Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-29-2014, 07:26 AM   #16
Forum Member
metaphiston's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 91
Original Poster
Thanks all for your thoughts.

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Hard to tell though if Vimeo made it look bad (in terms of compression), or if that came out of camera like that.
You can download the original via Vimeo if you would like a closer look (exported at 20-30mbps in h.264), and yes there's a some loss especially as Vimeo downscales playback to 720p. It looks quite similar though.

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
I think if you're serious about video
...use a serious video camera ;-) . I use the FS700, XF305 and C300 in my day job, but they're prohibitively expensive to rent for the sideline projects I do. (Nearly) everyone in my area uses Canon, so borrowing/hiring locally is almost all Canon and usually 600D, 7D or 5D mkII or mkIII and EOS lenses. Also, my FA and pre-FA Pentax lenses work with Canon cameras via an adapter, whereas they don't with Nikon and would crop too much on Panasonic. Canon's not perfect (by a long way) but they have near total penetration where I am at the amateur/low budget end (in Edinburgh). I appreciate this will be different for others in different circumstances, but the disadvantages of buying into a different system outweigh the advantages for me.

In any case, the k-3 will have its place in a way my k-5 did not due to it's lack of manual video control. For example tomorrow I will use it for a few b-roll documentary macro shots alongside 720p HDV interview footage, v handy to be able to use my k-3 for things like this and it doesn't have to match the look too closely as the shot type is so different.

QuoteOriginally posted by PiDicus Rex Quote
Give the 'Muted' image profile a go, you should find it's performance, especially where the whites and blacks in the image are close to being clipped at the limits of the CoDec or sensor.
I've found the latitude is so poor that I'm better off getting it right in camera, as it can't have much done to it in post without looking terrible v quickly. This is riskier, and in some cases I wouldn't want to burn in a look in camera, but where the shooting situation is controllable I prefer to get the look as close as possible to what I want in camera. If I was using a camera with much greater latitude or raw video I would shoot a more flat profile as I do with stills.

10-29-2014, 10:45 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,799
Why don't you consider the Samsung NX1? It has a much much shorter flange distance, so you'll be able to attach pretty much any lens to it you want (much like the Sony a7S for example).


Btw. I've started to have a look at your Vimeo profile, great work! Loved The Long Fall.
10-30-2014, 12:50 AM   #18
Veteran Member
PiDicus Rex's Avatar

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,380
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
they'd really need to hire a couple of engineers that are videographers, and give them control over the video portion, or even hire actual videographers for input.
Oooo! Oooo! Me Sir! I'd do it!!
10-30-2014, 01:34 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,199
QuoteOriginally posted by metaphiston Quote
I shot on the vibrant picture style as I did not intend to do any colour correction to the footage.
Not sure at all whether vibrant picture style is the right call here. I believe it is still best to go with muted and change the settings in camera in the direction of your desired outcome in order to minimize the post processing. Remember you have indeed few mb/s here, the more information (color e.g.) you push through, the lesser the quality will be. And this is exactly what the video is showing to my eyes.

10-31-2014, 02:50 PM   #20
Pentaxian
richandfleur's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,788
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Huge file sizes... come on.
ha I knew I shouldn't have phrased it like that


Was referring to the older codec used. Nothing wrong with it really, as the losses are not too bad, but it's not particularly efficient is all.
What I'd really like is a newer codec offering, (am watching Sony's XAVCS for a prosumer level pitched option that's closer to RAW for example), or at least up the bit rates on the existing K-30 one...
10-31-2014, 06:53 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,799
QuoteOriginally posted by richandfleur Quote
ha I knew I shouldn't have phrased it like that


Was referring to the older codec used. Nothing wrong with it really, as the losses are not too bad, but it's not particularly efficient is all.
What I'd really like is a newer codec offering, (am watching Sony's XAVCS for a prosumer level pitched option that's closer to RAW for example), or at least up the bit rates on the existing K-30 one...
XAVC-S is really just h264 with some of the things that really make h264 efficient turned on. It's basically a h264 profile invented by Sony to differentiate from the already existing ones like AVC, which are not making use of h264's full potential.


Nikon's newer h264 encoder seems to be rather decent too, for what it's based on. The big advantage of XAVC is 10 and 12 bit video. So you can really push it when grading without getting some banding. But I don't think the prosumer cameras make use of the 10 bit... and in editing it's a real bummer, because graphics cards can't decode it. It's all in the CPU, and not all editing software will support it. (Premiere CS6 only with an ugly workaround.)
11-01-2014, 02:42 AM   #22
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
XAVC-S is really just h264 with some of the things that really make h264 efficient turned on. It's basically a h264 profile invented by Sony to differentiate from the already existing ones like AVC, which are not making use of h264's full potential.


Nikon's newer h264 encoder seems to be rather decent too, for what it's based on. The big advantage of XAVC is 10 and 12 bit video. So you can really push it when grading without getting some banding. But I don't think the prosumer cameras make use of the 10 bit... and in editing it's a real bummer, because graphics cards can't decode it. It's all in the CPU, and not all editing software will support it. (Premiere CS6 only with an ugly workaround.)
I also believe that AVCHD bitrate is limited to 28Mbps, which is starting to be limiting...
Only thing with XAVC, is that it's a Sony format (Betamax, Video8, DAT, minidisc, atrac, Memorystick, UMD...), and I don't trust them one bit!!!

11-01-2014, 03:21 AM   #23
Veteran Member
phoenixvision's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,458
Well done! thanks for the Autumn Scotland shots....here on the Greek isles, we dont have that color...or those trees, but I will post some video I shot on the K3 of some ancient ruins....nice focus pulling as well....why, oh why is video monitoring only available on the live screen???? On any kind of sunny days it makes that kind of crisp focus pulling almost impossible......and by the way Tom......We do want video on our Pentax!

---------- Post added 11-01-14 at 12:24 PM ----------

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the K3 shoots super video and out does the canon 7d side by side.....Pentax is no loser....the color and dynamic range out does in class Nikons.....
11-01-2014, 05:36 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,799
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
I also believe that AVCHD bitrate is limited to 28Mbps, which is starting to be limiting...
Only thing with XAVC, is that it's a Sony format (Betamax, Video8, DAT, minidisc, atrac, Memorystick, UMD...), and I don't trust them one bit!!!
AVCHD and XAVC are really the same codec, just with different settings. XAVC is not really a Sony format, more of a Sony profile, but any video player on the computer should be able to play it, and most devices (not every decoder is perhaps powerful enough, that's especially true for the 10 bit variant... older or AMD CPUs might not be able to do it in real time).


28 Mbps is not that limiting, but it depends on the encoder. Trust me, you can get a ton of detail and movement into a 28 Mbps stream if the encoder puts in enough effort to make it that small.


@phoenixvision: Maybe out of the box. But the Canon can take Magic Lantern, and then there is no competition at all. Also, yes, maybe the colors and dynamic range of the Pentax are fine... but as soon as there is movement on the screen you might see blocking artefacts. Or if there is a lot of detail, say, a shot of a forest. Pentax will also lose to Nikon in terms of aliasing and moire. The D5300, D810 and maybe D750 don't know the terms moire and aliasing. They are completely cured of that. Pentax isn't. They are better in low light. They should actually have more dynamic range because it looks like they make full use of the sensor, and not just of some parts of it. They have a picture profile that is more suited to grading (likewise Canon), AND they can save the video so that grading is possible without getting banding.
Nikon D810 video quality leapfrogs Canon 5D Mark III
11-01-2014, 06:14 AM   #25
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
AVCHD and XAVC are really the same codec, just with different settings. XAVC is not really a Sony format, more of a Sony profile, but any video player on the computer should be able to play it, and most devices (not every decoder is perhaps powerful enough, that's especially true for the 10 bit variant... older or AMD CPUs might not be able to do it in real time).


28 Mbps is not that limiting, but it depends on the encoder. Trust me, you can get a ton of detail and movement into a 28 Mbps stream if the encoder puts in enough effort to make it that small.


*snip*
That's part of the problem, many devices don't have the computing power needed to generate a smaller file... quite a while back I recorded Mpeg2 video at 6Mbps and then compressed it at about 1Mbps in divx (aah.. those days! ), whitout a noticeable loss in quality... however it took my pc several hours to do it...
11-01-2014, 11:51 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,799
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
That's part of the problem, many devices don't have the computing power needed to generate a smaller file... quite a while back I recorded Mpeg2 video at 6Mbps and then compressed it at about 1Mbps in divx (aah.. those days! ), whitout a noticeable loss in quality... however it took my pc several hours to do it...
The specs of XAVC and XAVC-S though suggest that Sony does have enough processing power in the BIONZ X... and Samsung even has a h265 encoder in the NX1, though we'll have to see how good that one is.


What Pentax is using though is pretty sad.


I'm encoding my videos with x264 10 bit version and a tweaked version of the placebo setting... --> around 1 fps when encoding, but my K-5 videos go down to around 5-10 Mbps without a visible loss in quality (CRF 19.5... sometimes a bit more, sometimes less, depending on what it is).
11-02-2014, 06:20 AM   #27
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
The specs of XAVC and XAVC-S though suggest that Sony does have enough processing power in the BIONZ X... and Samsung even has a h265 encoder in the NX1, though we'll have to see how good that one is.


What Pentax is using though is pretty sad.


I'm encoding my videos with x264 10 bit version and a tweaked version of the placebo setting... --> around 1 fps when encoding, but my K-5 videos go down to around 5-10 Mbps without a visible loss in quality (CRF 19.5... sometimes a bit more, sometimes less, depending on what it is).
Well... good h264 compressed videos are in the neighborhood of 1Mbps, even less if for the web...
One should ask to the pirate "crews" that upload releases on the web... I've witnessed such things just a couple of times (at a friend's house), but they manage to compress entire movies in less than 1Gb and retain a lot of quality & resolution...
There really are masters in the field of video compression there... but I suspect that it takes them hours and blazing-fast PCs to do that...
11-02-2014, 07:24 AM - 2 Likes   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,799
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
Well... good h264 compressed videos are in the neighborhood of 1Mbps, even less if for the web...
One should ask to the pirate "crews" that upload releases on the web... I've witnessed such things just a couple of times (at a friend's house), but they manage to compress entire movies in less than 1Gb and retain a lot of quality & resolution...
There really are masters in the field of video compression there... but I suspect that it takes them hours and blazing-fast PCs to do that...
Actually those people don't go all the way. What aids them is that movies these days are shot digital, on really low noise cameras. Noise is very hard to compress and takes a ton of bits. What I do with my TNG Blu Rays is noise filter them a bit (mostly color noise) before compressing. I get to somewhere around 1-1.5 GB for a 45 minute episode in 1080p, as it was shot on film. New movies can fit into that amount of space despite being much longer.

Anyway, release groups usually pay much attention to compatibility with not so powerful devices, so they can't make use of everything the codec offers. Except for anime groups, they don't give a damn.

10 bit helps a lot for gradients. Even if the source is 8 bit only. It allows you to compress more without getting banding. But playback is an issue, no hardware decoder supports it.

1 Mbps is way too low though. And stuff like YouTube greatly suffers from the lack of processing power YouTube has (it would be great if the highest quality would be the originally uploaded file).

Btw. a movie takes me 2-3 days on a i5 (Ivy Bridge) at 4.5 GHz.
11-02-2014, 08:26 AM   #29
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Actually those people don't go all the way. What aids them is that movies these days are shot digital, on really low noise cameras. Noise is very hard to compress and takes a ton of bits. What I do with my TNG Blu Rays is noise filter them a bit (mostly color noise) before compressing. I get to somewhere around 1-1.5 GB for a 45 minute episode in 1080p, as it was shot on film. New movies can fit into that amount of space despite being much longer.

Anyway, release groups usually pay much attention to compatibility with not so powerful devices, so they can't make use of everything the codec offers. Except for anime groups, they don't give a damn.

10 bit helps a lot for gradients. Even if the source is 8 bit only. It allows you to compress more without getting banding. But playback is an issue, no hardware decoder supports it.

1 Mbps is way too low though. And stuff like YouTube greatly suffers from the lack of processing power YouTube has (it would be great if the highest quality would be the originally uploaded file).

Btw. a movie takes me 2-3 days on a i5 (Ivy Bridge) at 4.5 GHz.
A very informative post on a very fascinating subject, I'm adding a "like".
I'm not a video person, but I have to do video from time to time nonetheless (for work), and it's a complex and interesting topic...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
autumn, blacks, focus, footage, hdslr, image, k-3, k-5, k3, lens, pentax, post, reduction, shot, test, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LiveView and Video modes noice in K-3 Adrián Hesto Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 10-09-2014 05:14 PM
My first K-3 Video.... Herders Keeping Cool normhead Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 17 07-06-2014 05:51 PM
Strange highlights in video mode of K-3 DoctorX Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 05-27-2014 03:06 AM
Nature A Bear in My Woods tessfully Post Your Photos! 7 05-22-2014 03:54 PM
Nice video of the K-3 in action hangman43 Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 17 10-22-2013 10:49 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:52 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top