or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Are you being fooled by 4K marketing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are you being fooled by 4K marketing? - Page 2

post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

If the video looks good on Youtube to any of you, then we can conclude two things:

1. You are not studying the video enough and/or

2. The video is designed not to stress the codec.

Otherwise why bother to use bitrates higher than 5Mbps for any video?

And it is NOT true the original video will look better - low bitrates can obscure noise, for example and hide sharpening artifacts and even color banding. More resolution can show issues.

A video that looks good at 5Mbps cannot be used to assess any camcorder's video sufficiently to warrant conclusions. Some of those 4K phone videos look good too. One can make any camera look good, and low bitrates can help.

If the PRO 4K Sony video, on the other hand, does not look good, unobscured by low bitrates, then you will all have to come to terms with why. If it does look good (compressed using the identical codec as the Sony AX100 but with a higher bitrate), then one might have more confidence in the AX100, though for the reasons Ken states it is not conclusive (but it is NOT irrelevant). That deeply compressed Youtube video, whose provenance is unknown, is much more questionable as a basis for judging quality.

I don't micro-analyze the video. If it looks good, it looks good. I sit back and watch it on my 23" computer monitor and if it looks good, I move on to my 64" plasma. If both displays show an excellent result, I don't begin to pixel peep. For me that's just utterly worthless. That's the problem with some guys that are religiously worshipping RAW. They so obsess over the tiniest details, they miss the forest for the trees. This is precisely why so much of the RAW footage that some think look good, IMO, looks like poop. If you can't simply sit back and enjoy the totality of the video without pixel peeping, then you should probably be doing photography.

Mark, your shooting style (and mine) do NOT stress most codecs, including AVCHD. So I am not concerned about stressing the codec on the AX100, and it's one of the reasons I get great results from the RX10. You would too. So again, let's be fair here, almost all of your video would not break the AVCHD codec. So for me, the demo was absolutely perfect in demonstrating the kinds of results I would expect at a minimum IMO.

As for bitrates, I have yet to personally see any low bitrate videos that looked better than high bitrate. Yes, at times I've seen little improvement when encoding at higher bitrates, but I've never seen an instance where an improvement was gained from a low bitrate. If there are exceptions, I've never seen them in my own personal use and that's what counts for ME.

Again, as for comparisons to the Sony 4K pro video, which I said had excellent detail, comparisons with it are moot. Different sensor, different processing and I'm sure other, different variables. To my eyes, the AX100 still had better detail.
post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

Well when the HDV cameras first came out (FX1 and Z1), everyone was mad about the long-gop, stretched pixels (1080x1440), no real full-HD, and no progressive 1080p. But yet the picture was substantially better than the predecessor MiniDV and DVCAM cameras. In this case, it still uses long-gop, but it appears to be full 2160x3840. Personally, I think Sony should have gone for H.265, but oh well. People will be disappointed about the not quite true 4K (4096) and no HFR (high frame rate), but still worthy for someone who has purchased or intends to purchase a 4K TV. We can all get pedantic about it not having redcode, RAW video, 4:4:4, HFR, 35mm sensor, interchangeable lenses, timecode in/out, 6GSDI, genlock, etc. But this camera is not aimed at that market. It is aimed at the high-end consumer. It is clearly not aimed at the BMD camera. But those users who want a camcorder they can enjoy while traveling or using it for family use, rather than for commercial use, this is it!

Absolutely! No commercial use here and no anal obsessing at the pixel level. And this is what so many miss.

In addition, and not discussed about much here, is the potential for much better HD if you choose to shoot that way. Higher bitrates with the new codec and the potential for better processing. Oh, and 4K. A win win. smile.gif
post #33 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

If you can't simply sit back and enjoy the totality of the video without pixel peeping, then you should probably be doing photography.

The difference between pictures and videos is just the amount of frames.

And that is not acceptable in photography.
.



.

For me, the biggest difference between pictures and videos is the shooter. People that shoot video seem to accept bad image quality as something normal.

Show that frame grab as a picture to ANY professional and ask him if thats acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

They so obsess over the tiniest details, they miss the forest for the trees.

We are not here to discuss poetry. IQ is one aspect, and we are discussing that. I agree that the content of the AX100 video is amazing. The place looks beautiful, but the flaws of that camera are a slap in the face for anyone that knows something about photography. For real, we shouldnt accept videos that look like "videos" anymore. We need videos that look like the pictures we take with our cameras.

That blablabla that a good content shot with an iphone is better than a video with no content shot with a Phanton is well, just blablabla.

If that was a picture taken with a new camera, would you buy it? I bet you wouldnt. Why, oh why, can you accept that, just because its a video? Ask yourself that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Mark, your shooting style (and mine) do NOT stress most codecs, including AVCHD.

Yes, it does. Anything that is not shot on a controlled environment, with little dynamic range and saturation will stress an 8-bit 420 codec. It doesnt have enough gradations and color resolution.

With that kind of camera you always have to choose the right time, light and spot to shoot, otherwise you will have unusable shots.

.


post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

Photography is years ahead videography. One of the reasons may be the user profile.
Really? So the guy that shoots pics for USA today is years ahead of LucasFilm? No?

OK. The guy that is taking stills with his cameraphone is years ahead of the guy taking videos with his handycam? No?

What might hold some truth is that the enthusiast photographers are more common than enthusiast videographers.
Quote:
Take a picture with a 16megapixel RAW capable camera and then take a picture with a 24megapixel JPEG-only camera. And NO, you dont need a 24 megapixel monitor to see the differences between them, the same way you dont need a 4K monitor to evaluate 4K videos.
Sigh. The only thing RAW does is give you access to the image before things like white-balance have been applied. It's the digital equivelant of a film negative. The ability to capture in RAW doesn't at all change the quality of the photo the camera can take, it just offers more ways to manipulate the photo on a computer.

But sure. Take a picture on a Canon Rebel XT (6mp or 10mp half-frame, I forget) then on a Nikon D800.
Quote:
So yes, a 16 megapixel picture can hold much more detail than a 24 megapixel picture, specially if you are going to downsample the images. So is it that hard to believe that a 1080p video can look better than a 4K video?
"Can" in the same way that a Ford Pinto *can* go faster than a Lamborghini Aventidor.

But yes. I'd rather watch a DVD with a really good transfer than a BD with a really bad transfer.
Quote:
- Y resolution: thats the resolution of the luminance. Black and white. Its the most important resolution in consumer camcorders. Cameras like the TM900 have a great Y resolution.

- R/G/B resolution: those are 3 different resolutions. When you join those 3 resolutions with the Y resolution you create your final image. If you have a 4:2:2 or a 4:2:0 camera, you are losing resolution. Important resolution.

- Compression: if the camera compresses the sensor data too much, you lose resolution. Seeing 4k cameras being released with 60Mbps compressions is ridiculous. That will never be 4K. With that amount of data per frame, there is no way to escape from compressions artifacts. The image will never look clean. It will be mushy.

- Bit depth: it can also affect resolution. You will have less gradations and more banding. Your textures will look worse and less detailed.

- In camera processing: it can also affect resolution. In-camera sharpening can destroy fine details, because it will never be optimized for every shot. In some shots it will create sharpening halos, and that destroys fine detail. In camera noise reduction can also destroy resolution.
Wow. Al over the place there.

I'm not gonna delve into Luma recording: because it's a big kettle of fish. At one moment you discuss RGBYC as separate resolutions... which has some truth at the sensor level, but not once the CMOS has performed the ADC. You discuss this in 3 different areas though they are all related.

You discuss compression / processing / and 4:2:2 (compression) in 3 different areas though they are all the same claim. These issues exist entirely independent of the resolution involved. Although in many cases your complaints are academic rather than impactful (much like complaining that CDs only cover 20Hz-20KHz). It's also interesting that you ask about "data per frame"; which is borderline nonsensical in video (as all compressions used are temporal, and so cross many frames)
Quote:
So, what kind of camera can produce an image with more depth, better textures and details? Remember that in the digital world, you can upscale a 480p video into 4k, so the most important thing is not the numbers in the video properties.
You've setup your vocabulary and then abandoned it. It's a poor argument style.

There is real truth to one of your claims: the focus on megapixel count is in some cases chasing a dragon (though having said that: note that quality is lost to the alias filter used in cameras and Nikon only removed that when the MP count got to 24MP because the sensor detail was deemed to resolve the aliasing problem). What enthusiasts know is that things like lenses, sensor size and quality, and in-camera processing (RAW HD video is unstorable because of size) are indeed important.

Again: I'll take a Canon 5D (6mp) against any cameraphone you'd chose. But you seem to have lost site of really salient points in a cacophony of cherry-picking and half-thought claims.
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

The difference between pictures and videos is just the amount of frames.
Erm. No.

Start with the fact that, like speakers, all video is compromise, and those compromises change from stills to video.

Let's look at DoF as a really quick example. Generally still photographers are looking to limit DoF. Placing your subject in focus to an off-focus surrounding draws attention. This exists to some extent in video; but because the subjects are often moving, a deeper DoF is generally superior to having to constantly change focus.

And subject motion blur. Motion blur is actually an advantage (look at the reactions to 48fps Hobbit). Sometimes but rarely is this so in stills.

Then there's shot composition. In stills, there's no temporal element. I don't have to worry if the shot 10 seconds from now is in frame in this shot. I'm happy enough to recompose. Camera movement (and worse, zoom) in video is a much bigger concern. Setting up shots has a temporal element.

Oh, and lighting effects are different. I once shot this video under flourescent lights that seem to have had a dimming / brightening time over the course of a few minutes. In my video, the white background kept yellowing and brightening (really funny on fast forward). In stills, WB could have been calibrated with each shot (and more easily fixed in post). I could have fixed a static WB problem easily on video, but one where the light kept changing was nigh-impossible.

Which brings me to the next difference. You have to (usually) set your WB, F, ISO, etc once. Can't just change that between each frame. (and there are clear Shutter-speed limits imposed by the framerate)... also: lighting is like twice hard as you can't use flashes in your lighting setup and the lights need to deal with moving subjects.
Quote:
For me, the biggest difference between pictures and videos is the shooter. People that shoot video seem to accept bad image quality as something normal.
I can get a Refurbished Nikon D5200 with kit lens for something like $600. What does that get me in a camcorder?I think price is one big issue.

I do, actually, agree with most of your points in that post though.
post #36 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Really? So the guy that shoots pics for USA today is years ahead of LucasFilm? No?

Oh my God. Im talking about consumer way of thinking. You can buy a cheap point&shoot camera like the RX100 that can shoot great pictures. If you want the same level of quality with video, not a long time ago you had to spend the price of a porsche on a camera.

Try to sell a picture camera with banding, blown out highlights, macro blocking etc. No one will buy it. Yet, people buy video cameras that do that.

So yes, photography is YEARS ahead. Wow, that was the worst interpretation I have ever seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

OK. The guy that is taking stills with his cameraphone is years ahead of the guy taking videos with his handycam? No?

Not the guy with the cameraphone. But if you are comparing a guy with a RAW capable point&shoot with a guy with a handycam, then yes. Post a frame grab of that video with superwhites on any stills forum, say that its a picture taken with your new camera, and wait for the answers. That is not acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

The only thing RAW does is give you access to the image before things like white-balance have been applied. It's the digital equivelant of a film negative. The ability to capture in RAW doesn't at all change the quality of the photo the camera can take, it just offers more ways to manipulate the photo on a computer.

Wow again, it looks like you know nothing about RAW and compression. I wont even discuss that with you, because I would have to start from scratch. So let us register your opinion: "RAW and compressed data have the same quality" (by JerryLove)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

But sure. Take a picture on a Canon Rebel XT (6mp or 10mp half-frame, I forget) then on a Nikon D800.

What is your point here, or are you just saying random things? What does that have to do with what im saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

At one moment you discuss RGBYC as separate resolutions... which has some truth at the sensor level, but not once the CMOS has performed the ADC. You discuss this in 3 different areas though they are all related.

Do you know why? Because thats how things are working. Do you think that the Y resolution of those cameras is the same as the RGB? No, they are not. The RGB resolution is far lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

You discuss compression / processing / and 4:2:2 (compression) in 3 different areas though they are all the same claim. These issues exist entirely independent of the resolution involved.

Well, everything im discussing here is related to the same thing: PICTURE. And you can break down those subjects as much as you want.

And no, those aspects are not independent of the resolution. They are TOTALLY related to the resolution. Please, read again something about color sampling!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

It's also interesting that you ask about "data per frame"; which is borderline nonsensical in video (as all compressions used are temporal, and so cross many frames)

Again, thats a great example on how late video shooters are compared to photographers. The only thing in your head is old tech. All compressions cross frames? Again, google is your friend. You are VERY wrong again.

I can shoot without cross frames, cant you?

And you can ALWAYS estimate the amount of data per frame. You dont have to know the correct number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Let's look at DoF as a really quick example. Generally still photographers are looking to limit DoF. Placing your subject in focus to an off-focus surrounding draws attention. This exists to some extent in video; but because the subjects are often moving, a deeper DoF is generally superior to having to constantly change focus.

LOL, so thats a difference between stills and video? The amount of DOF that the shooter wants? LOL Please...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

And subject motion blur. Motion blur is actually an advantage (look at the reactions to 48fps Hobbit). Sometimes but rarely is this so in stills.

LOL again. Wrong again. How is that a difference? So its forbidden to use low shutter speeds in photography? Or is it forbidden to use high shutter speeds on filmography? PLEASE...

There are lots of techniques to create pictures of fast moving vehicles where you NEED the blur to show action.

There are lots of videos shot with really high shutter speed to enhance the action. Sometimes people use 1/500 or even more with 60p cameras. That was used many times on many movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Then there's shot composition. In stills, there's no temporal element. I don't have to worry if the shot 10 seconds from now is in frame in this shot. I'm happy enough to recompose. Camera movement (and worse, zoom) in video is a much bigger concern. Setting up shots has a temporal element.

Yeah. Wrong again. You can use the same techniques to frame. And please, zoom during a video is so ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Which brings me to the next difference. You have to (usually) set your WB, F, ISO, etc once. Can't just change that between each frame. (and there are clear Shutter-speed limits imposed by the framerate)... also: lighting is like twice hard as you can't use flashes in your lighting setup and the lights need to deal with moving subjects.

Why would someone change the WB, F and ISO during the course of a video? That would make your video look VERY amateur.

Shutter speeds are not limited by framerate, they are limited by your creativity. Rule of thumbs is great for beginners, but you can (and a lot of people do) break those laws.

People that shoot sports, like skaters, are often using 1/500 at 60p with no problems to get sharp frames during the maneuvers.

Lighting is twice as hard? WOW, I cant believe that those are your arguments to show the differences between pictures and videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

I can get a Refurbished Nikon D5200 with kit lens for something like $600. What does that get me in a camcorder?I think price is one big issue.

Yep, and that Nikon will give you GREAT looking pictures. Images that can be used professionally Try to find a camcorder for 600 bucks that will give you high quality images.

Can you understand now why photography is years ahead?
Edited by thedest - 1/17/14 at 2:08pm
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

Oh my God. Im talking about consumer way of thinking. You can buy a cheap point&shoot camera like the RX100 that can shoot great pictures. If you want the same level of quality with video, not a long time ago you had to spend the price of a porsche on a camera.
I gave you three different levels: Professional, enthusiast, and amateur. I addressed the faleshood of your claim at all three levels. If one of those levels was not the level you meant; that doesn't matter as I addressed the others as well. Your objection to what level I mentioned is a red herring.
Quote:
Try to sell a picture camera with banding, blown out highlights, macro blocking etc. No one will buy it. Yet, people buy video cameras that do that.
Blown out highligts occur in cameras all the time. That's one reason that framing is available in SLRs.

Macroblocking and banding are both issues of compression. I suspect some do shoot photos on low enough settings to get both; but more to the point it's an issue of space and bandwidth. It takes far more tech to resolve those at 30fps than in individual images. That's why I tended to shoot in DV format rather than MPEG. None of those occurred. RAW is not viable in video shooting.
Quote:
So yes, photography is YEARS ahead. Wow, that was the worst interpretation I have ever seen.
No, it's just less expensive on a per-feature basis. Bicycles are less expensive than cars, but are not "years ahead".
Quote:
Not the guy with the cameraphone. But if you are comparing a guy with a RAW capable point&shoot with a guy with a handycam, then yes. Post a frame grab of that video with superwhites on any stills forum, say that its a picture taken with your new camera, and wait for the answers. That is not acceptable.
I've got camera stills far worse than some of my frame-grabs; and my video equipment is woefully out-of-date.
Quote:
Wow again, it looks like you know nothing about RAW and compression. I wont even discuss that with you, because I would have to start from scratch. So let us register your opinion: "RAW and compressed data have the same quality" (by JerryLove)
Misquoting me is, I believe, a violation of the AVR terms of service.

As a programmer: I've written some compression algorithims (mostly not for video). I shoot these days in raw and process on my PC. I used to shoot and edit video for sale. I have some experience here.

The biggest problems with JPEG from the camera are 1) It has already done whitebalance adjustments, which may not match the ones you chose to do and so result in generational loss, 2) the JPEG compression may not be as good as what you can set yourself and 3) because you've already had lossy compression run once, running it again (say: after editing or WB correction) will result in generational loss.

Most people who photograph don't have the knowledge to manually adjust WB, nor the interest; and the advantage to single-generation loss are nigh-imperceptible.

I guess what I'm saying is: You are wrong in claiming that you can make a value judgement about the output of a camera by whether it has the "save as RAW" feature.
Quote:
What is your point here, or are you just saying random things? What does that have to do with what im saying?
That, all else being equal, the higher MP camera will (at least in that example) give you the better picture. Your dismissal of pixel count is just as naive (or cool-aid drinking) as the persuit of MP uber alles.
Quote:
Do you know why? Because thats how things are working. Do you think that the Y resolution of those cameras is the same as the RGB? No, they are not. The RGB resolution is far lower.
Well, everything im discussing here is related to the same thing: PICTURE. And you can break down those subjects as much as you want.
You haven't even defined where you are talking about. Perhaps an example. A Nikon D5300. What is the R resolution? What is the G resolution? What is the B resolution? What is the Y resolution?
Quote:
And no, those aspects are not independent of the resolution. They are TOTALLY related to the resolution. Please, read again something about color sampling!
Again, thats a great example on how late video shooters are compared to photographers. The only thing in your head is old tech. All compressions cross frames? Again, google is your friend. You are VERY wrong again.
I can shoot without cross frames, cant you?
Google is such a friend you lack a single citation?

Which non-temporal compression can I use on a consumer-level camcorder. Please provide a cite.

"Cross frame" , as a noun (which is how you've used it) is a part of a bicycle. Video compression occurs across frames. (Yes DV didn't. But that's not available in the two res' you've been discussing at the price-point you are discussing)
Quote:
And you can ALWAYS estimate the amount of data per frame. You dont have to know the correct number.
LOL, so thats a difference between stills and video? The amount of DOF that the shooter wants? LOL Please...

LOL again. Wrong again. How is that a difference? So its forbidden to use low shutter speeds in photography? Or is it forbidden to use high shutter speeds on filmography? PLEASE..

There are lots of techniques to create pictures of fast moving vehicles where you NEED the blur to show action.

There are lots of videos shot with really high shutter speed to enhance the action. Sometimes people use 1/500 or even more with 60p cameras. That was used many times on many movies.
Yeah. Wrong again. You can use the same techniques to frame. And please, zoom during a video is so ridiculous.
Why would someone change the WB, F and ISO during the course of a video? That would make your video look VERY amateur.
I'm gonna cut some of yours here because you repeat yourself (you next mention shutter, having already mentioned it; then you mention it again, then you mention DoF (which you've already mentioned twice above). This is something I commented on in your previous post as very amateur argument.

To address your three points.
DoF / blur: Yes, you do blur backgrounds often in video; but not to the same degree (CG like "Speed Racer" not withstanding). Turning backgrounds in motion in to kalidescopes, while wonderful in stills, brings attention to them when the camera moves. Similarly, and as I said without you making a single counter argument ("your wrong" not being an argument), the movement of your subject(s) in and out of position means a larger DoF to avoid refocusing in video (generally messy, esp by non-pros).

Shutter speed. Go set your camcorder for 1/2 second shutter while shooting 24fps video and tell me how that works out.

WB, F and ISO : So you agree with me. It would look amateur to do that over the course of a video even though it's perfectly fine in stills.
Quote:
Lighting is twice as hard? WOW, I cant believe that those are your arguments to show the differences between pictures and videos.
Yep, and that Nikon will give you GREAT looking pictures. Images that can be used professionally Try to find a camcorder for 600 bucks that will give you high quality images.

Can you understand now why photography is years ahead?
No. Now I understand (well already knew) why things you listed as unacceptable in still cameras (though for many they are acceptable) are accepted in video cameras. Price. The same reason someone who would fly an ultralight might want doors on their car.
post #38 of 42
Jerry, I can't tell you how many times I've been misquoted here.
post #39 of 42
JerryLove, You raise some excellent points. When I shoot action stills of a sporting event, I pick a shutter speed that will freeze the action. So for swimming, I'm shooting at 1/1000 to freeze the water. When I shoot Judo, I'm shooting at 1/500 or sometimes 1/750 to freeze the judoka. When I shoot track and field, I shoot at 1/1000 minium and sometimes even 1/1500 to freeze the runner's bodies. Freezing the action is the most important thing to get great action shots. I try to use a wide aperture to lower the ISO and also to better separate the subject from the background, but the aperture and ISO are much less important. Noise degrades an image but motion blur will destroy it. Occasionally I'll shoot some art shots with motion blur, like a bicyclist riding against an intentionally blurred background or a coach looking at their team in motion, but even in those shots the core subject (eg., bicyclist's head) cannot have motion blur or the shot is ruined. When I shoot video of the same events, I use the 180 degree guideline. So if I'm shooting 30 fps with no intention of achieving a slow motion effect, I'll use 1/60 shutter, which gives plenty of motion blur. Without that motion blur, the video looks nasty.
post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

I agree Ken.

He's made the "video is just stills with more frames" claim, then run away from a discussion of DSLR's. He's made the resolution claim over and over and then run when asked to provide an actual resolution for an actual camera. He's confusing sensor data with post-processing, confusing user settings with device capability, and doesn't seem to understand dynamic range.

On the topic:
There is real merit to the "beware of chasing megapixels" idea. But I think that's something that anyone more than casually into the hobby has become aware of. A higher number of pixels is nice; but the quality of those pixels (which is to say: the quality of the sensor element), the quality of the lens, the appropriateness of the camera settings, and the application of compression are often a larger concern.

Well you've caught on quicker than I did Jerry. Threads I read now are a lot shorter than they used to be since I've decided enough is enough! biggrin.gif

What I always found amusing was how he'd post grabs or videos of what he considered to be 'proof' of his argument and yet those examples did nothing but prove that he couldn't prove his argument. From off-colored videos to poorly exposed subjects to apparently not knowing what the subject was in the first place, it was always the same. He's been so blinded by the tiniest of technical details he's learned in school and can't wait to regurgitate here, and so taken with pixel peeping and the like, that he really has trouble seeing the forest for the trees. It doesn't seem possible for him to just back and enjoy a good quality video. Of course his definition of 'good' is quite different than mine.

To be obsessed, for example, about one or two over-exposed clouds in a scene when a) it's not the subject of the video and b) since it's a video it's there and then gone unlike a photograph. It's not as if the entire video is composed of nothing but blown elements that are the actual subjects. These types of 'blown' elements (skies, windows etc.) within a video are so utterly common in professionally produced videos and movies, that it's more often seen than not. It's something that anyone that watches movies or TV dramas, with any degree of frequency, would see immediately if you looked for it. It's easily missed, because the audience is drawn to the subject, not the overexposed, irrelevant element within the movie or video. smile.gif
post #41 of 42
Bickering removed, suspensions issued. Thread bans issued.
post #42 of 42
Interestingly there's a phony video on Vimeo that's been referenced on one site that is claimed to have been shot by some French guy on vacation in December. The video was uploaded to Vimeo @720p and is not particularly well done. Contrast it with Sony's actual demo footage and the phrase 'day & night' doesn't quite describe it.

Of course it defies all logic that Sony would have given their brand new 4K camera to some guy on vacation, prior to even having shown the camera at CES, who then uploads the alleged 4K camera footage @720p. I'm sure Sony would be delighted to have their brand new pride & joy shown off that way.

It's amazing what we've been seeing with this camera.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Are you being fooled by 4K marketing?