Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1080 so what  (Read 3844 times)
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« on: May 13, 2010, 03:59:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I've downloaded a few samples of video shot with the new round of point and shoots and the Sony nex cameras, one of their claims is HD 1080, I'm sure somehow they are providing the 1080 part of the claim, but the HD part I can't see it. Not that these little machines should be a quality match for bigger more expensive equipment, I just can't see see much improvement over the cheaper video of some years back. I've a few samples of the latest Sony, to me I see drab colour and soft detail.
Am I being a bit blind or is that how it is?

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2010, 08:25:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KevinA
I've downloaded a few samples of video shot with the new round of point and shoots and the Sony nex cameras, one of their claims is HD 1080, I'm sure somehow they are providing the 1080 part of the claim, but the HD part I can't see it. Not that these little machines should be a quality match for bigger more expensive equipment, I just can't see see much improvement over the cheaper video of some years back. I've a few samples of the latest Sony, to me I see drab colour and soft detail.
Am I being a bit blind or is that how it is?

Kevin.
Hi Kevin,

despite being ehthousiastic with the Nex, I saw the same as you.

I checked the files carefully and they are too soft.
In fact, reducing the resolution to m4/3 and loosing 2MP, they are about the same quality, but with more room for "playing", specially in higher ISOs.
But in PP, this kind of softness is actually better welcome than the opposite and not a big deal.

The Imaging ressource where very impressed by the print quality that judged clearly above the m4/3, that confirms my impressions: soft but managable.

It will be good to wait more in depth reviews to see if that is a lens issue or if the default settings are badly implemented or if the AA filter is involved etc...
But, yes, I saw the same as you saw.

Again, this is not an M9 reduced with video...we are far from it.

Hey Leica, would you please do a micro M once for a while?  there is a lack in german design here...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 09:00:20 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2010, 12:24:22 PM »
ReplyReply

my beeb mate shoots on a SD Betacam - the ones that cost $50k in the 90s

He reckons 1080 generally 'helps you look at sh1t better'

ie his SD cam outperforms everything HD comsumer in his opinion

DATA rate is a key indicator of true quality I guess

I guess the big cams dont shoot 300MBS (?) for fun

These lil cams kick out what I would equate to a jpg stored at level 1 - yes the file size is there but not the information

A proper sony camera

S
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 12:26:33 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2010, 01:12:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
Or even the "cheaper" model coming later this year, the SRW-9000PL with a CCD sensor of about the same size as the CMOS in the NEX5, the same 1080 line HD output, and priced about 200 times as much: US$125,000. (And no AF!)

I suspect that there is a lot more to video quality that sensor size and pixel count, despite what many people seem to think!


Meanwhile, has anyone seen the Olympus E-PL1 TV commercial shot on that camera (on YouTube)? Not cinema quality video, only humble 720p, but it does tend to show that most of us should worry mostly about improving our skills and not so much about upgrading the spec. numbers on our gear.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2010, 01:26:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Meanwhile, has anyone seen the Olympus E-PL1 TV commercial shot on that camera (on YouTube)? Not cinema quality video, only humble 720p, but it does tend to show that most of us should worry mostly about improving our skills and not so much about upgrading the spec. numbers on our gear.

Link? I have the E-PL1 but haven't done much video, yet.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2010, 01:33:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Link? I have the E-PL1 but haven't done much video, yet.
Sorry for my laziness! Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1BgR2xlbdM...player_embedded
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2010, 02:57:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL

I think it was me who's lazy

Here's a link to the 1080p version - I'm impressed. I guess I should try shooting some video with it...
Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2010, 03:49:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
my beeb mate shoots on a SD Betacam - the ones that cost $50k in the 90s

He reckons 1080 generally 'helps you look at sh1t better'

ie his SD cam outperforms everything HD comsumer in his opinion

DATA rate is a key indicator of true quality I guess

I guess the big cams dont shoot 300MBS (?) for fun

These lil cams kick out what I would equate to a jpg stored at level 1 - yes the file size is there but not the information

A proper sony camera

S

That's it really 1080 HD with all the goodness squeezed out.
I guess with video having a bigger sensor and more data to process in a cheap package means you have to compress more to make it work within the budget, it might be better with less info so less compression needed. Poor quality jpg is exactly what I see in the Sony.
The 5D set an expectation level from a still camera shooting movie and the Sony looked a long way short.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Anthony R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2010, 09:11:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Small sensors and crap lenses, what do you expect?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2010, 01:24:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anthony R
Small sensors and crap lenses, what do you expect?
I am not sure what you mean by small sensors: the NX5 has a sensor far larger than in almost any professional video camera, where the dominant options are three sensors in 2/3", 1/2" and sometimes smaller. The one sensor of the NEX or a m4/3 camera has a larger area than all three sensors in any of those professional video-cameras.

It is also hard to see how a lens that performs adequately with 14MP still images is hampering the far lower resolution needs of HD video.

I put the IQ limitations of the video mode on this and any still camera down to speed limits on sensor read-out (need to sub-sample and so on), processing, and output to storage compared to a dedicated professional grade video camera with sensors designed specifically and solely for video.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2010, 05:37:03 AM »
ReplyReply

What's the size of the Red's sensors compare to the dslr?
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2010, 12:17:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
What's the size of the Red's sensors compare to the dslr?

mostly S35 - which is apsC crop sensor

the FF35 will be 'Full frame 35' same as D3 etc

the 2/3 scarlet will be 2/3rds of an inch - tiny


S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad