[Clarity]

Good question. My impression is that the raw video is much sharper from the K7 than the K3. I'm not impressed with the MOV format on the K3. I may feel different if I was a Mac user, but I'm not.

Interesting!
I have experience using the K-5 and the K-3, the K-3 is in my opinion vastly superior in video, the footage seemed much sharper. I mostly use Final Cut Pro X to edit videos on my mac so that might explain something. The codec Pentax uses on the K-3 works quite well in Final Cut. Maybe the bitrate could be a little higher but I quite like the footage I'm getting. I used different DSLR camera's to record video but I like Pentax' color rendering and dynamic range (using neutral profile) the best.

I use the 'neutral' picture profile with contrasts turned all the way down and a tiny bit of extra fine sharpening, I've seen comparisons between in-camera sharpening and sharpening in post using Premiere. The results are a hair better when you sharpen in post, however the sharpening features in Final Cut aren't as sophisticated as Premiere.

[Fries]

Just to add some recent footage to the discussion about the video quality of the K-3 I have a recent feature I shot with the DA*16-50 and the DFA150-450: Drie kunstenaars verblijven op vogeleiland Griend | Omrop Fryslân. The sometimes strange sounds in the background only make sense if you understand the Dutch language. It was a drab, cold and wet day and that is reflected in the footage. Shooting with a tripod in salt water and in a nature reserve requires a camera that can handle those environmental challenges. My K-3 with the appropriate weather sealed lenses does that very well. For projects outside the stuff I do for my employer I also use Final Cut Pro X and I echo the findings by Clarity above. This video was edited in Avid.

[Clarity]

@Fries Dat ziet er goed uit. Ik ben ook Nederlands . Leuk om meerdere Nederlandse Pentaxianen hier te zien.

Rough translation: I'm Dutch too, nice to see a fellow Pentaxian from Holland.

[Fries]

@Fries Dat ziet er goed uit. Ik ben ook Nederlands . Leuk om meerdere Nederlandse Pentaxianen hier te zien.

Rough translation: I'm Dutch too, nice to see a fellow Pentaxian from Holland.

Ha, dankjewel! Ben zelfs moderator op een Nederlandstalig Pentax forum en ben daar ooit via een Nederlandse Pentax gebruiker op dit forum terecht gekomen. Het is al met al toch een behoorlijk kleine wereld... And in English: Thanks! I am a moderator on a Dutch language Pentax forum and ended up there trough a Dutch Pentax user on this forum. It's a small world after all...

[kadajawi]

One more suggestion: Lower the sharpness in camera to the absolute minimum. Sharpening in camera only adds artificial sharpness, which can also be added in post production. But this perceived sharpness means there is more for the encoder to encode, and that's a big issue: The encoder is quite bad, and it has to do its magic at a very low bitrate. With some encoders that bitrate may be high enough, but not with this one. So instead of focusing on getting the actual image to look good, it focuses on encoding artificial artifacts.

[RobG]

Interesting!
I have experience using the K-5 and the K-3, the K-3 is in my opinion vastly superior in video, the footage seemed much sharper. I mostly use Final Cut Pro X to edit videos on my mac so that might explain something. The codec Pentax uses on the K-3 works quite well in Final Cut. Maybe the bitrate could be a little higher but I quite like the footage I'm getting. I used different DSLR camera's to record video but I like Pentax' color rendering and dynamic range (using neutral profile) the best.

I use the 'neutral' picture profile with contrasts turned all the way down and a tiny bit of extra fine sharpening, I've seen comparisons between in-camera sharpening and sharpening in post using Premiere. The results are a hair better when you sharpen in post, however the sharpening features in Final Cut aren't as sophisticated as Premiere.

Just to add some recent footage to the discussion about the video quality of the K-3 I have a recent feature I shot with the DA*16-50 and the DFA150-450: Drie kunstenaars verblijven op vogeleiland Griend | Omrop Fryslân. The sometimes strange sounds in the background only make sense if you understand the Dutch language. It was a drab, cold and wet day and that is reflected in the footage. Shooting with a tripod in salt water and in a nature reserve requires a camera that can handle those environmental challenges. My K-3 with the appropriate weather sealed lenses does that very well. For projects outside the stuff I do for my employer I also use Final Cut Pro X and I echo the findings by Clarity above. This video was edited in Avid.

Thanks guys. As far as I can make out, Final Cut Pro X is for Mac. The MOV file format is also an Apple format. Unfortunately I use a PC, which probably explains why I don't get the same quality as those editing an Apple codec in Apple software on the Apple platform. I also can't justify spending thousands on software; there's more expensive and presumably better software than the packages I use.

[Fries]

Thanks guys. As far as I can make out, Final Cut Pro X is for Mac. The MOV file format is also an Apple format. Unfortunately I use a PC, which probably explains why I don't get the same quality as those editing an Apple codec in Apple software on the Apple platform. I also can't justify spending thousands on software; there's more expensive and presumably better software than the packages I use.

Rob I don’t think the Apple software is the main reason for any difference in quality. Most of my nature&landscape stuff is used by my employer, a regional broadcasting station, and edited with Avid Newscutter on pc’s. So the platform doesn’t matter but perhaps the general quality of the software does. And shooting good quality video in general has it’s own challenges just as shooting stills. I’v written a tutorial about shooting video with the K-3 but unfortunately it is on a members only section on a forum and in Dutch!😉

[madbrain]

Thanks guys. As far as I can make out, Final Cut Pro X is for Mac. The MOV file format is also an Apple format. Unfortunately I use a PC, which probably explains why I don't get the same quality as those editing an Apple codec in Apple software on the Apple platform. I also can't justify spending thousands on software; there's more expensive and presumably better software than the packages I use.

Which software do you use ? I use PowerDirector 16 which is often on sale for well under $100 from Cyberlink. My last upgrade was only $40.
I have upgraded almost every year since PowerDirector 6. Only skipped 7 and 15.
Your video does look very soft. I wonder how much is due to your software, and how much to Vimeo compressing it after upload.
I think I would get better results from my K-30 if on a tripod. However, when handheld, all bets are off - its rolling shutter hell, even with the movie SR disabled.

[RobG]

Rob I don’t think the Apple software is the main reason for any difference in quality. Most of my nature&landscape stuff is used by my employer, a regional broadcasting station, and edited with Avid Newscutter on pc’s. So the platform doesn’t matter but perhaps the general quality of the software does. And shooting good quality video in general has it’s own challenges just as shooting stills. I’v written a tutorial about shooting video with the K-3 but unfortunately it is on a members only section on a forum and in Dutch!😉

OK, point taken, but working with Apple codecs is a lot easier in the Apple environment (I have spent many hours just trying to get the correct version of drivers loaded so that I could work with MOV files at all, for example). When I originally raised this issue, I was actually looking at the raw MOV files from the K3 rather than anything which I had modified and rendered. It's perhaps unfair to compare it to my dedicated Panasonic camcorder, but I feel that the Panasonic produces better quality video. To do a really effective comparison, I'd need to set the two cameras up in the same place and record the same subject.

[clackers]

Thanks guys. As far as I can make out, Final Cut Pro X is for Mac. The MOV file format is also an Apple format. Unfortunately I use a PC, which probably explains why I don't get the same quality as those editing an Apple codec in Apple software on the Apple platform. I also can't justify spending thousands on software; there's more expensive and presumably better software than the packages I use.

AFAIK, the codec is h264 which isn't an Apple one.

The container for it is a QuickTime MOV file, similar to a Windoze AVI container.

[RobG]

AFAIK, the codec is h264 which isn't an Apple one. The container for it is a QuickTime MOV file, similar to a Windoze AVI container.

Correct, the codec is indeed H.264 and the container is the Quicktime MOV format. The Sony software I've primarily used up until now has had a lot of difficulty working with the MOV file format and Quicktime The Corel software I've used more recently seems to be less hassle, but that may be because I already worked through the issues with the Sony software.

[clackers]

Correct, the codec is indeed H.264 and the container is the Quicktime MOV format. The Sony software I've primarily used up until now has had a lot of difficulty working with the MOV file format and Quicktime The Corel software I've used more recently seems to be less hassle, but that may be because I already worked through the issues with the Sony software.

Yeah, I've had no problem with Premiere Elements or Cyberlink Director on Windows with MOV files.

[RobG]

Yeah, I've had no problem with Premiere Elements or Cyberlink Director on Windows with MOV files.

I'm not familiar with the Cyberlink product but Premiere is an Adobe product and in the past Adobe created all their products on the Apple platform then ported them to PC, so it doesn't surprise me that it would be fine with MOV. Sony seems to have broken lots of things when they bought Vegas. The Movie Studio product only works with a specific version of Quicktime and requires Administrator rights when doing so. Hence why I'm trying to like the Corel product even though I've used the Vegas interface for years.

[Dipsoid]

I'm not familiar with the Cyberlink product but Premiere is an Adobe product and in the past Adobe created all their products on the Apple platform then ported them to PC, so it doesn't surprise me that it would be fine with MOV. Sony seems to have broken lots of things when they bought Vegas. The Movie Studio product only works with a specific version of Quicktime and requires Administrator rights when doing so. Hence why I'm trying to like the Corel product even though I've used the Vegas interface for years.

Hmm, well you shouldn't be using QuickTime at all on PC. It's a horrible buggy piece of software that Apple has stopped supporting, leaving major security vulnerabilities unpatched. Microsoft has recommended uninstalling it from any PC due to security issues. Why does The Movie Studio require QuickTime? Have you tried installing only the QuickTime codecs?

I use Adobe Media Encoder, Premiere, and After Effects, which all don't have any issue with mov files.

[RobG]

Hmm, well you shouldn't be using QuickTime at all on PC. It's a horrible buggy piece of software that Apple has stopped supporting, leaving major security vulnerabilities unpatched. Microsoft has recommended uninstalling it from any PC due to security issues. Why does The Movie Studio require QuickTime? Have you tried installing only the QuickTime codecs?

You'd need to ask Sony. The software requires that a specific version of Quicktime be installed. I am aware of the issues surrounding that.

I use Adobe Media Encoder, Premiere, and After Effects, which all don't have any issue with mov files.

Cool. As I mentioned earlier, I can't justify the price of the pro level Adobe products (a 12 month subscription for Premiere and After Effects is AUD$686). I may try a demo version of Premiere Elements just to see if the rendering is better than the other software I've got, because AUD$145 for a license (as opposed to subscription) is bearable. Anyway, as I mentioned above, simply playing the raw video shows softness which isn't going to get better after editing. Thanks for the info!