Another Video Comparison: 4K Sony AX100 and Panasonic TM900 - Spring Flowers - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 57 Old 04-25-2014, 06:42 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Two years ago I uploaded to Vimeo a video of early spring flowers shot with the then new Panasonic TM900 (the sharpest HD camcorder). It had over 5,300 views:

https://vimeo.com/22815800

I returned to the same places to shoot the early spring flowers with the AX100, in 4K. Here is the Youtube version:



To see this best even if you only have a 1080 screen or less, choose resolution 2160p. This is critical to get a hint of the quality (it looks much worse viewing in 1080p). The uploaded video was 4K. It looks much better than the 2160p Youtube version.

.
markr041 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 57 Old 04-25-2014, 10:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,660
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1429 Post(s)
Liked: 1545
Gorgeous colors Mark. One of the biggest differences I've seen with 4K, are the reds. There is a purity to these reds I've not seen in any other format.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #3 of 57 Old 04-25-2014, 11:14 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Gorgeous colors Mark. One of the biggest differences I've seen with 4K, are the reds. There is a purity to these reds I've not seen in any other format.

Yes, I noticed that too. Also in the TM900 video, there is a lot of noise in reds (flower close-up). On resolution (as viewed only at 1080) the TM900 video looks competitive, until one views more landscape scenes with a lot of detail - e.g., the scenes of people in the garden.
markr041 is online now  
post #4 of 57 Old 04-26-2014, 01:56 AM
Senior Member
 
Philip_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi Mark

You have a lot of useful samples on your Vimeo account. I found this one http://vimeo.com/70361537 from the GH3 and downloaded the original. This for me beats anything I've seen from the AX100 so far even if only 1080P. The motion of the flowers being blown about is smooth and completely natural given the 60fps, it feels like looking out through a window. No over processed images on this sample, it all looks completely realistic as my eyes would see it, with the AX100 footage it always appears like the subjects are cut out and stuck on the scene rather than part of it due to the over sharpening and halos around things. That GH3 footage appeared almost 3D like.

I also get the illusion with the GH3 footage where I don't feel like I'm sat in front of a 24" monitor a metre away, but I'm actually sat some distance away looking at a huge viewscape, it's a magical feeling when that happens. I just don't get this with the AX100 footage as it is too over processed and unrealistic, it just slaps you around the face in my opinion.

When 4K is 60fps on a camera that captures the scene without having to try to justify the 4K expense by making it pop unrealistically it is going to be just fantastic, until then 1080P has a lot to give.

Just goes to show it isn't all about the number of pixels.

Regards

Phil
Philip_L is offline  
post #5 of 57 Old 04-26-2014, 02:26 AM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L View Post

Hi Mark I found this one http://vimeo.com/70361537 from the GH3 and downloaded the original. This for me beats anything I've seen from the AX100 so far even if only 1080P.
I agree and if you think that GH3 sample looks good, take a look at the fine detail and wonderful color in this GH4 sample at 1:41 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6_DljQqQMY
SD90 is offline  
post #6 of 57 Old 04-26-2014, 04:30 AM
Senior Member
 
Philip_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi

Yes it looks a lot more natural and not like over digitally processed video I see from the AX100. The GH3 footage still outshines even that 4K clip from the GH4, mainly because of YouTube's compression and the GH3 I am of course watching the original file at 60fps which adds a realism to motion you can not get with lower fps. 24fps with 4K video I can't watch without feeling physically dizzy, the illusion of motion breaks down too easily and it strobes and stutters, especially given it is all shot as video. The GH3 footage is wonderfully natural and I don't see each individual frame like a fast slideshow. With video containing as much detail as good HD and now 4K video it needs a lot more than 24 or 30fps to provide for good motion. Consumer 4K is okay for landscapes, but then I have a digital SLR for that kind of thing.

So looking forward to real UHD at 60fps, that's when things get very interesting.

Regards

Phil
Philip_L is offline  
post #7 of 57 Old 04-26-2014, 06:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,660
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1429 Post(s)
Liked: 1545
Your consistent reference to the AX100 being 'over processed' is, of course, untrue. Likewise, for a 'looking through the window' feel, there is absolutely nothing that matches the AX100 or 4K in general. Yes, even at 30p. To state otherwise is just silly.

Scenes shot in 4K come much closer to how your eyes see those scenes. No AVCHD or HD camera can do that. None. I had the GH3 and many AVCHD cameras and none can match the visual transparency of the AX100 or 4K in general. None can match the lack of artifacts the AX100 presents either. None. You are apparently blind to all of this.

Additionally Phil, you've never seen the AX100 in true 4K. The realism, in terms of both resolution and color, give the AX100 not a 'looking out of a window' look, it removes the window entirely.


Regards

Ken
Ken Ross is offline  
post #8 of 57 Old 04-27-2014, 03:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 64
There is nothing wrong with the AX100 footage, on a high resolution monitor it clearly is superior to the other two cameras.

The issues you are having with motion are more likely due to your computer choking in downscaling.

Btw, footage shot as film or video makes absolutely no difference since everything you watch on a TV set or monitor is digital anyway. If you are seeing a difference between two clips, it has nothing to do with one or the other being "filmic".
Tugela is offline  
post #9 of 57 Old 04-27-2014, 03:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Philip_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela View Post

There is nothing wrong with the AX100 footage, on a high resolution monitor it clearly is superior to the other two cameras.

The issues you are having with motion are more likely due to your computer choking in downscaling.

Btw, footage shot as film or video makes absolutely no difference since everything you watch on a TV set or monitor is digital anyway. If you are seeing a difference between two clips, it has nothing to do with one or the other being "filmic".

I know what the issue is, it is frame rate. 24 or 30fps does not provide smooth motion unless you apply the rule of 180 degree shutter, steady slow pans, shallow depth of field etc, in other words treat it like film, that's why film looks like film. If you shoot like video with too much sharpness and no motion blur in each frame at low frame rates the illusion of motion breaks down very easily. This is nothing new or unknown for those who have been doing this for a long time.

With over-sharpened 4K footage, the illusion of motion breaks down even quicker without a good amount of motion blur in each frame, ironically motion blur reduces resolution of course. 4K doesn't show it's true potential until frame rates are at 60fps or higher. It's the elephant in the room, but it will not be until everyone is going out buying the AX200 with 60fps at 4K to replace their 12 month old AX100 will they then start to justify their new purchase based on how poor 24 or 30fps is, and how much better 4K is now it is at 60fps. We've been through all this with HD.

If interlaced was a possibility with H264 at Level 5.1 (it isn't), they'd have given us 4K at 60i to avoid the motion issues in place of de-interlacing issues, as they did with 1080i.

http://inventorspot.com/articles/how_choose_shutter_speed_video_your_dslr
http://luispower2013.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-180-degree-rule/
http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/quick-tip-how-does-shutter-speed-affect-video--photo-12092

Regards

Phil
Philip_L is offline  
post #10 of 57 Old 04-27-2014, 06:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,660
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1429 Post(s)
Liked: 1545
^ Hopeless, utterly hopeless. To call a camera that provides the highest RESOLUTION, 'over-sharpened', demonstrates supreme ignorance on the part of the author. I would suggest the author attempt an understanding of the difference between 'over-sharpened' and high resolution. There is a huge difference between the two and our resident AX100 hater has zero idea of what that difference is.

The AX100 has been lab tested in reviews to have the highest resolution (REAL DETAIL) of any consumer or prosumer camera. Achieving REAL DETAIL is not a product of over-sharpening, but rather providing a lens, sensor and the necessary signal processing chain, capable of providing this heightened detail.

Over sharpening cannot provide additional real detail, it can only provide the appearance of greater detail. The fact is that over sharpening often destroys real detail, it does not enhance it.

Phil, stop posting things that are simply untrue. You have been corrected many times on multiple forums, so I can only assume you do this intentionally. Very odd.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #11 of 57 Old 04-27-2014, 06:14 PM
Senior Member
 
spyker1212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 13
mark,

how does the Panasonic tm900 hand held stabilization compare vs the sony ax100 hand held stabilization? about the same?

thanks in advance
spyker1212 is online now  
post #12 of 57 Old 04-27-2014, 07:05 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyker1212 View Post

mark, how does the Panasonic tm900 hand held stabilization compare vs the sony ax100 hand held stabilization? about the same?
I'd also be interested to hear how Mark feels the hand held stablization of his GH3, fitted with a power O.I.S. Panasonic lens, compares with his AX100.
SD90 is offline  
post #13 of 57 Old 04-27-2014, 07:26 PM
Senior Member
 
spyker1212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

I'd also be interested to hear how Mark feels the hand held stablization of his GH3, fitted with a power O.I.S. Panasonic lens, compares with his AX100.

i think camera stabilization is worse compare to camcorder.

reason i ask about panny tm900 stabilization is because i have a panny tm900 and ok with the stabilization. and i am planning to buy a sony ax100. i
am just asking few more questions before hitting the 'buy' button :-)

if i buy a gh3 or gh4. i rather wait for sony a7s. cause everything needs to be shoot via tripod or stabilizer attached.
spyker1212 is online now  
post #14 of 57 Old 04-27-2014, 10:35 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyker1212 View Post

reason i ask about panny tm900 stabilization is because i have a panny tm900 and ok with the stabilization. and i am planning to buy a sony ax100. i am just asking few more questions before hitting the 'buy' button :-)
I had a TM900 for a year and an AX100 for two days. I thought the TM900 had good and noticably better stabilization than the AX100 which was just fair in that regard. However, the AX100's stabilization appears to be acceptable for most casual shooters except when they need to use considerable telephoto. Sharpness and detail resolution wise the AX100 is vastly superior to the TM900 (when shooting in 4K) .
SD90 is offline  
post #15 of 57 Old 04-28-2014, 12:12 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Here are my thoughts on stabilization, starting with some basics:

1. A larger sensor, for given focal length and distance, makes mechanical (optical) stabilization more challenging.

2. The challenge increases with focal length and with close-ups.

At the same telescopic focal length and at close distances, the optical stabilization of the TM900, with its relatively tiny sensors, is superior to that of the GH3 power OIS and the AX100 in active mode. In active mode, the AX100 is giving you over 500mm focal length at the long end. Neither the GH3 lenses I have go that far and the TM900 does not either, yet I can get reasonably stabilized shots (baseball game) at that extreme end with the AX100. At modest focal lengths - say,wide to 60mm, there is not much difference at normal distances.

The AX100, as has been observed, is a big handheld camcorder. Opened up, it is almost all lens - to get a 12X zoom lens with a 1" sensor and a reasonable aperture (f2.8 at the wide end) requires volume. To improve on stabilization would also require even more size and weight (compare the power OIS Panasonic lenses with their non-stabilized counterparts).

Speculation: The stabilization prowess of the AX100 is a compromise, to retain size, just as the 60Mbps in 4k mode is a compromise, to save on energy (heat) in a compact body and to enable the use of regular sd cards. Active mode helps a lot (without Active mode, you cannot handhold telephoto shots) without any obvious decrease in quality.

What was not compromised was the resolution prowess (same processor as the pro model).
markr041 is online now  
post #16 of 57 Old 04-28-2014, 07:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Downloadable 4K version:

https://vimeo.com/93197947
markr041 is online now  
post #17 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 05:18 AM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
To my eyes this GX7 video is as sharp and detailed as your AX100: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgOph2RiDIk. I wonder what editing tricks were used to make it so clear? The beginning of the video shows the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 pancake lens was fitted to the GX7. Could that be the reason why the footage looks so sharp?
SD90 is offline  
post #18 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 05:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

To my eyes this GX7 video is as sharp and detailed as your AX100: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgOph2RiDIk. I wonder what editing tricks were used to make it so clear? The beginning of the video shows the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 pancake lens was fitted to the GX7. Could that be the reason why the footage looks so sharp?
I think it is camera settings.

I shot a clip with my GX7 yesterday. The day was a bit dull and, as usual, I was a long way away from the good light hours! Having never tried the "Vivid" setting, it seemed like a good time. I recall that the flags actually seemed a little dull. Apparently "Vivid" added something that makes my eyes think they are seeing some "sharpness" and "detail".

http://youtu.be/jvZ6oGz09IE
bsprague is online now  
post #19 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 06:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,660
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1429 Post(s)
Liked: 1545
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

To my eyes this GX7 video is as sharp and detailed as your AX100: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgOph2RiDIk. I wonder what editing tricks were used to make it so clear? The beginning of the video shows the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 pancake lens was fitted to the GX7. Could that be the reason why the footage looks so sharp?

Since we're talking about 4K, the only way to make an informed decision is to see both on a 4K monitor. When you do that you see there is considerably more detail in the AX100, particularly for objects that are not close to the camera. The difference in 1080p will be less, but will still be there.

With that said, I've always felt the GX7 was one of the sharpest and most resolute HD cameras. However, in terms of actual detail, it can't compete with a 4K camera on a 4K display.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #20 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 07:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post


With that said, I've always felt the GX7 was IS one of the sharpest and most resolute HD cameras. However, in terms of actual detail, it can't compete with a 4K camera on a 4K display.

I corrected what you wrote! (grin)
Ken Ross likes this.
bsprague is online now  
post #21 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 07:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Since we're talking about 4K, the only way to make an informed decision is to see both on a 4K monitor. When you do that you see there is considerably more detail

At the consumer level, my guess is that there are very few who can do that.

I was in a Costco this week and cruised the TV section. They had two 4K models. They were big. The more "normal" sized TVs for normal sized rooms were much more numerous. As in the Costco style, the same content was being streamed to all the TVs. I think the attempt is to allow the buyer to visualize what he/she will see when plugged in at home.

I stopped at a Best Buy two days ago. They didn't have any 4K cameras, including the AX100, to look at. I'm sure they will be coming. FWIW, the smartphone department was far busier than the camera/camcorder department.

I understand your excitement over watching 4K on a 4K screen. I think we were all excited when we say our first HD a decade ago.

My point is that, at the consumer level, we will not be watching much 4K content for a long time. The two reasons are that the delivery methods will be a long ways behind the TV makers and the price is relatively high for the value received. It seems to me that we will be evaluating the effectiveness of using 4K cameras for capturing content that most of our "customers" will be watching on HD or 1K viewing screens.

So when SD90 or others (like myself) say we don't always feel the 4K excitement, it's because we and our "customers" will be viewing on things you've already abandon.

We are talking about 4K when we ask the questions in a 4K thread!
bsprague is online now  
post #22 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 09:08 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Once again (re-stated for at least the fourth time), the superiority of 4K will be visible on your old, outdated 1080p screens, and even on your cellphones. And conspicuously so. The downrezzed 4K that you see is better than the 1080 coming out of any camera/camcorder - less artifacts, higher resolution, better color.

The reason is that no camera/camcorder (including the gX7, which is one of the best) comes close to full 1080 resolution, and downrezzed 4K hits it perfectly and also has better color sampling.

However, watching youtube videos on any screen is not the way to compare videos. Download the originals and watch on your regular viewing device (unless it is defective). You do not see the goodness only using a 4K monitor. You do not need a 4K viewing device.

The 4K videos will look better to anyone than 1080-origin videos, unless they hate 4K in principle (in which case don't mention it), on any screen.
markr041 is online now  
post #23 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 09:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,660
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1429 Post(s)
Liked: 1545
Bill, it will take a while for 4K to become mainstream. However with that said, a stroll through BB shows how rapidly it's reaching the sales floor. The BBs near me have no less than 4 or 5 different UHD TVs. This contrasts with only 1 about a year ago. Times they are a changing. smile.gif

BB also has the AX100 available. It may not be in the stores, but you can order it online from them.

You are correct about 4K content, there isn't much of it but that's what buying a 4K camera is all about. You create your own content....as much as you like! In the in interim, there are definite moves toward the creation of more content from online sources as well as the movies that either Samsung or Sony provide through their media outlets. So it's there, but just not much of it. Soon Directv will have a 4K channel as will some cable companies. It's inevitable.

As for professional use, yes, most 'customers' will not have the ability to view the 4K content in 4K. However with that said, if they're watching in HD, they'll see the best HD they've ever seen if it's downscaled from 4K. Beyond that, I'd suspect that most 4K camera buyers are not buying these cameras for use with their customers, but rather for their own personal use. I think most of us on this forum are doing just that.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #24 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 09:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 143
I do not think that investing in 4K TV's or monitors is worth it at this time. I think that upgrading to 4K cameras is - as you get better 1080, much better. And you have more flexibility in editing (zooming and stabilizing without loss of 1080 resolution).

And the cost to get 4K cameras is not like the premium that 4K TV's are asking.

The GH4 is not much more expensive than the GH3 was. And the GH4 is better-featured than the GH3 even ignoring 4K.

The AX100 is not much more expensive than the top-of-the line Sony camcorder was, and, besides the 4K advantage, the AX100 is a much better camcorder in features (except BOSS).
markr041 is online now  
post #25 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 10:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,660
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1429 Post(s)
Liked: 1545
Yes, but there's nothing like seeing your 4K content on a large screen UHD TV. It just comes down to what your budget is and how much you value this insane hobby of ours.

Having seen my 4K footage on a 65" UHD TV, it has permanently altered by perception of 'value'. wink.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #26 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 12:30 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

I think that upgrading to 4K cameras is - as you get better 1080, much better.
I'm not convinced yet. So far I have not seen any 4K GH4 footage, downrezzed to 1080, that looks noticably sharper and more detailed than this GX7 1080 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgOph2RiDIk. So for the moment, at least, I've lost my interest in purchasing the GH4 and am more interested in investigating whether or not the use of very sharp lenses like the 20mm f1.7 that was fitted to the GX7 in the sample above might be the secret to getting crisply detailed 1080 footage from ordinary 1080 cameras like the GX7.
SD90 is offline  
post #27 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 12:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post

I'm not convinced yet. So far I have not seen any 4K GH4 footage, downrezzed to 1080, that looks noticably sharper and more detailed than this GX7 1080 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgOph2RiDIk. So for the moment, at least, I've lost my interest in purchasing the GH4 and am more interested in investigating whether or not the use of very sharp lenses like the 20mm f1.7 that was fitted to the GX7 in the sample above might be the secret to getting crisply detailed 1080 footage from ordinary 1080 cameras like the GX7.

No, it is not. Every objective test of resolution shows you are wrong. It is simply not possible that the 1080 from the GX7 delivers higher resolution than 4K from the GH4, downrezzed or not. But if you want to believe what you believe by all means get the GX7, and start a thread on that camera. I do not see it in that Youtube video either. I suggest you get original files before you invest your money.
markr041 is online now  
post #28 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 02:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Bill, it will take a while for 4K to become mainstream. However with that said, a stroll through BB shows how rapidly it's reaching the sales floor. The BBs near me have no less than 4 or 5 different UHD TVs. This contrasts with only 1 about a year ago. Times they are a changing. smile.gif

BB also has the AX100 available. It may not be in the stores, but you can order it online from them.

You are correct about 4K content, there isn't much of it but that's what buying a 4K camera is all about. You create your own content....as much as you like! In the in interim, there are definite moves toward the creation of more content from online sources as well as the movies that either Samsung or Sony provide through their media outlets. So it's there, but just not much of it. Soon Directv will have a 4K channel as will some cable companies. It's inevitable.

As for professional use, yes, most 'customers' will not have the ability to view the 4K content in 4K. However with that said, if they're watching in HD, they'll see the best HD they've ever seen if it's downscaled from 4K. Beyond that, I'd suspect that most 4K camera buyers are not buying these cameras for use with their customers, but rather for their own personal use. I think most of us on this forum are doing just that.

I think 4K panels will be pretty standard for most new TV sets within two years, especially with the big brands. Just look back at the 720p to 1080p experience - at that time "experts" were saying much the same thing about those two standards that they are saying about 4K/1080p now. Most people wouldn't buy them, there was no reason to, people couldn't tell the difference (they could), there was no content, etc etc. But within two or three years 1080p had all but obliterated 720p sets.

The advantage of 4K panels is that they will upscale lower resolution footage so it will appear better of a 4K panel than on a 1080p panel, particularly on the larger displays popular these days. The impact might not be that great on a 32 or 40 inch panel, but when you get to 55 or 60 inches, 1080p just does not cut it. And it will be especially important when people use their TVs to display personal content, such as photos or video taken on their vacations. I think a very unappreciated application is going to be for viewing stills, for which a 4K panel is going to totally kick ass at.

So, even though content delivery might not be 4K yet, there is good reason to get a 4K TV panel. It will not be all that long before 1080p is relegated to no-name bargain basement brands.
Tugela is offline  
post #29 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Once again (re-stated for at least the fourth time), the superiority of 4K will be visible on your old, outdated 1080p screens, and even on your cellphones. And conspicuously so. The downrezzed 4K that you see is better than the 1080 coming out of any camera/camcorder - less artifacts, higher resolution, better color.
..........
The 4K videos will look better to anyone than 1080-origin videos, unless they hate 4K in principle (in which case don't mention it), on any screen.

I get it! I really do! You have been, and continue, to be a good teacher.

I understand that the reason to buy a 4K camcorder is to make better video.

Where I may differ for now is that I don't see a $2,000 difference and I don't think my audience will either.

Bill
bsprague is online now  
post #30 of 57 Old 04-29-2014, 05:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

......with that said, a stroll through BB shows how rapidly it's reaching the sales floor. The BBs near me have no less than 4 or 5 different UHD TVs. This contrasts with only 1 about a year ago. Times they are a changing. smile.gif.....

That's the way 3D was. The remotes for good TVs one year all had dedicated buttons for 3D. About a year the buttons were gone. Blu-Ray remotes changed from having a 3D button to having a Netflix button. We still have 3D, but not much of it. Mass adoption of 4K won't happen until the mass all have homes big enough to have rooms for 80" TVs or the price is the same as 1K TVs. When will the mass have the bandwidth to support 4K. We are lucky to get compressed HD!

I am not suggesting 4K is not great stuff, but I don't see it coming as a flood, only a trickle.

Bill
bsprague is online now  
Reply Camcorders
Gear in this thread - AX100 by PriceGrabber.com

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