Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sony RX100: Getting the best video out of it...


153 posts in this topic

Posted

Have you read this? Might be worth a try if you have FCP...

 

http://philipbloom.net/2009/05/30/how-to-convert-canon-5dmk2-footage-from-30p-to-24p/

I think the Philip Bloom method is obsolete now that FCP X has Optical Flow built into its rate conforming.  Bloom is essentially tweaking the old FCP to do the same thing, only in a much more labor-intensive way.

 

I think FCP Optical Flow (essentially the same as Twixtor) is the way to go. It's just damn slow rendering and not always 100% perfect, especially if the footage was shot at the wrong shutter angle.  ReelSmart Motion Blur can help fix the shutter angle issue though. That plugin works wonders for restoring motion blur.  I blogged about that recently at rungunshoot.com.

 

And I shy away from 60p for non-slow motion because of the compression artifacts. If you have a lot of camera and/or subject movement in the frame, the compression shows up in a really obvious and ugly way.  And in my tests 60p/24p isn't any smoother than 30p/24p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's strange, I did a bunch of tests and 60p always looked cleaner and had less compression artifacts than 30p. I know this doesn't sound right, but my tests showed otherwise. I also tried twixtor, but to me it still looked better dropping frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Are you using 24mbps FX mode in 30p? The default is 17mbps, which will definitely show more compression.

 

And I also assume you're looking at  de-interlaced footage...

 

I've stepped through the 60p footage frame-by-frame to see just how it handles motion, and it looks like every other frame gets short-changed on the bitrate.  So there will be one clean frame followed by one blocky, highly-compressed frame, followed by another clean frame, etc.  30p seems to give each frame equal bitrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes I was looking at 24 mbps in 30p deinterlaced. I recorded a tree with high detail and compared 60p vs 30p and the 60p looked better and less artifacts. That's interesting that you say that every other frame looks more compressed. I'll have to do some more tests!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

60p at 28Mbps will give you almost half the bitrate of 30p at 24Mbps, per frame.

I don't know exactly how Sony is compressing the footage though, how many keyframes it uses, their frequency, etc. which would also have an important effect on the final results.

 

60p however will give you twice as much information if you're planning on retiming using optical flow, so that could make up for the lower bit rate, helping the optical flow make a better job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I believe the way the avchd compression works means the difference in data between frames when shooting at higher frame rates (50p or 60p) is less than the difference in data between frames when shooting at 24p, 25p or 30p.  Because of the way the data is compressed, the codec records the difference between the next frame and its previous frame, rather than storing the specific data from each.  In all but the fastest camera movements or footage of organic from such as animal fur the fact that higher frame rates only have a little more bitrate allowance doesnt have much of an effect on actual data retained per frame.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udADA8IhKfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Atleast with the Sony nex-5n, the compression is significantly worse when doing 50p instead of 25p. It will also alias more. So I will stick with 25p usually. Same thing with the FS700. When doing 50p, it is significantly worse compression, unless you use s&p. If you use smooth motion, it will use the buffer to record 24mbps AVCHD as a 25p stream so the compression is better.

 

I have no idea how someone can see it differently, but there it is.

 

28mbps at 50p = sucks. Just a little bit of motion and half the frames break up. Macroblocking and smoothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Question to OP (and everybody else).

 

How are you finding the RX100, especially coming from the canon 7D - are you satisfied with the quality, the fixed lens, and with it as a filmmaking tool - is it everything you expected it to be? Are you able to do the same kind of projects as before, or are the limitations of this kind of camera a bit to much. Basically, knowing what you know today - would you still have bought the RX100 as a filmmaking tool? 

 

Reason I'm asking it that I'm thinking about getting one myself - as a sole camera for minor personal projects until im more aware of my needs and then ready to buy into a system (camera and lenses).

 

Thx

Michael

 

My post got somewhat hidden away due to the "first-post-are-moderated" rule.

So i'm just bringing it to the attention of the tread (one time only).

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How are you finding the RX100, especially coming from the canon 7D - are you satisfied with the quality, the fixed lens, and with it as a filmmaking tool

 

I'm very satisfied with image quality for the camera it is. Make no mistakes though, this is not a 7D, this is a fragile little camera, if the lens decides to get stuck there's probably not much I'll be able to do about it on the spot, It'd be risky to use it even on a small production if have a team depending on it. The built in lens is great, especially at 28mm since it goes to 1.8, but more limited in longer focal lengths.

 

The dealing with menus also feels more fiddly than dealing with Canon menus, there are more confirmation screens, consumer level alerts, it's not as "mechanical" and direct as with a Canon, and the buttons are tiny, and pressing a button will most likely cause the camera to move...

 

Also, I never felt the sturdiness of a Canon 7D. I had no problem shooting under rain or snow with the 7D, I wouldn't even risk it with the RX100. There's also something about the Canon image quality that you just don't get, even if you get slightly more resolution with the RX100. 

 

But then again, these are all points that seemed obvious to me when I first got it, so no disappointment at all, it's an amazing pocket camera, and I'm thinking about shooting a small short with it, even considering all the risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You can switch off most of the hand-holding in camera then customise the shortcuts, and it's really fast. I have the left button swp between auto and manual focus with peaking for example, and right to change ISO.

 

I've used it on two shoots so far, it's done extremely well! I even attached a filter thread to the front so I could add a UV for protection and a fader ND.

 

I wish it were a faster lens when zoomed in, but you can't have it all eh? The RAW stills are quite brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did you find a way to turn peaking on and off with a button, while keeping it in manual focus mode? That would be handy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I wish that was possible, but I have never found a way to do that. I also wish we could somehow punch in zoom right before shooting a clip, but that is only possible on the other (non film) modes unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm very satisfied with image quality for the camera it is. Make no mistakes though, this is not a 7D, this is a fragile little camera, if the lens decides to get stuck there's probably not much I'll be able to do about it on the spot, It'd be risky to use it even on a small production if have a team depending on it. The built in lens is great, especially at 28mm since it goes to 1.8, but more limited in longer focal lengths.

 

The dealing with menus also feels more fiddly than dealing with Canon menus, there are more confirmation screens, consumer level alerts, it's not as "mechanical" and direct as with a Canon, and the buttons are tiny, and pressing a button will most likely cause the camera to move...

 

Also, I never felt the sturdiness of a Canon 7D. I had no problem shooting under rain or snow with the 7D, I wouldn't even risk it with the RX100. There's also something about the Canon image quality that you just don't get, even if you get slightly more resolution with the RX100. 

 

But then again, these are all points that seemed obvious to me when I first got it, so no disappointment at all, it's an amazing pocket camera, and I'm thinking about shooting a small short with it, even considering all the risks.

 

Just the kind of feedback i was looking for - it is always great to hear real life experiences from someone who have used it mainly as a filmmaking tool. It does sound like a great little camera, despite its shortcomings. One can always hope for a faster lens at longer focal lenghts in the next version, but that update is proberly not just around the corner.   

 

Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Another addition:

 

As far as I can see, DRO only affects shadows, not highlights. Try blowing out a shot then upping the DRO. You'll notice the highlights stay the same, but the shadows come up with each setting.

 

What I've seen with my eyes here is also borne out by DP-Review's test:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As far as I can see, DRO only affects shadows, not highlights. Try blowing out a shot then upping the DRO. You'll notice the highlights stay the same, but the shadows come up with each setting.

 

I actually noticed that, but their (vague) documentation seemed to say that it worked at both ends, thanks for clarifying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah they tried to spin that one I think ;)

 

Still, with DRO and Portrait at minimum we have a very very flat profile, which is cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I still want to test a few more things, like color space for instance, most people seem to agree that adobeRGB will store more colors than sRGB, especially in compressed formats, it usually also works better for skin tones, but I still haven't gotten round to test that yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah I had read that, but I think he's talking mostly about ready to print images, and looking for the opposite of what we are looking for.

 

For instance:

 

"sRGB is the world standard for digital images, printing and the Internet. So long as you haven't screwed with anything, you and the world are shooting in sRGB."

 

We're not looking at getting vibrant realistic colors, we're looking for a flat image that will give us more to work with in post, or at least I am! :)

 

"Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file."

 

This is a disadvantage for him, but an advantage to us, as it will give us a flatter image using and probably cram more information into the compressed codec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ah I see what you're saying.

 

I figured it doesn't affect video though, just stills. Colour spaces in compressed video are usually Rec709 or Rec601.

 

So in Canon EOS original you have Rec601. oddly enough.

 

Since Sony RX100 video reads in Media Info as BluRay BD Video, I'm assuming the colour space is Rec709 Y,Cb,Cr, and unaffected by this sRGB/AdobeRGB 1998 setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

@ Bruno.

 

This is what Shane Hulbut said in relation to setting up a 5Dmk2 for video (not the same camera, but still informative): 

"Now we go down to Color Space.  You have two color spaces.  You have sRGB or you have Adobe RGB.  I’ve found that Adobe RGB gives you the best skin tones out of this camera."

 

Thought it was interesting that he recommended using Adobe RGB & not sRGB.

 

The whole set up is explained here:

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/07/hdslr-educational-series-for-cinema-episode-1-know-your-camera/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm not sure about the RX100 as I haven't tested this yet, but on the Canons the color space does make a difference in video.

Oddly enough you can't change the color space in video mode though, you have to do it in stills mode, but it will change the video's color space too!

 

I had seen that Hurlbut post, no idea if AdobeRGB has the same effect on the RX100, but most people do say it gives you a flatter image and crams more color information into the same space.

 

Regarding Color clipping I think it's REC709 yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am also interested in seeing a test showing if sRGB vs AdobeRGB makes a difference in video mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I really like the way this conversation is going.  nice deep boundary pushing of the use of what are considered by a lot of people as simply 'point and shoots'.  

 

vimeo.com/46037571

 

this is interesting.  putting the nex5n (which has the same list of options as the rx100 in terms of profile tweeking) against the 550d, gh2 and d800

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It happened to be on my desk at the moment, so I've done a quick test. Stills from 1080/60p videos. I think they're as near as identical! Or if there is a difference I'm struggling to see it. Perhaps the reds seem a tiny bit darker/saturated in the Adobe ones, but I am looking for a difference, which can skew judgement. What do you think?

 

sRGB

SRGB_zpsb8890cab.png

 

Adobe 1998

ADOBE_zpsd9a164c0.png

 

EDIT:

 

Tried it with my hand for more complex tones. Pretty much the same again! (It's a slightly different angle hence the darker index finger, the greatest of all picture profiles: LIGHTING! ;) )

 

in sRGB:

2sRGBHAND_zps70b5fef9.png

 

in Adobe 1998:

2ADOBEHAND_zpsf772315a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites