Originally posted by Stagnant It seems, that K-3 captures movement more smoothly than K-01, although it is really hard to compare, unless you shoot the same scene with two cams simultaneously.
Isn't that more the result of 24 fps vs the higher frame rates you used with the K-3?
Thanks! The codec is really not good in the K-01. I have NEVER seen my K-5 give me results that are so bad. Walking through a forest, filming from a ferry, ... never.
@PiDicus Rex: Actually if the encoder is good you could have a keyframe every 1000 frames, and you would not see it. All you'd get is smaller files. All I frames will only require even higher bitrates to not have the blocking issues. The main advantage is that it makes it much easier to edit, you won't have any problems when seeking, and the load on the CPU will be small. Though if the encoder is bad I guess I frames only can help.
The bitrates are simply too low for that implementation of h264.
I guess the K-3 at least has a better encoder, even if the bitrates aren't significantly higher.
@coboren3: Is it the K-3 or K-01? Then yes, jello is reduced when SR is turned off. Though if you walk or use a very long lens then you should see jello again. Just not as pronounced. The K-5 will perform similarly with SR off, but activating SR will remove basically all the jello. That's the difference between an electronic SR and a mechanical SR.
At this point I'd really like to know (again) what Pentax was thinking. Higher bitrates? I doubt that would be hard to implement. Activate mechanical SR? Also not such a big deal. The hardware is there, the software too. Why Pentax, why? Maybe they have a deal with Sony to produce crippled video functionality in exchange for sensors...