Originally Posted by CatKing
btw my Dell 2711 is calibrated periodically with i1Display 2 so probably I can tell the difference of color when shooting at home because I can compare with the real objects.
I was kind of going to go here on my response. EDIT: I downloaded the original files today, the day after my original post. I still feel the same, though it is a little hard to make the decision now. As far as autofocus, I am just not seeing a difference in speed. In the 520 clip he exposes part of the deck when panning to the right hand side of the yard, which caused for a slight shift that does not happen in the first when the fence was not intruding, but other than that I am just not seeing it.
Go to 28ish seconds in the first vid, and 1second in the second vid, then pause and compare. I observed these elements while watching the video, but this is just to make it easier.
The fence looks very different between the two clips. In the first one, the wood looks a littler redder, and the weathered portions look much whiter than the second. In the second, the contrast of colors is more subtle and is achieved via more subtle changes in hue. In addition, there is some sort of moss that appears to be growing on the fence, that is not nearly as apparent in the first footage. The first one has more of that raw lumber look, whereas the second looks more used and real to my eyes. However, I am not there. Which one is more accurate?
In addition, in the first video, I feel like the tree looks a bit flatter. What I observe is that in the second video the buds are clearly a different color than the tree and branches, whereas in the first clip the branches and buds all run together and mingle as one color, and look much closer in color to the fence. The branches really seem real and to have depth, to my eye, in the second clip, but look more 2 dimensional in the first.
At first i was sortof predisposed towards 1 because of the above comments, but after looking at them closely, and rewatching, I like number 2 more myself. The colors have clearly got more subtle variations, more contrast, and a all of that lends to a much greater depth and realistic image.
Of course, I do not actually know which one is more accurate. I am not there to see it. But I SUSPECT 2 is much more accurate.HOWEVER, this is standard def, unless I am mistaken....so I hope they took the time to download the original clips, unlike I who did not to begin with!
as to sharpness, I am not at a 1080 display, only 720, so I will hold off in judging that regard. Maybe later this week I will try again on a 1080 display. To me, they look essentially the same, on my tv.
Just to make sure we are on the same page
EDIT: I watched, paused and compared, and watched again. And, I am positive the second is the 900
now, was not until this final edit though.
The horizon of the sky gives it away, an ability that render varying hues that I have not seen on other cams. Not to mention the red hue the clouds took on in the first clip... that looked terrible.
(I think the m2t on the second clip might have given it away too, but I was confused as to why they are different so I am not sure).
You were right not to tell which was which though, I can feel in my bones that I would be totally predisposed towards the pany if I knew which one was it for sure.e one I chose was the sony afterall?
Whichever one you choose, your primary focus needs to be to improve your handheld stabilization. That is going to ruin your home videos if you are not more cautious with it.