[PiDicus Rex]

Fuent104: Five year old Canon,... Hrm, maybe once Magic Lantern has been installed,... or maybe I can steal a mates D600 when it's got an Atomos recorder mounted on top

Derwin: yuuuuup. Heap of those items are in the Firmware thread I started about this time in 2013.
Tell us more about this boot loader - I has a mate,.. with a K30.

[Usuqa]

The 645z makes no sense for video.. while it has a larger sensor than a FF camera a lot of that is in height going from 3:2 crop to 4:3.

There's an image on here.. http://wolfcrow.com/blog/the-pentax-645z-the-first-medium-format-camera-to-shoot-video/

By the time you chop off the top and bottom of the 4:3 sensor to get 16:9 the actually area isn't really much larger than a FF sensor, couple that with f2.8 lens being the fastest and the crazy price your as well to grab a sony a7s and some fast glass and depending on the lens you might even be able to use a speed booster to good effect to get even shallower dof/wider fov.

I would love a 645z though.

[CDW]

I've long ago given up on Pentax for providing for my video needs. I love my K3 and 645D but the idea of putting crippled 1080P capture capability in the 645Z is ludicrous and likely will be a negative detraction from the still capture capability of the camera.

The idea of having a universal camera that meets all my needs will never happen. I just purchased a GH4 for video only. I'd have to say it's still performance is very ordinary and doesn't come close to what I enjoyed from my K01 and K5 (no longer owned) much less my K3. But in terms of the 4K video and the codec options....WOW. The GH4 puts Pentax, Nikon and Canon so far behind the curve in terms of video capabilities in a consumer DSLR/mirrorless body, I would guess it may take two more model cycles before they catch up, if then, because Panasonic will be refining what they're learning in feedback from GH4 customers. Like others here, I have doubts Pentax will ever get their video act together. Like Nikon, they're primarily a still camera company. Canon certainly could get back in the game and SONY is close to Panasonic in 4K offerings.

If you wonder why you should bother with 4K, here's a link that explains why 4K viewed on a 2K monitor looks better than native 2K.

Why 4K Video looks better on 1080 (or less) monitors

[richandfleur]

If you wonder why you should bother with 4K,

Plus all the post cropping benefits you get with this, just like with higher res stills.
I mention that as so many people don't get that all the stills considerations still apply with video work also


Fully agree with your comments above mate, though I had always hoped (for my wallet mostly) that I could combine the two. And I'd prefer that to be Pentax based if possible...

[kadajawi]

that is actually a CMOS sensor issue - with their rolling shutters it is impossible to eliminate, until they devise a practical way of implementing global shutters which give superior results when used for video footage.

There are CMOS sensors with global shutter, however they are useless above ISO 400 or ISO 800.


The problem is the movie SR is digital, and it amplifies the jello effect.


PiDicus Rex, I disagree. 4K is around 8 MP? 8 MP out of a 50 MP sensor means only a small area of the sensor is used. It'd mean a huge crop. I'd apply for that job too.


Getting good video out of that sensor seems rather impossible, because that would involve pixel binning, which means having to read the whole sensor. Which I doubt is possible fast enough, without having too much rolling shutter. Really you should see this as an afterthought, as the camera won't be very light sensitive for video, there'll be massive amounts of moire and aliasing, and all of that with razor thin DoF, making focusing very critical. And probably the DoF is too small, and stopping down would be a problem with the lack of light sensitivity (small pixels).


Someone might have thought at Sony it's nice to have liveview in a studio environment, so art director etc. can stand around a big monitor showing a live image of what is happening. And Pentax might use the same processor as always, and thought if the sensor can do video, and the processor too, just activate the function. Not much effort. (Saving effort seems to be a common theme when it comes to video functionality at Pentax).


What Pentax really needs to do is give the Magic Lantern guys a K-3 each, and full access to the firmware/source code. Let them modify/write a firmware that is video oriented. Pentax could offer it as a firmware available to everyone, but under the provision that warranty is voided (though they may offer to reflash the firmware if something goes wrong?).


@Derwin: I think a pure video camera is unrealistic. And I want a DSLR that does great video.

[PiDicus Rex]

PiDicus Rex, I disagree. 4K is around 8 MP? 8 MP out of a 50 MP sensor means only a small area of the sensor is used. It'd mean a huge crop. I'd apply for that job too.

Now see, if the jobs going, I want!

Wouldn't crop in retrospect - would use a matrix of photosites as a larger single pixel, for the extra light gathering, say use the pixel above, below, left and right of a central pixel, so 5 pixels to be 1 super-pixel. And that would mean each odd line is a line of video, with the even lines being absorbed in to the super-pixel,... which I think could even help to lessen the de-bayering workload, if I remember the Bayer pixel layout correctly.

[Derwin]

@kadajawi: I totally agree that it's unrealistic. I still think it's worth putting out there. Magic Lantern and the GH series surely brought users to Canon and Panasonic that might otherwise have spent their money elsewhere. Perhaps not in as great a number as I'm imagining, but nonetheless. Currently, I choose Canon for work and Pentax for pleasure. Forget FF and all the cyclical discussions that accompany it, something from Pentax that'd just stand-up against a 7D+Magic Lantern would be great.

Or, maybe I should quit wishing and just find myself a less fiddly PKA to EF-S adaptor ring. :-)

[Dave L]

If you wonder why you should bother with 4K, here's a link that explains why 4K viewed on a 2K monitor looks better than native 2K.

Why 4K Video looks better on 1080 (or less) monitors

The difference is marginal and can only be seen easily in A/B switching or side-by-side comparisons i.e not in the real consumer World. Show 4K downscaled to 1080p, and 1080p @1080p half an hour later, and the average consumer will have no idea which is which. The fact that the guy had to show 1080p at 200% crop to demonstrate the difference (something no home 1080p TV owner will be doing) says it all. Beware marketing hype.

[PiDicus Rex]

Beware marketing hype. etc etc etc,....

That really depends upon the screen dimensions.
Your average domestic TV up to about 40 inches, there's no way to tell. 40 to 80 inch luxury models, you 'might' be able to tell.
Cinema screens of all sizes, you can definitely tell, especially on the larger ones, and drive-in sized, it's damn obvious if they have a 4K projector.

[CDW]

You really can see the difference between 4K down converted to 2K vs native 2K, even on a computer monitor. 4K is clearly a better experience on all counts.

Quoting Michael Reichann, Luminous-Landscape:
Shoot 4K – Deliver HD

There is no question that UHD-1 is the future. 4K TVs are dropping in price, and one only needs to watch something in 4K to see how stunningly beautiful it can be. Some pundits insist that unless one has a very large screen in a very large room there is no difference between 4K and HD, and to them I say – please visit an optometrist. The difference is visible to anyone.

[Dave L]

I guess the real problem here is that the guy is trying to demonstrate the improvement on a 1080p Youtube video... and claiming that "you'll see a pretty big difference" (on a Youtube video, most people won't!) so I guess those of us who haven't seen it un-crippled by Youtube will for now have to take the word of him and those who have seen it 'live'.

But of course, manufacturers could achieve the same improvement at 1080p (for display on 1080p screens) if they wished... probably at lower cost than developing 4K video cameras.

[CDW]

I guess the real problem here is that the guy is trying to demonstrate the improvement on a 1080p Youtube video... and claiming that "you'll see a pretty big difference" (on a Youtube video, most people won't!) so I guess those of us who haven't seen it un-crippled by Youtube will for now have to take the word of him and those who have seen it 'live'.

But of course, manufacturers could achieve the same improvement at 1080p (for display on 1080p screens) if they wished... probably at lower cost than developing 4K video cameras.

It's not the manufacturers holding back improvements in 1080P. It's the cost of distribution of content (cable, satellite). Bandwidth costs money and higher bit rates mean slower downloads or higher compression for streaming video. 720P and 1080 as we know these standards from over the air and by cable/satellite, are really HD Lite, at best, compared to the original 1125/60 analog system from which they were digitally derived. OTOH, if you go to a true studio environment and look at extreme high bit rate 1080, it's amazingly better than what the public consumes.

There are technical reasons why 4K converted to 2K looks better than native 2K but the bottom line is that 4K allows the possibilities of improved 2K and greater editing possibilities in post production. Let's just hope that the cable and satellite companies don't compromise it to the point they have with 1080 and 720.

[kadajawi]

Now see, if the jobs going, I want!

Wouldn't crop in retrospect - would use a matrix of photosites as a larger single pixel, for the extra light gathering, say use the pixel above, below, left and right of a central pixel, so 5 pixels to be 1 super-pixel. And that would mean each odd line is a line of video, with the even lines being absorbed in to the super-pixel,... which I think could even help to lessen the de-bayering workload, if I remember the Bayer pixel layout correctly.

You are talking about pixel binning... but even Panasonic doesn't do that in 4K. The amount of bandwidth required on the 645Z sensor would be ridiculous. You're talking about 50 MP (ok, a bit less than that, thanks to the different aspect ratio), at least 24 times a second, and if possible read at exactly the same time (!!!) to avoid rolling shutter, all going into the processor, which has to downscale it to 8 MP or 2 MP.

There are 2 possibilities. Either you take a 1080p or 4K crop out of the sensor, which is a massive, massive crop, but avoids aliasing, or you take every x pixels, and throw away the rest. Which, given how much is thrown away, leads to pretty bad aliasing etc. Besides you'll end up with rather small pixels.

@Derwin: I agree that Pentax needs a proper video function in their cameras, a camera that can capture 7D etc. owners. And the K-3 is ALMOST there. Give it a proper, more pro video oriented firmware and it would make quite a splash and draw attention (and some sales). The problem is the 645Z just isn't. It's a camera that has a video function because the sensor and everything else in the camera allows it, more or less, and it looks nice on the box/on press releases.

Capturing 4K makes sense. To be able to crop in post. To get sharper 2K results. To future proof. etc.

I can totally see the advantage of 4K on a 50" screen, though admittedly the viewing distance must be quite close.

My mother has a 32" Full HD TV as a computer monitor, and at a decent viewing distance I can see every single pixel. 4K on that screen would be great at that size.

Btw., the next Galaxy Note should have a 4K screen. Laptops with 4K screens are popping out. Computer monitors will go to 4K. Tablets. etc.

It makes sense.

[Danas_Anis]

Leica has a medium format camera which is basically very similar chip and they did a better job at video, offering a better video codec and smart way of handling things, for the medium format looks, you get full sensor read (probably with line skipping) in 1080p mode and 4k from a sensor crop, anyway, a lot of times better than Ricoh Pentax did, not to mention HDMI clean output to external recorders!

I wish I knew how to kick Ricoh Pentax butts to do some good work on video department, but I guess I will just have to go with another brand, I wonder what marketing says about that,I believe I am not the only one who picks Pentax but then needs to switch brands because of this minor thing, video....

Okay calming down, at least Pentax was always extremely good at stills.... and that is a good field to concentrate on medium format, but APC bodies?.... wonder about that...

[CDW]

The crop factor, along with the cost, for 4K would be a non-starter for me with the Leica. While I can appreciate the desire in some quarters for a medium format 'look', I would not even consider shooting video with the Leica or the Z. They excel at capturing stills and that is precisely what I use my 645z for. For video I use a GH4, which for my work, does not require shallow depth of field or 'cinematic' looks. There are any number of video systems available that will outperform the Leica or the 645Z when it comes to video capture. Sorry, I don't understand the search for one body to be the Holy Grail. Get the tool that does the best job for the purpose intended.