liork Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Indeed, looks like rolling shutter, bad. Marco Tecno 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomastancredi Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 terrible rolling shutter. very bad. slow mo 1080 looks very bad also. looks like it will no be the so expected decent hybrid for some. Don't care so much about improvements on AF over a6300, as I wont be buying expensive sony lenses. And it would be good to have good 1080p - not always with time to process 4k, and can't afford another computer just for 4k yet. Also from the footage looks like this will be terrible hand held. Marco Tecno 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 3, 2016 Administrators Share Posted March 3, 2016 16 minutes ago, tomastancredi said: terrible rolling shutter. very bad. slow mo 1080 looks very bad also. looks like it will no be the so expected decent hybrid for some. Don't care so much about improvements on AF over a6300, as I wont be buying expensive sony lenses. And it would be good to have good 1080p - not always with time to process 4k, and can't afford another computer just for 4k yet. Also from the footage looks like this will be terrible hand held. Geez. It's so badly shot. If you're going to judge the camera, judge it from something decent for heaven's sake. I hardly think the rolling shutter will be any worse than the 1D C, A7S II, NX1, GH4 or many other 4K cameras, many of them much more expensive than $999 dahlfors, Nikkor and Cinegain 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Anastasi Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 30 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said: Geez. It's so badly shot. If you're going to judge the camera, judge it from something decent for heaven's sake. I hardly think the rolling shutter will be any worse than the 1D C, A7S II, NX1, GH4 or many other 4K cameras, many of them much more expensive than $999 from max : Yup. If it's one clip your talking about in particular or the most it was shot with 85mm 1.4 Gmaster which is equivalent to about 130mm so hand holding that focal length without optical stabilization is not good smile emoticon I shouldn't have used the clip but was in too much of a rush to chage it. 51 minutes ago, tomastancredi said: terrible rolling shutter. very bad. slow mo 1080 looks very bad also. looks like it will no be the so expected decent hybrid for some. Don't care so much about improvements on AF over a6300, as I wont be buying expensive sony lenses. And it would be good to have good 1080p - not always with time to process 4k, and can't afford another computer just for 4k yet. Also from the footage looks like this will be terrible hand held. Copied from video description: This is a rushed video made for a competition. Video could be no longer than 2 min and I finished it 3min before the turn in cutoff. No color grading or correction done, straight out of camera. And a lot of thing I would change if given just 15 more min, but still want to share with you. All this video was shot with fully auto focus with a few shots using the focus hold to keep the focus on a subject like the bars. The footage of the wakeboarding was mainly shot on a 70-200 F4 at 200mm F4 (so 300mm with the a6300) and the shutter was cranked way too high as we wern't provided ND. Most if not all were standard picture profile (off) maybe 1 or 2 Cine 2 but not sure. Overall very impressed with the video AF tracking. Even though it doesn't look like the subject is far, they are actually really far and coming a far distance to me. I'll have a separate video testing the autofucus this was just a quick video for the competition. Didn't have access to timelapse app for this camera and it would not install for those who had it, so time-lapse was just 4kvideo sped up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benymypony Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I tried to grade a footage of the a6300 found on Vimeo, just to play. For a test I used this video by Gordon Laing, shot in 4k UHD @ 24p mode at 800 ISO with Picture Profile 8 (S-Log 3). Below the ungraded and graded frames. Banding and macroblocking in sky on the graded frame. This appears when I converted S-Log 3 to LC709 using DaVinci Resolve included LUT. (Attached, the LUT of this look in .cube format, if someone is interested.) Experimental look #1 for Sony a6300 (S-Log 3).cube Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagnje Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 looks like it will be slog-2 for exteriors and slog-3 for interiors/skin color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexO Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Is it just me or 1080p looks rather soft? I am comparing it with down scaled 4K version on HD monitor. I think Samsung is doing a much better job producing 1080p with minimal rolling shutter and fairly decent sharpness(surely it's not as sharp as 4K version, but difference is not as dramatic). 1080p: 4K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gianluca Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Yes it's soft, I don't understand why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrorSvensson Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 49 minutes ago, Gianluca said: Yes it's soft, I don't understand why. definitly not soft, but its nothing amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas MAILLET Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Guys there is a fact that when you upload a 4K footage on Youtube or Vimeo, when you look at it, it looks nicer, and sharper than if you downscaled yourself before uploading on 1080p on youtube or vimeo... Compressors on these platforms don't do the same work if your upload is 4K or 1080p... This is like that !!!! And that's the Wayyyy it is !!!!! (for the 80s lovers !!!! lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted March 3, 2016 Super Members Share Posted March 3, 2016 Sorry miss read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexO Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Nicolas, I've downloaded original 100Mbit versions from vimeo, not whatever they reencode for general viewing. Those are original files which come from the camera. Gordon makes them available for download if you are registered vimeo user. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas MAILLET Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 14 minutes ago, alexO said: Nicolas, I've downloaded original 100Mbit versions from vimeo, not whatever they reencode for general viewing. Those are original files which come from the camera. Gordon makes them available for download if you are registered vimeo user. Woops... sorry... Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 3, 2016 Administrators Share Posted March 3, 2016 If those are indeed direct from the card then S-LOG 3 looks unworkable on the A6300 and the codec is looking like it has the same problems the FS5 had, but worse. Not good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tugela Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 11 hours ago, liork said: Indeed, looks like rolling shutter, bad. It isn't present in any of the other footage, so probably the IS briefly lost it's mind at that particular point. 4 hours ago, alexO said: Is it just me or 1080p looks rather soft? I am comparing it with down scaled 4K version on HD monitor. I think Samsung is doing a much better job producing 1080p with minimal rolling shutter and fairly decent sharpness(surely it's not as sharp as 4K version, but difference is not as dramatic). 1080p: 4K: Keep in mind that the NX1 shoots HD at 80 mbps using a more efficient codec, so it will probably hold detail better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PannySVHS Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 In Max´ video A6300 has obviously higher resolution than G7, also details in the shadows instead of mud. Regarding the shadow detail it looks like a codec issue of the G7 with noise reduction dialed up too much in the profile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayRaven Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Another low light video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinegain Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Noise looks fine. But the whole motion to the footage is way off it seems tomastancredi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRenaissanceMan Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 3 hours ago, PannySVHS said: In Max´ video A6300 has obviously higher resolution than G7, also details in the shadows instead of mud. Regarding the shadow detail it looks like a codec issue of the G7 with noise reduction dialed up too much in the profile. Could definitely be a picture profile/settings thing. I'm sure, with tweaking, we could coax a little more resolution and shadow detail out of the G7. However, while the Panasonic has more blocked up shadows, it also has a clear advantage in the highlights. Not only is there more latitude, but it doesn't show any of the hue shifts, bright color ringing, or hard clipping I see in the A6300. Check out the underwater lights in the second example scene. Horrendous performance by the Sony. The Panasonic has much nicer color overall too, struggling less to render the mixed sources naturally. With used G7 prices dropping to around $400, I'm struggling to think of reasons not to buy it. No LOG profile I guess, but those things cause more problems than they solve in 8-bit cameras. Image looks acceptable at 6400 and rather good at 3200. As to people bashing it for stills...you're full of shit. I'm sorry, but even measurebaters can look at DXO and see that raw performance is less than a stop away from APS-C. There is so much amazing work being shot on M4/3 that no one can claim the camera is their limitation to getting good results. Panasonic's DFD autofocus has also been shown to be faster and more accurate than any other current mirrorless. Time will tell on the A6300, but "it doesn't have PDAF points" is an asinine argument. The last thing to look at are lenses. Last time I checked, the Sony APS-C stable was pretty pitiful. There's like...2 or 3 Zeiss lenses that are pretty cool I guess? Micro Four Thirds, on the other hand, has a gigantic selection of both AF and MF glass, almost all of which are stellar pieces of glass. As someone who's shot and edited a couple dozen commercial and portrait shoots with a GH3 and A6000 side by side, there's basically nothing in it. The Sony is higher res, but the M4/3 glass has the edge. The Panny has lower DR/higher noise, but the Sony's 11+7 bit compression makes it a wash. The Sony is smaller and lighter, the Panasonic much better built and better-handling. Neither have great color on Adobe defaults, and benefit greatly from profiling in ACR. The GH3 battery life is enormously better, the A6000 has almost double the burst rate. I would never argue that Micro Four Thirds is the best stills platform available, but I do believe it represents the best mix of compromises for most photographers. The system's image quality today is where APS-C was a couple years ago, and I don't recall many people complaining then. In a few more years, it'll be where class-leading APS-C is now. And so on and so on. So as technology marches on and sensors get better and better, I'd rather have the smaller size, better glass, and stronger features of a M4/3 body than a bump in performance less than 1% of shooters would even notice, let alone need. Some samples to ponder: https://www.mu-43.com/threads/featured-mu43-wedding-experience-by-sssyurrr.61628/https://www.mu-43.com/threads/m43-portraiture-by-livingloud.61610/https://www.mu-43.com/threads/featured-photographs-from-morocco-by-ggibson.62877/ https://www.mu-43.com/resources/voigtlander-nokton-42-5mm-f-0-95-real-world-review.36/https://www.mu-43.com/threads/featured-my-portrait-work-with-m43-can-it-hang-with-the-big-boys-by-spatulaboy.58189/ Cheers. IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tellure Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Those highlights on underwater lights (@ 1:31) do look way better on the G7, but the Sony also looks brighter overall (check out the shadowed palm trees next to the tables). Maybe exposure was slightly different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.