[Stagnant]

I posted the sample to google drive, for it to become downloadable. It was not intended to be streamed.

[Steve.Ledger]

@Stagnant: Thanks
I don't see a lot of difference between the Flickr version and the 67Mb downloaded .MOV original from Gdrive. (I can't download the full sized video from Flickr to check encoding changes)
What I do see is 'over-sharpening' of the original and still blocks appearing in the water movement. The aliasing is still bad. Typical of a K-01 flick imo.

General
Complete name : IMGP7192.MOV
Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : QuickTime
Codec ID : qt
File size : 67.0 MiB
Duration : 30s 30ms
Overall bit rate : 18.7 Mbps
Encoded date : UTC 2014-03-02 17:30:23
Tagged date : UTC 2014-03-02 17:30:23

Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L4.0
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
Format settings, GOP : M=1, N=12
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 30s 30ms
Bit rate : 18.7 Mbps
Width : 1 920 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 23.976 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.376
Stream size : 66.9 MiB (100%)
Language : English
Encoded date : UTC 2014-03-02 17:30:23
Tagged date : UTC 2014-03-02 17:30:23

[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.

[coboren3]

I found that if you turn off the Shake Reduction off, the Jello effect stops... also a tripod with a friction head for smooth pan/tilt is a good idea.

[kadajawi]

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...

[PiDicus Rex]

So, the smallest I could make an edited sequence was close to 200Mb,.. so I uploaded a smaller camera file instead, to show the way the K-01 deals with water,.. and Vimeo shrunk the damn thing from the original 720/50fps file down to an SD clip.

So now to download and compare...

Edit: Bwahahahahaha,..... Vimeo didn't handle the data rate all that well,....




Stagnant - I didn't see a download link,... but that could be from doing stuff at 2 in the morning....

[Steve.Ledger]

It's hidden under the downwards pointing arrow. Takes you to a new page for downloading.

---

Last edited by Steve.Ledger; 08-10-2014 at 10:12 PM.

[kadajawi]

So, the smallest I could make an edited sequence was close to 200Mb,.. so I uploaded a smaller camera file instead, to show the way the K-01 deals with water,.. and Vimeo shrunk the damn thing from the original 720/50fps file down to an SD clip.

So now to download and compare...

Edit: Bwahahahahaha,..... Vimeo didn't handle the data rate all that well,....




Stagnant - I didn't see a download link,... but that could be from doing stuff at 2 in the morning....

Hahaha, I can only download a 640x360 file at Vimeo.

Ok, so I tried the Google Drive method. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B26uSljVPN-NODhlOFZrVV84ZTA&usp=sharing When you click on a video there should be a button in the lower right corner of the browser with an arrow on it. That will let you download the original file.

Found plenty of samples for lots of motion, feel free to download them all. 13-11-20 11-45-36 IMGP4910 is the one I uploaded some time ago on YouTube to demonstrate the SR, but which looked awful cause of YouTube ruining it.

The samples are usually captured at 1080p 2 stars only, so around 60 Mbps MJPEG (otherwise memory cards would be a huge issue...). I've compressed them using x264, my highest bitrate file (not uploaded here, cause it is quite long and thus big) has 23 Mbps. As I said before, h264 CAN deliver wonderful quality at relatively low bitrates, I'd say 24-30 Mbps is all you'd ever need, it's hard to produce anything that needs more than that. IF you make full use of the codec. h265 will be even better, eventually. The good news is that the h264 encoders in these cameras are getting better and better. If you are using all i frames though you'll need much higher bitrates, probably getting closer to MJPEG in order to get good quality.

I think Google Drive is the best way to share the original files, if you have a Google account. The uploader works well, and you can get a nice YouTube like preview and original files.

[Steve.Ledger]

I think Google Drive is the best way to share the original files, if you have a Google account. The uploader works well, and you can get a nice YouTube like preview and original files.

I agree, I like gdrive for this too.
Your K-5 samples are way better than the K-01 can shoot. But the .mp4 downloads aren't the originals are they?

[kadajawi]

I agree, I like gdrive for this too.
Your K-5 samples are way better than the K-01 can shoot. But the .mp4 downloads aren't the originals are they?

They aren't. For archival purposes I simply can't keep the original MJPEG files. The quality is quite close though, should be good enough if I want to edit them in future. Except for processing speed I noticed little difference.

I've got a 4.5 GHz i5 compressing them at 0.7-1 fps, but it's worth it. You don't need high bitrates for h264, if you have enough processing power to encode it.

[Steve.Ledger]

What a shame they [what amounts to] ruined the video with the K-3, held so much promise for those who are interested in DSLR videography.
The silence from PR is deafening.

[PiDicus Rex]

Right-Oh, downloaded the ship backing out from the dock.

The macro-blocking in the wave ripples is typical of every low data-rate camera IMHO, not unexpected at all, and certainly no better or worse then then I've seen with Canon's and Nikons and Sony's shooting the same sort of scene.

Stagnant: Which firmware does your camera have installed? & what was the Sharpness setting?

To my eyes, the jaggies around the railings on the ship, and the edge detail of the Bridge, paint edges, and Radar equipment is more of an issue then the blocking in the waves, as it suggests lines of picture information are being thrown away, rather then being processed in to the 1080 image.

[Steve.Ledger]

'than'

[PiDicus Rex]

Colon capital P, Colon capital D

[PiDicus Rex]

Aahhh, guys,... I don't think we've got much reason to complain,....

Blackmagic Forum • View topic - BMPCC Hot Pixels

I just did the test described here at all the K-01's video ISO rates, no stuck pixels.