Samsung NX1 - which is 4K video and which is the 28MP raw still? Can you tell?

[astrotripper]

This seems fun, so I finally registered on the forum (been lurking till now).

 

A - RAW, because it looks like there's more detail (which I would expect after scaling down a 28 MP image), and CA is corrected

B - video, because I doubt the camera can both record at 4K and still apply lens corrections to every frame

 

If that were shot with a lens such as Otus, it would be harder to tell, probably impossible, without pixel peeping.

[GMaximus]

Huh? You quoted me but I didn't say the thing you quoted. It was Ebrahim. How did that happen?

This thread is full of misconception )

[MatthewP]

I'd say A is video and B is raw.

B seems to have much more colour variation in the squares. Tonality seems better (though, so is white balance, so not sure what's going on there).

 

Edit. Yes, pretty certain it's that way around. Take a look at this shadow shot... A on the left, B on the right.

 

Still, pretty impressive that you have to go to these lengths to tell between the two. The tonality of the colours is a bit disappointing though really, compared to RAW. It looks muddy.

[Jacek]

Edit. Yes, pretty certain it's that way around. Take a look at this shadow shot... A on the left, B on the right.

 

How did you manage to add photo to the forum??

I always have errors when uploading... :(

[Changhoon Yoo]

A is video, B is RAW.

 

Because of Adobe RAW converter bug, CA is visible on the NX1 image of Photoshop.

 

[wideangle360]

Well here's my 2 cents. A is RAW, B is video. The cooler white balance of B is a red herring. A has way more depth and resolution. B is thinner and sharper. If I am wrong I'll eat my hat which is made of fine dark chocolate.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Best way to upload a high quality photo to the forum is to upload it to Imgur.com then take the "forum/boards link" and just copy it in your comment. Works best.

[DBounce]

B is raw. So let it be written, so let it be done.

[Guest 560a4aedcb80685284629074497fdc75]

I'd say A is video and B is raw.

B seems to have much more colour variation in the squares. Tonality seems better (though, so is white balance, so not sure what's going on there).

 

Edit. Yes, pretty certain it's that way around. Take a look at this shadow shot... A on the left, B on the right.

 

Still, pretty impressive that you have to go to these lengths to tell between the two. The tonality of the colours is a bit disappointing though really, compared to RAW. It looks muddy.

 

Thanks for the pics - I was going to do that but now I don't have to. Pretty conclusive I'd say.  :)

 

However I disagree that you need to break the image down so much to tell. I think this is a case of people not seeing the wood for the trees. If you stop looking at specific details and analysing the image so closely, but rather just sit back and look at the two images, B just looks way more 'real' and organic. It obviously has more information (colour, DR, 'real' detail). By comparison A looks plasticy and unsubtle in colour and contrast.

 

Of course I'm setting myself up for a gigantic fall here if I'm wrong.  :lol:

[Guest 560a4aedcb80685284629074497fdc75]

Andrew out of interest can you tell us the bit depth of the original RAW file?

[Brellivids]

A is a video frame and B is RAW (noise structure)

 

or both are Video frames.

[afaccon]

A is video

B is an image

 

 

Reason: Because in video mode there is less depth of field (smaller sensor area) and therefore the numbers appear sharper in video mode (A) than on still mode (B)? Ciao!

[Evan Fotis Georgoulakis]

Image A
...deceptively sharper and with warmer white balance, plus no clor fringing which usually happens with in camera jpegs and VIDEO, yet lower color bit especially obvious when zoomed way in, has horizondal color bands and non uniform noise around detailed areas (barcodes etc).

 

Image B

...deceptively clinical cool white WB, chromatic aberration all over, what lens is this?, and seemingly less sharp.

When zoomed all they way has better/ more uniform noise structure, and less banding indicative of a RAW capture.

 

At first sight  Image A has  the advantage, but with proper grading/Raw processing Image B will produce superior results.

[Daniel Acuña]

A is video and B is raw

=> More info in the shadows on the B and more color bit depth.

Plus I get the feeling that the NX1 is crushing the blacks in video, dynamic range in video is not as good as in raw

[Frédéric Jaulmes]

A is video (i hope)

[Frédéric Jaulmes]

A is video (never seen such a good sharpness)

b is a raw seems misconfigured with the correction of chromatic aberration

Thank for this funny game

[tpr]

Look at colours 37 and 31 in image A (reds, 2nd line down). They look like almost the same colour, yes?

 

Now compare them in image B. I think that is what you call bit depth, yes?

 

Those colors may appear closer together in A because of the warmer white balance. I don't think distinctness of colors is a good way to identify a raw image. Think of a raw image in its flat unprocessed form. There is a lot more information there, but before processing, all the colors look very neutral and similar. The colors appear more distinct when tonal contrast is increased and we can't in principle know whether the contrast in a set of images was introduced via in-camera jpeg/video processing, color grading or processing on a raw image, so it's a bit hard to tell which was responsible.

 

I would still put my money on A being the video and B being the raw, and for essentially the same reasons that other people are using to justify the opposite conclusion: B has less sharpening, B has uncorrected chromatic operation, B has less contrast. An unprocessed raw file would have all of those attributes, so my guess is that Andrew has been less heavy handed with his raw processing than whatever workflow produced the video still.

[Guest 560a4aedcb80685284629074497fdc75]

I don't think distinctness of colors is a good way to identify a raw image. Think of a raw image in its flat unprocessed form. There is a lot more information there, but before processing, all the colors look very neutral and similar. The colors appear more distinct when tonal contrast is increased and we can't in principle know whether the contrast in a set of images was introduced via in-camera jpeg/video processing, color grading or processing on a raw image, so it's a bit hard to tell which was responsible.

 

But colour distinctness is how I identified the raw image.

 

I wasn't making a technical analysis - I can just see that there is more colour information in B. Regardless of white balance or tonality. It's just there, plain as day. Not just in the red swatches, but everywhere. It doesn't really matter if the WB was off a bit. The hues will still be more varied and distinct.

 

I spent years in art school and grew up in a house full of painters so perhaps I'm more tuned in to colour than the average filmmaker, but I see it all the time in 8-bit video. The Canon C-line is the only 8-bit camera that I can't distinguish from 10 bit (they must do something very clever with compression). Put most 8-bit video next to Prores, RAW, etc, and you can see it straight away. It's not just about what can be done with the image in post, or dynamic range. You can see it as soon as you lift saturation. The colours look alive.

 

This is why I hate that so many talented filmmakers are replacing their ML 5D's with the A7S (spreading 8bits of colour throughout so much DR is just silly). It's the No.1 reason I've bought a GH4, and the reason I don't understand why everybody who owns a GH4 doesn't also own a Ninja Star. It's why I am selling my D5300 and G6 even though they have lovely colours - particularly the Nikon - they just don't satisfy next to my BMPCC. Even downconverted 4K from the GH4 (supposedly 10bit 444) doesn't match the colour fidelity/separation of 10-bit (or the C100!). It looks much better than most 8-bit, and the Samsung does too (the NX1 video colours I've seen look very nice indeed actually, but I suspect that has at least a little to do with the high contrast/low DR).

 

Sorry for the rant, but as you can see I feel very strongly about this. I'm a colour junkie ...   :)

 

I'm getting a Ninja Star for my GH4 as soon as I have a spare £300, and along with my BMPCC I'm never looking back - at least for personal work anyway. Bye bye 8-bit.

[jcs]

Both images are (now) JPG, however the upper left corner of A has large macroblock artifacts, where noise is missing. These artifacts are consistent with H.26x compression, thus A looks more like video than B.

[Kristoferman]

you're all gonna feel dumb when they're BOTH 4K video mwuhahahaha