or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Sony RX10 with 24-200mm f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor !
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony RX10 with 24-200mm f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor ! - Page 8

post #211 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post


I guess it gets back to the old "different tools for different jobs". smile.gif

Its more like: different cameras for those who want good and bad image quality

https://vimeo.com/72133452
post #212 of 447
Give me a break. Deliberately overexposed footage to 'prove' how much better RAW is. Hysterical. I've never had a cam that looked that bad...oh wait, i did, it was a JVC tube camcorder from 20 years ago.

Still selling, it never ends.

Let's keep this to the RX10 since this IS the RX10 thread. Thank you.
post #213 of 447
Yeah.. because exposure is the REAL difference between those videos LOL.

Word by the author:
Quote:
Most of this test was just switching between H264 and RAW, I didnt change exposure or anything.

And its pretty easy to see what was done with the exposure. Its NOT overexposed. Those are high contrast scenes. He exposed correctly for the subject that is in the shadows. If he had exposed for the highlights the subject would look like a black shadow.


Back to the RX10

This video cant look worse. Good? Really? The colors are bleeding all over. The video is all mushy, the shadows are all muddy. Skin tone is orange.

The best video of the RX10 made until now is the one made by Andrew. And guess what? He thinks that the video of the RX10 is bad.
post #214 of 447
And here is a comparison between the GH3 and the RX10. Note that this is a low contrast scene. Even in that situation the RX10 manages to blow out the main subject (the window). And the resolution of the RX10 seems to be lower than the one in the GH3 (you cant evaluate that in the caps. When the RX10 is panning things look even worse).




Conclusions about this camera:

- Great stills
- Great features/gadgets for those who want everything in the camera and cant spend more on accessories
- The video mode is a fail

Whats the point of having all of those cool features, like built in NDs, histograms, zebras etc if the most important aspect (IMAGE QUALITY) was left behind?
post #215 of 447
The video from the RX10 is excellent as i and most reviewers have found. But hey, continue on your one man crusade to attempt to destroy anything not RAW. Continue to post meaningless pictures that you 'think' proves your point...it doesn't.

You don't like the 10, but here you are in an RX10 thread following me around like a puppy dog.

You continue your hard sell of the BMPCC but don't own one. Notice I don't post any longer in that thread? You know why? Because i have yet to find a video that looks as good as what I think the RX10 produces. Once I was convinced of that, I found it unproductive to keep reiterating my point.

Video 'fail'? Gimme a break, that's your opinion. IMO, almost all RAW videos I've seen 'fail' from the standpoint of realism.
Edited by Ken Ross - 11/28/13 at 4:36pm
post #216 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

Yeah.. because exposure is the REAL difference between those videos LOL.

Word by the author:
And its pretty easy to see what was done with the exposure. Its NOT overexposed. Those are high contrast scenes. He exposed correctly for the subject that is in the shadows. If he had exposed for the highlights the subject would look like a black shadow.

LOL all you like, but of course the video was horribly over-exposed. Please. Just look at the subject. In the first video the subject IS overexposed. If you can't see it, then you need to consult an ophthalmologist. Simply look at the exposure of the subject in the two videos. They are DRAMATICALLY different. There was no reason he couldn't get the exposure of the subject correct (forget the background).The guy was trying to make a point and did it badly. I have no use for guys that try to make a point by embellishing. If you'd take one step back from your breathless sales job of RAW, perhaps you'd see a bit more than you're seeing now. RAW excites you, wonderful. We've got those threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

Back to the RX10

This video cant look worse. Good? Really? The colors are bleeding all over. The video is all mushy, the shadows are all muddy. Skin tone is orange.

The best video of the RX10 made until now is the one made by Andrew. And guess what? He thinks that the video of the RX10 is bad.

You need to have your monitors adjusted. Seriously. I give up. Andrew is one guy with one opinion and other reviewers and I feel quite differently. Many reviewers have gone out of their way to praise the video from the RX10. But I keep forgetting thedest, you know more than anyone here. Your lack of tact is unmatched by anyone I've seen on AVS in years. BTW, the point of the video of the blinds was to show how the RX10 is almost devoid of moire whereas the A7 had plenty. To make a determination about resolution from that video is absurd. But I suspect you knew that.

Again, you dislike the RX10 video, go hang out in the RAW threads, don't we have at least THREE of those? Do you want to turn this one into that too? rolleyes.gif
Edited by Ken Ross - 11/28/13 at 4:42pm
post #217 of 447
My comments on the RX10 quartet video:

The skin tones and colors are fine (you can see the makeup coloring on some female faces), but far from perfect (and I certainly do not see orange). The string tone sound is just a little harsh and without much bottom end, but not bad sound of the music overall (for heavily compressed audio) and it was good to hear no agc.* The zoom ins were smooth and impressive. The major problem is the dynamic range of the video: the white edges of the sheet music are blown out as are major parts of the white chin cloths. It looks like narrow DR in what appears to be a uniformly lighted scene (not challenging); and that is what makes this look like a camcorder video, in the not good sense. But the overall look and resolution is good. It is possible that my monitor is too hot (for the blow outs, but I do not think so). And there is nothing one can do once those defects are discovered - this video is permanently damaged.

It is not possible to comment on whether the overall colors are realistic in this video or anyone's video unless you have been on the scene. We have no idea what the wood color of those string instruments are or what the actual color of the shirts were without witnessing them in person. Notions of "realistic" colors are otherwise completely subjective (which is fine - "looking" realistic is an ok concept but different from "is" real). The big exception is skin tones, but there is a lot of heterogeneity in real life in those too - although we can certainly rule out certain colors! Shots of Apple Nano's can be assessed for color realism since we know what the colors are (if one has seen them), but not shots of actual apples, since they come in a large variety of colors, btw.


*I listen with Sennheiser HD650 and Sony MDR7520 headphones.
Edited by markr041 - 11/28/13 at 7:34pm
post #218 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

He said nothing about Sony's implementation of AVCHD. The greater the detail the more obvious the loss is.

Here's what I said in a previous post:
Quote:
Their are different ways of implementing AVCHD so I wouldn't say it's necessarily the fault of AVCHD like he said. Sony is most likely using a week implementation of AVCHD in that camera if true.
post #219 of 447
Thread Starter 
post #220 of 447
Mark, I agree with much of what you say. I actually don't yet have a good handle on audio, but I can tell you my voice as I shoot has a pretty decent 'richness' to it, so I'm encouraged. I just haven't shot anything with any challenging audio yet to be sure.

However I can tell you that your monitor is too hot, without a doubt. I just looked at the video again for the sheet music exposure and chin cloths. Granted I'm not by my computer, but I am looking at it on an IPad and the sheet music is perfectly exposed on both my Ipad mini retina and my full sized Ipad. There is easily seen detail on the sheet music in both the wide and zoomed portions with no hint of blowout. The dynamic range is definitely better than you think. It's not BMPCC dynamic range, but it's fine.

As for the color being far from perfect, as you say, none of us knows since we weren't there. What I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that I'm seeing excellent color accuracy in most of my clips (I was there wink.gif). Where accuracy falls down a bit is under tungsten lighting, but much of that is easily remedied with a quick MWB adjustment.
Edited by Ken Ross - 11/28/13 at 7:52pm
post #221 of 447
Your own tests of realism are what counts, and I know you care about color accuracy (as I do). The sheet music details are fine (good resolution) - the vertical edge of the sheets is what I see as blown out on every monitor I have. Now even if this is true, the shooter could have avoided this by lowering exposure a tad. On every Panasonic camera/camcorder I have owned I was always fighting overexposure. Hopefully the RX10 meters more conservatively.
post #222 of 447
I agree Mark, by using zebras a shooter can generally avoid overexposure. I'll take a look at the edges of the sheet music on my computer monitor tomorrow.

But keep in mind one thing that I think is being missed in many threads, you can often control overexposure if you so desire. Why do I say 'if you so desire'? For the simple reason that so often the overexposed area is unimportant to the subject content.

So is the edge of the sheet music so important to the subject of the video? I say no and thus 'who cares?'. If a face is blown out, an instrument or something important, sure, we've lost something, but the edges of the sheet music? The same is true when I discussed in another thread the idea of an interior shot with our subject standing in front of a window. Most cameras will blow out the window, but do we really care? The subject is the person standing in front of the window, not what's on the other side of the window.

This is why in virtually any Hollywood movie, any professionally shot video or any documentary type interview, the window will be blown out regardless of the dynamic range of the camera. In fact I will contend that it would detract from the focus of the subject if we were to clearly see all of what's going on on the other side of that window, and that's why directors don't want that detail.

Now of course there will be times when I'd like to use extra dynamic range that I don't have, but as I've said, nothing is perfect. But my point is there are so many times something is blown out in a scene and it makes not a bit of difference to the 'success' of that scene, because the blown out area is totally irrelevant.

To my eyes I'm achieving a higher degree of realism, overall, than some cameras with a greater dynamic range. Now, if you offered that greater dynamic range together with excellent color, in a hassle-free package (read: no grading, no mandatory cc etc.), I'm in! smile.gif

Besides Mark, we both know that you and I will be shooting 4K before too long. In the interim I'm really having fun with the RX10. It's truly exceeded my expectations. smile.gif
post #223 of 447
Something that's been said on SlashCam is that it's best to use just the optical stabilizer rather than the active stabilizer since you get less side effects with just optical.
It would be nice if someone were to hack this camera. The GH1 was also considered a bit sharp compared to the competition but the codec wasn't strong enough to handle fast pans until it got hacked.
Edited by Paulo Teixeira - 11/28/13 at 8:53pm
post #224 of 447
The thing that's not mentioned about the Active stabilization is the greater reach it gives to the zoom. It turns the zoom into a 300mm equivalent. That's a nice plus. Any slight degradation (of which I've seen none) would be of minor consequence since when you fully zoom, the FOV is so much narrower. Thus the demand for the same level of detail as when you're fully wide is much less.
post #225 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

Its more like: different cameras for those who want good and bad image quality

https://vimeo.com/72133452

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. He SAYS he didn't change anything, but it is quite obvious that in the H.264 shots he has exposure set on the foreground and in the RAW shots it is set on the background.
post #226 of 447
Its not a matter of believing in him. Its pretty obvious. He used ETTR. That means he exposed for the shadows, because his subjects were against the sun. When you do that with a low dynamic range camera the footage gets ridiculously bad. As you can see in that example, you have the same amount of shadow detail. The difference is that with RAW you can recover all the highlight that was blown out.



Grab your camera, shoot an h264 video against the sun exposing for the shadows. You will see that you sky will disappear. Take a RAW picture with the same camera using the same settings. Open it in Lightroom and you will see that you can bring the sky back. Its not a secret to anyone.
post #227 of 447
Tugela, absolutely. This is what drives me nuts about someone coming here to offer that video as 'proof' of how bad H.264 is. All that was accomplished by doing that was to prove he has zero credibility and continues to push his agenda.

We know that H.264 is not the ultimate codec, but used intelligently and with good equipment, it still can support some beautiful imagery...and do so without a lot of work in post.
post #228 of 447
The funny thing is that it looks like everyone in the internet is posting fake examples.

And look at that! RAW has more shadow detail and more highlight detail. The h264 is underexposed and has less sky detail. Is that magic? I think it is. Its obvious that he is using magic. Thats fake!

Oh my God, not again?! What is happening?

.
.

And OK! You have asked me and I will be a nice guy and stop posting about RAW video here. But please: if you are happy with h264 and dont need RAW its ok, but stop saying that RAW is not good enough. It is the best thing that has happened in the last years. Everyone that has worked with RAW video (in canon DSLRs or Blackmagics) are saying that they cant go back and be completely happy again with h264.
Edited by thedest - 11/29/13 at 5:01am
post #229 of 447
I will repeat this one more time thedest. This is a thread about the Sony DSC-RX10. It is not a thread about shooting RAW. There are currently FOUR (4) threads about shooting RAW or the BMPCC. Go there to discuss the pros and cons of RAW.

We have one (1) thread about the RX10. AVS rules require you to stick to the topic or start your own thread. Since you already have four (4), there is no need for that. If you can't do that then maybe the mods can come here and clean things up.
post #230 of 447
Thats not off-topic. We were discussing how much better the violin video was compared with the RAW video that mark posted. You said that the colors were better, the dynamic range was great and that the details were good enough.

In my opinion and technically speaking they are not. Examples are great to illustrate that in a technical point of view. Posting examples is always better than saying: "I think that those colors are better"
post #231 of 447
^ As you do in EVERY thread, you have again misrepresented what I said. Where did I say the violin video was better than Mark's? Where did I say the dynamic range was 'great'? They are two different subjects in totally different lighting environments! Unreal. I did say I thought the video was good. Please excuse me for doing so.

I commented on Mark's video and commented on the violin video. You trying to conflate the two is your problem, not mine.

I have said repeatedly in other threads that it's obvious considerable work is required in post to bring RAW to the level (or exceed that) of good in-camera processing. I never said that 'RAW' was incapable of that. Never. But it IS painfully obvious that it is FAR easier to create BAD videos with RAW than with good in-camera processing. So yes, RAW doesn't create wrong colors, but almost everyone using it with cameras like the BM are.

If you can't see that RAW requires talent that few possess, then there's nothing I can say.

Again, you are trying to derail this thread!

Now, what were we discussing? Oh yes, the Sony RX10.
Edited by Ken Ross - 11/29/13 at 5:25am
post #232 of 447
Im too lazy to answer you now, Ken. We have already discussed that in private.

A nice comparison with original files from the cameras - direct link download.


FZ200 - worst resolution of the bunch

http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/panasonic/lumix-dmc-fz200/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video01.MTS
http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/panasonic/lumix-dmc-fz200/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video02.MTS

HX300 - better resolution than the FZ200 but worse than the RX10. I love the 2000mm zoom.

http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/sony/cyber-shot-dsc-hx300/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video01.MTS
http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/sony/cyber-shot-dsc-hx300/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video02.MTS

RX10 - the resolution is better than in the average bridge and point and shoot cameras. A little bit worse than the GH3. Its producing too much artifacts. Sony promised to reduce that and failed. Maybe if you reduce the sharpness.

http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/sony/cyber-shot-dsc-rx10/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video01.MTS
http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/sony/cyber-shot-dsc-rx10/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video02.MTS

GH3 - still the benchmark (and thats not the hacked GH3). The guy had problems with the focus.

http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/panasonic/lumix-dmc-gh3/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video01.MTS
http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/panasonic/lumix-dmc-gh3/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video02.MTS
post #233 of 447
I had the GH3, currently have the GX7 and now the RX10 and I find the video produced by the RX10 in actual shooting is a bit better and slightly more detailed. But they're all very close in that department. I love what Sony has done with the sharpness. One of the reasons it's so improved is the much better control of moire and aliasing.

Sony has done a great job minimizing these artifacts on the RX10 as I've seen and many reviewers have pointed out. The degree of artifacts produced by the GH3 are very comparable. There is absolutely no comparison, none, between the level of artifacts produced by the NEX7, NEX6 and NEX VG30 (I've owned them all) vs the RX10. The NEX all suffered from significant moire and aliasing. The RX10 does not. It as close to being 'artifact-free' as any DSLR type camera I've seen. Perfect? No, but damn good.

So when you say that Sony 'failed' to reduce these artifacts, you are 150% wrong. They've made good on that promise.

P.S. You were too lazy to respond to my pointed facts about your approach to posting but apparently not too lazy to offer up a whole bunch of videos. wink.gif
post #234 of 447
The example posted shows a lot of artifacts coming from the RX10, more than lots of other cameras. Do you have examples showing the opposite? Owning a GX7 and the RX10, you should post some comparisons. Lots of guys would appreciate that.

The same guy may be thinking about getting the GX7/GH3 or the RX10. Those user comparisons always help.
post #235 of 447
My latest blog post on the RX10: http://hybridcamerarevolution.blogspot.com/2013/11/sony-rx10-with-atomos-prores-recorder.html

Here's the video from Atomos showing what a compact little package the RX10/Ninja 2 combination makes:



Sadly, I won't be buying one for personal use because of the 30 minute limit and my specific requirement to replace my TM900 with a moire-free large sensor camera for occasional event shooting, but, with the addition of the Ninja 2, I am now recommending this camera to enthusiast, doc and ENG ProRes shooters who want a codec that will stand up to a grade, but don't need RAW (yet smile.gif).

Low budget RAW shooters or those who absolutely need the flexibility of interchangeable lenses should still get the BMPCC, in my view. It is a fabulous gateway camera to RAW cinema (I'm definitely keeping mine).

Cheers,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution
post #236 of 447
Bill, the ProRes recorded with the NINJA wont be the same as the one recorded by a native ProRes camera.

When you use the NINJA, the ProRes is just a wrap. The only advantage, as you said, will be for those who want to post process the videos. AVCHD falls apart very fast in post processing, but ProRes can handle it. The image quality wont be better though. You wont have 422 colors, better dynamic range and more resolution. Panning shots may have an improvement.

So for those that want a good image right out of the camera, there is no big advantage on using the NINJA. It will be usefull for those who want to grade the video - like doing some split toning etc.
post #237 of 447
I'm glad you could come to a conclusion of camera quality based on those links. Truly unbelievable. I can't believe I wasted my time downloading a few. But I did come to a couple of tentative conclusions as they'd have to be 'tentative' based on those absurd clips.

* The focus on the GH3 made it impossible to determine almost anything since it retained focus for only a couple of seconds. How you could post this of an example of anything is precisely why I don't bother opening up many of your links anymore.
* The RX10 autofocus worked perfectly as I've seen time and time again.
* The FOV of the tests of the clock tower were obviously very different, so an A/B is virtually impossible. Again, the horrific focusing made it embarrassing to even post this as an example of anything but "see how poorly the GH3 autofocus worked here".
* For the brief periods when the GH3 was in focus, I saw slightly more detail on the RX10 but again, differences in focal length made that a dicey call at best since the RX10 presented a wider FOV than the lens used on the GH3.
* Artifact determination between the GH3 & RX10 from these clips are impossible
* The color on the RX10 was better IMO. In fact the color of the GH3 was one of the major reasons I switched to the GX7 which I felt had more accurate colors

So essentially, it would be foolish to draw any definitive conclusions about resolution or artifacts from these clips. Just as when you show a couch in front of a window, I'm totally unimpressed. What was the subject? The couch? The window and what was outside of it? What? Most people shooting an interior shot like that are probably showing the person in front of the window or the furniture. It means nothing that what's on the other side of the window is blown out. It's not the subject.

I've done my carefully framed A/Bs on the GH3 vs GX7 a number of weeks ago and drew my conclusions. I also did my A/Bs of the GX7 vs the RX10 and drew my conclusions from those too.

So again, for the 4th time, I'm done with your posts. This is the RX10 thread and if necessary, I'll start an RX10 owners thread where in the spirit of AVS, owners would be the ones contributing. This thread is pretty well trashed which is what I suspect Mr. Dest intended to do in the first place.

Personally, I'm done responding to Mr. Dest's posts, anywhere, in any thread.
post #238 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

RX10 - the resolution is better than in the average bridge and point and shoot cameras. A little bit worse than the GH3. Its producing too much artifacts. Sony promised to reduce that and failed. Maybe if you reduce the sharpness.

http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/sony/cyber-shot-dsc-rx10/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video01.MTS
http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/sony/cyber-shot-dsc-rx10/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video02.MTS

GH3 - still the benchmark (and thats not the hacked GH3). The guy had problems with the focus.

http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/panasonic/lumix-dmc-gh3/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video01.MTS
http://www.dkamera.de/media/testberichte/panasonic/lumix-dmc-gh3/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video02.MTS

For the video01 files... There's very little detail in the GH3 wide angle shot, very mushy. Even my mildly hacked GH1 looks better than that. The RX10 wide angle shot has nasty pulsing moire along the fence. What SteadyShot setting was used? Neither are anywhere near as good as what you would get from a Panasonic 3MOS camcorder.

For the video02 files... The GH3 telephoto shot of the tower is better than the RX10 shot, with more background detail despite autofocus pulsing.
post #239 of 447
LOL Ken. Why are you getting so angry for nothing? Im just posting a comparison. You have posted lots of reviews made by people that know nothing about video, and you used that to conclude that the RX10 is a great camera for video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

* The focus on the GH3 made it impossible to determine almost anything since it retained focus for only a couple of seconds. How you could post this of an example of anything is precisely why I don't bother opening up many of your links anymore.

Yes, as I said. He had problems with the focus. But if you know where to look at, you can see some stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

* The FOV of the tests of the clock tower were obviously very different, so an A/B is virtually impossible. Again, the horrific focusing made it embarrassing to even post this as an example of anything but "see how poorly the GH3 autofocus worked here".

You probably dont know that site. You should read some of their reviews. They are really great. Much better than the ones you have posted. They use that video to show how much zoom you can get on those cameras.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

* Artifact determination between the GH3 & RX10 from these clips are impossible

But you can see A LOT of artifacts on the RX10 video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

* The color on the RX10 was better IMO. In fact the color of the GH3 was one of the major reasons I switched to the GX7 which I felt had more accurate colors

LOL at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Just as when you show a couch in front of a window, I'm totally unimpressed. What was the subject? The couch? The window and what was outside of it? What? Most people shooting an interior shot like that are probably showing the person in front of the window or the furniture. It means nothing that what's on the other side of the window is blown out. It's not the subject.

LOL at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

I've done my carefully framed A/Bs on the GH3 vs GX7 a number of weeks ago and drew my conclusions. I also did my A/Bs of the GX7 vs the RX10 and drew my conclusions from those too.

So why dont you post those examples? Here I am, bringing CONTENT, posting examples (good or bad), and you keep saying "I think this, I think that...". Im using real stuff to get to a conclusion. Should we all think that what you say is more reliable than everything that is on the internet?

Really. Post something. I would love to see a better comparison between the RX10 and the GX7. Bring something to the community.
post #240 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchback View Post

For the video01 files... There's very little detail in the GH3 wide angle shot, very mushy. Even my mildly hacked GH1 looks better than that. The RX10 wide angle shot has nasty pulsing moire along the fence. What SteadyShot setting was used? Neither are anywhere near as good as what you would get from a Panasonic 3MOS camcorder.

For the video02 files... The GH3 telephoto shot of the tower is better than the RX10 shot, with more background detail despite autofocus pulsing.

I really like how the GH3 looks. And remember, its a stock camera, not a hacked one. How the hacked GH1 compares with the stock GH3? Maybe it IS better.

And yes, the RX10 artifacts are really bad.

And yes, I do agree that cameras like the TM900/700 are far better.

For those that dont want to download the videos, here you can see the frame grabs:


FZ200




HX300




RX10




GH3




The RX10 looks far better than the other P&S cameras - but for me, the GH3 is the clear winner.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Sony RX10 with 24-200mm f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor !