Three Palm Beach Videos with Three Cameras: Sony NEX 5N, Panasonic FZ200, Canon EOS-M - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 10 Old 07-27-2013, 06:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 127
Taken at different times with different cameras, in reverse temporal order:

Canon EOS-M and 18-55mm zoom:

https://vimeo.com/71142643

Panasonic FZ200 (and its 28-600mm zoom):

https://vimeo.com/58316168

Sony NEX-5N and 18-200mm zoom:

https://vimeo.com/35550839
markr041 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 Old 07-28-2013, 07:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 94
I'm not sure what your point is. It seems to me that you are demonstrating that three widely different cameras can shoot high quality video.

When I started reading about and trying to shoot video three years ago, only camcorders could shoot decent video. My version of the progress is that it is being caused by smartphones. To sell anything, camera makers have to include enough that consumers will buy them. AVCHD/1080p60, zoom and stabilization are essential and now standard.

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #3 of 10 Old 07-28-2013, 09:21 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 127
I think it is really good that video capability is now important for all types of cameras. This means we may no longer need two cameras - one for stills and one for video. This also means that it is the camcorder that may be most threatened.

As to the comparison, one could validly conclude that it really makes no difference with any good camera what you use to shoot video (in contrast to the point of most of the threads in this forum), or you can download the videos, pixel-peep them and compare sharpness, color, contrast etc., as all are straight from the cameras.
markr041 is offline  
post #4 of 10 Old 07-28-2013, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

I think it is really good that video capability is now important for all types of cameras. This means we may no longer need two cameras - one for stills and one for video. This also means that it is the camcorder that may be most threatened.

As to the comparison, one could validly conclude that it really makes no difference with any good camera what you use to shoot video (in contrast to the point of most of the threads in this forum), or you can download the videos, pixel-peep them and compare sharpness, color, contrast etc., as all are straight from the cameras.

".....video capability is now important for all types of cameras." And some types of cameras that have good photo and video capability let you talk, navigate and text too! Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon, etc are being pushed hard by Apple and Samsung. It's great!

".....one could ... conclude that it really makes no difference with any good camera what you use to shoot video..." For awhile I made a point of trying to answer first poster questions about what cheap camcorder they should buy. My typical answer would be to look at point-n-shoot cameras with AVCHD 1080p. Many times I've suggested the shooter's skills are far more important than the camera/camcorder. More often than not I would be blasted off the screen by more technically savvy camcorder fans.

It may be that the cake we have got here with the technical development of AVCHD, Blu-Ray and HD TV. The marketing is the icing that put a standard in place that seems to be required in any good camera.

From Wikipedia: "On February 19, 2008, Toshiba officially announced that it would stop the development of the HD DVD players, conceding the format war to the Blu-ray Disc format." Also from Wikipedia: AVCHD, developed jointly by Sony and Panasonic, was introduced in 2006 primarily for use in high definition consumer camcorders" and "AVCHD is derived from the Blu-ray Disc specification."

AVCHD and Blu-Ray is only part of the process that included everything from broadcast standards, to computer screens, on line distrubution and editing software. Even the Nexus 7 that is thumping the iPad in fresh reviews is 1080 HD.

If universal inclusion of HD "in all types of (consumer) cameras" marks the last phase of HD consumer adoption, one can say it took about 8 or 9 years from the first HD TVs to now, where the process is complete.

"4K" or "Ultra-TV" is being market tested, but few have walls big enough for the massive TVs. Higher video bit rates and RAW capture are interesting, but required consumer computer power may get in the way.

Are we at the video "sweet spot"? Will there be any significant consumer video quality development in the next couple years? In other words, what's next?
bsprague is offline  
post #5 of 10 Old 07-29-2013, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
xfws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Taken at different times with different cameras, in reverse temporal order:

Canon EOS-M and 18-55mm zoom:

https://vimeo.com/71142643

Panasonic FZ200 (and its 28-600mm zoom):

https://vimeo.com/58316168

Sony NEX-5N and 18-200mm zoom:

https://vimeo.com/35550839

Between the EOS M and the 5N, I liked the of the M's closeups and the 5N landscapes.

The FZ200 seemed the most rounded. Interesting, as the sensor is much smaller.
These examples have me thinking it's really just a matter of personal perception, one not necessarily better than the other.
xfws is offline  
post #6 of 10 Old 08-04-2013, 10:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 127
I used Bitrate Viewer to find the *actual* bitrates used for these videos:

Canon EOS-M (108030p MOV):

Average bitrate: 39.7 Mbps

Max bitrate: 48.8 Mbps*

Panasonic ZS200 (108060p AVCHD):

Average bitrate: 24.1 Mbps

Max bitrate: 30.9 Mbps

Sony NEX-5N (108060p AVCHD):

Average bitrate: 23.6 Mbps

Max bitrate: 33.1 Mbps



*For a video from The Panasonic GH3 shot using the 50Mbps MOV mode (108060p), the specs were;

Average bitrate: 39.0 Mbps

Max bitrate: 51.8 Mbps

not very different from the EOS-M standard mode.
markr041 is offline  
post #7 of 10 Old 08-05-2013, 10:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,802
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

"4K" or "Ultra-TV" is being market tested, but few have walls big enough for the massive TVs.
Everyone who does not live in a burrow has walls big enough for a TV large enough to make use of 4K. The walls is not a problem, the content is. Streaming HD is 3-7 Mbit/s, cable is 8-10 Mbit/s, broadcast is still holding up at 12 -16 Mbit/s, but higher resolution needs more bitrate. Where are we going to get it from? Sure AVC is more efficient than MPEG-2, and new H.265 may be even more efficient, so maybe they will manage to squeze 4K into the same bandwidth, we'll see.

IMO, broadcast formats will not change in the near future. Cable or satellite? Nah, they prefer squeezing 200+ channels into whatever bandwidth they have. So the only source of 4K video will be BD and yes, the camcorders. I am sure that movie buffs will get themselves 4K TV and 4K BD player, but everyone else will stick to what they have now, really, most people just have finished upgrading to HD. Throwing out all this stuff again? No way. It is good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

Higher video bit rates and RAW capture are interesting, but required consumer computer power may get in the way.
Exactly because we are not going to higher res anytime soon, higher bitrates and less color compression is the current way to go. Better source will make a better resulting video, even if on DVD. Although DVD players do not support 60p, so they will fade away very fast as people switch to 60p. One of the reasons I use 24p now and then is that it looks so much better on DVD than interlaced, and it looks good on YouTube too and takes less bandwidth.

RAW may be too much for an average person, but 50 Mbit/s or so should become standard.
Ungermann is offline  
post #8 of 10 Old 08-05-2013, 12:45 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 127
Shooting 4K has advantages even if the end product is HD: you can crop without resolution loss (from HD), and fix compositional errors (or just be creative in cropping); you can fix shakiness in the editor perfectly, again, without resolution loss from HD (unlike now), among other things.

With a 4K source, high bitrates, and 4:2:2 subsampling, even without RAW, one can create much better HD video with editing. Now, with an HD video source that is 4:2:0 and heavily compressed, editing really takes a visible toll on video quality (there is a return too, of course).
markr041 is offline  
post #9 of 10 Old 08-05-2013, 01:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
thedest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
another important thing: the 1080p videos of our cameras are not real 1080p videos. they have low resolutions. once you get a 4k video and resize it to 1080p, you will have a MUCH better resolution
thedest is offline  
post #10 of 10 Old 08-05-2013, 02:07 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

another important thing: the 1080p videos of our cameras are not real 1080p videos. they have low resolutions. once you get a 4k video and resize it to 1080p, you will have a MUCH better resolution

I agree, assuming "4K" video actually is 4K video!
markr041 is offline  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off