Originally Posted by guth
I must say this is a little bit funny. You shake your head in disbelief because I think video from Red Epic looks better than video from AX100. I mean, really...?
The major way I think it looks better, btw, is that it looks much more natural. Just so we are clear on that.
Now, I have an honest question I would really like to get an answer to:
My three complaints in post 784, about the screen capture from the video you all love so much, please answer A, B or C below:
A. You don't know what I mean, so you don't really know what to look for.
B. You can't see the problems I describe at all.
C. You can see it, but you don't think it matters.
! You think the video from the Red looked great because anything coming from that camera 'must' look great. Correct? If I had told you it was from an AX100, you would have said it was absolute garbage. The power of the mind and pre-conceived notions are fascinating. There was less detail in the Red footage, no ands, ifs or buts. If you see otherwise, you're looking at something else, not that clip. IMO, the video was 'dead', it had no life whatsoever. If I saw with my naked eyes the way that video looked, I would be sitting in an ophthalmologist's office right now, not posting here on AVS. I'm very serious.
Seriously, if you thought that Red clip looked great, why are you even here? There is no way you can extract a video from the AX100 that looks anything like that. That's not what the AX100 is designed to do. Obviously the Red is capable of FAR better results than that one Red clip. But just because it came from a Red does NOT make it the cat's meow by definition. That's the problem with so many people that think if something came from an expensive camera, no matter how poorly it was shot, no matter how misadjusted it may have been, no matter how poor the skills of the shooter were, it just absolutely has to be terrific. Untrue.
It's very apparent you like a 'filmic, stylized' approach to video. You won't get that with the AX100. The AX100 will give you reality, not stylized video unless you want to play with it in the editing process.
Further, we've established the AX100 has no 'sharpness' control. So from your point of view, you have no interest. So it's done. But here you are...still.
As for your multiple choice 'option list', it's incomplete. It assumes there is a problem and either we're not sophisticated enough to see it, we see it but don't care or we are too inexperienced to know what to look for. All are false.
The correct option would be the one you didn't post:
D. I am seeing something that, in actuality, cannot be seen in moving video and is probably the result of YouTube compression as it's not visible in native files, even on large screen 4K TVs.
As I mentioned and as Mark also experienced, a number of people at 2 Apple stores saw the videos and were all stunned by how good they are. Not one single person wasn't hugely impressed. Not one single person pointed out the existence of artifacts. Not one. We have numerous people here too that are wowed.
The key point is that in moving video, most people do not fixate on a pixel-peeped, YouTube frame grab (or a pixel-peeped native clip frame grab for that matter). Go try that on far more expensive cameras and I'd be willing to be they too would fail that test.
But hey, you've decided this camera is not for you, but you're still here despite claiming that you were leaving. Interesting.