:58 PM	#190
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Sure, why not - thanks. I did try flickr for a couple of my vids but felt they got a little soft and playback wasn't as smooth.

03-02-2014, 12:45 AM	#191
PiDicus Rex Veteran Member Join Date: May 2013 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,381	Stagnant - Try Vimeo and enable the download of the original files.

03-02-2014, 03:02 AM	#192
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Hm. Don't you have to pay for that option, or do I have to pay to be able to download? I believe there was something like that. Dropbox, Mediafire etc. would be an option. I'd like to see a K-3 clip, interlaced, maybe 10 seconds long. That would be great.

03-02-2014, 07:12 AM	#193
PiDicus Rex Veteran Member Join Date: May 2013 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,381	Paid on Vimeo for downloads? Not sure to be honest - just noted there's often a Downloads option for a lot of industry bods. Water,.. Ripples of waves,.. That is the sort of thing that requires a lot of any Inter-Frame CoDec, as there is so much changing from frame to frame that not much can be copied down the GOP sequence. On h.264 you need something like the All I-Frame option in the Canon's to get it compressed with the least amount of artifacts. Mjpeg doesn't have that issue, so long as the data rate is high enough to avoid errors within each frame. Neither do Wavelet Compressed CoDecs like Red Raw, and other high-bandwidth Intra-Frame compression methods. Harking back to the firmware in the K-01, there was a fair difference in the v1.03 and v1.04 versions, regarding the way it dealt with similarly complex levels of movement - rain on windows and in puddles, water in showers and splashing about in basins ( I've done a few home tests.... ) I would hope the K3 would have the same way of dealing with it as the v1.04 firmware.

03-02-2014, 07:42 AM	#194
Stagnant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	A Short clip from that K-01 video I uploaded.

03-02-2014, 12:07 PM	#195
PiDicus Rex Veteran Member Join Date: May 2013 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,381	Woah,... Yeah, Google/Youtube compression bites on that - I used Firefox's "Download them all" add-on to save the video, so I could open it in Quicktime and use the Movie Inspector,.. That showed me the online version of the file 4.6Mb file has a datarate of 1.2mbits/sec, that's 1/10th the datarate the K-01 shoots at, so for sure the online video file is going to show a shedload of distortions. I had a look for some sample shots, edited a quick n dirty video together, will upload to vimeo and see how that compares for compression. Link will come once upload done.