Michael1

Reinforcing Ed's discovery, here's another Full Frame VS APS-C example:

 

This is a nice test.  Jello less, but not eliminated with APS-C.  I think the images have more dynamic range, better color, and less noise in full frame.  Look at the shadows in the kid's shirts for instance.  The map colors are more saturated in full frame, and less noise.  I don't see much change in detail between the two, particularly the maps, which is surprising.

Michael

My guess is the a7S is doing full sensor readout, even in 1080p, which is increasing the jello effect over other full frame cameras.  I am going to guess, that unlike the GH4, the a7S will not have an increase in jello effect in 4K (no data yet to prove this hypothesis, so we'll see later).

Michael

OK, maybe I have already gotten spoiled by the a7S full frame mode, because the APS-C shots look soft now and lacking some punch (although realistically, as good as most other cameras).  I'm really liking some of the a7S full frame footage I'm seeing now.

Michael

That's very impressive.  Some great shots there!

What camera settings did you use?

What did you do in grading, and what software?  Any noise reduction used?

Did you run into any bugs/lockups with the a7S?

Thanks!

Michael

This is a disappointment that Nikon did not include 4K in the D810.  The more we see, the more it is evident that shooting 4K, even for later downsampling to HD, has huge advantages.  I just saw a green screen keying test with the GH4, and even with the GH4's compressed internal 100 Mbps codec, it beat out the Black Magic Cinema 2.5K with raw and ProRes.  Not only did the hair used in the test have more detail in the key area, but even in the areas not at the border of the keys.

Wonderful surveillance camera !

That's what i was thinking!  

If what he showed at the end was really what he was seeing with his eyes, this camera may be bought by more law enforcement people than videographers.  

I can think of a lot of interesting night footage that could shot with this camera, such as a nocturnal animal documentary, underwater footage, night sky, etc.

Michael

Check out this interesting greenscreen test. Which image will do best? 4k 8-bit 4:2:0, 1080 10-bit 4:2:2 or 2,5k 12-bit Raw?

 

Very informative video.  The results were surprising.

Michael

Does anyone really believe that given two cameras at the same price with the same features, people would pick the crop sensor over a full frame?

Let's face it, the Speed Booster is a very helpful product, but is also a bit of band-aid.  Any time you put things in the optical path, they introduce their own negative byproducts.  The cleaner the optical path the better.

Michael

Of course I am not saying it is the best camera ever, no it has flaws, for sure, but what it does good is really not matched in that price-range until today.

I admit that a D810 is much more interesting for other forums than video forums like this one.

 

For sure, video is not the best but it wasn't intended to be a 2800€ camrecorder, it is a wonderful still camera with a video mode that uses crappy H264 1080P 24mb/s compression (and did you see what you can do with this poor 24mb/s? It is really powerful for such light video files).

What I hate about this is not the 36mp sensor, but much more the .H264 compression... 

How about using an external recorder with the uncompressed HDMI 4:2:2 out?

Internal D800 vs. Ninja with D800:

Though very impressive technically, I actually find the footage looks quite unpleasant in how unnatural it looks.  I can't put my finger on it but I guess I dislike the look in the same way I dislike the full spectrum uv modded camera images. 

 

I'd have loved to see the footage graded to show how our eyes see things.  I'd really like to see some nature work done with this camera.  It seems to look over digitised with manmade light, whereas a dusk woodland scene (exposed and graded to mimic how our eyes adjust to very low light) will probably be where this camera comes into its own.

I agree.  The footage is not pretty to look at, but if seeing something is better than nothing, then it has its place.

Michael

Didn't see anything about 1080p/50-60, just 720p/50-60.

I am hoping Andrew does an A/B test, so we can see what can be gained by using the Ninja.  Tests on other cameras I've seen online, the difference between internal and external is very subtle.

Michael

What you don't like "Park Dream" or whatever it was called? :)

I really like this music video.  Very entertaining, and looks great!

Did you use an external recorder?  What picture profile did you use?  What kind of grading?

Thanks for posting.

Michael

 

With a significantly larger sensor, the A7s will have superior light gathering power over the GH4, however it will be more prone to aliasing, which has a large color aberration component due to mosaic (bayer) color sensors.

Maxonics, if both cameras are doing one to one pixel mapping at 4K, why would the a7S be more prone to aliasing?

By the way, everyone, Sony calls this camera the "a7S", not "A7S" or "A7s".  Don't shoot the messenger.  :P

Michael

Good review.  I have been wondering about this.  I think I heard Panasonic has been claiming that the issue is only with TRS plugs.  Your tests prove otherwise.

I surprised Panasonic blew this, on an otherwise stellar design.  I can't imagine Panasonic can fix this with firmware.  It seems they didn't isolate the audio circuits sufficiently.  Therefore, I am holding off purchasing the GH4.

Michael

hey I saw it on the internet it has to be true.   :)

LOL

Cheers!

Michael

Stops are exponencial, 1 stop more is 2 times the light, 2 stops is 4 times the light. The difference between FF an m43 is 2 stops, if you get a 0.5 speedbooster the difference will be 0.

That would assume 0 transmission loss through the Speed Booster, and that you could get a 0.5 Speed Booster.  The ones I have seen for M 4/3 have been closer to 0.7, and one stop.  I've never seen any measurements as to what the losses actually are.

Michael

The one video I've seen comparing the two side by side show very similar DR.  

 

A lot of people suspect this video is fake.

Michael

Oh come on !

I thought you drawed your conclusion by some tests or videos review! 

How can you judge something that you did't even test it ?!

 

There are some points you mentioned that I disagree with you :

 

The picture profiles on A7S is way more advance,you can change internal color performance of the camera.Simulate the canon-like colour is also possible,while GH4 can't do as much as A7S can.

So  I don't think the Color science and skin tones are advantages on the GH4. Actually the color performances on the A7S is not bad!

 

Moreover, A7S has much better dynamic range,people hardly see the differences between F55 and A7S in terms of DR! (see this video :

>

)

 

While GH4 can't even defeat C100 in terms of DR!(A video review done by Digital Screen Imagination can proved that)

 

In a A7S review from  Newsshooter.com,the author W. Ashley Maddox wrote :

It(A7S) had a natural grain look to it vs. the muddy blacks that I am seeing in the GH4. Compared to the FS700’s AVCHD, the XAVC codec is way easier to grade

In a GH4 review done by cinema5d,they wrote: 

When you move to 800 ISO and above the footage becomes blocky (noisy + codec), especially on flat single surface elements.

 

So Noise grain on the GH4 is bad ,the same issues won't happen on the A7S , I think mainly because GH4 use IPB ,and it is a bad video codec for 4K~

Same issues are also mentioned in  related topics from EOSHD Forum

 

Obviously ,the XAVC-S works better than the IPB 

It's called judder.  I have seen a couple clips with this being a problem, but most are fine.  There were also reports of this on the GH3 from time to time.  Proper camera use and settings (shutter angle, panning speed, frame rate) can reduce this.  Are you encoding to 100 Mbps?

@Darwich, did you mean the shutter angle too high or too low?  Increasing shutter angle should smooth (blur) the panning.

Here is a link that may help.

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/camera-panning-speed

Michael

Right now A7S and GH4 certainly looks like better options if video is the only thing someone wants in a camera.

 

But, if someone shoots stills AND deliver video for online use as well, I think the D810 has the chances to deliver good enough video.

 

Considering D810 video quality, there's a few facts one can look at:

- Redesigned sensor

- Newer faster chip for image processing

 

When D800 came out, every Nikon camera had a lot more moiré & aliasing. It wasn't until D5200, D5300 and D3300 came out that they managed to minimize that - with a combination of new sensors and the faster Expeed 4 chip.

 

Chances are, there's less moiré and aliasing in D810, even though it's more complicated to do full sensor readouts on a 36 Mpixel sensor. Still, probably wouldn't be impossible with proper sensor design and dedicated chips.

 

Until there's proper reviews/tests for the video in D810, guesses and assumptions are all we have on this camera.

Well said.

Michael

Yes "most people."  Another name for "the market."  A Canon 5D MK III isn't a rebel and doesn't have 36 megapixels.  I'm pretty sure plenty of what you consider "pros" and "prosumers" use it.

 

 

 

I have plenty of photographic tools.  And certain tools are great for certain jobs.  But it is painfully obvious with Nikon's moire/aliasing problems with their 36 megapixel sensors that they are just not optimally suited for video.  It is not about "hitting ISO targets."  Its the fact its much easier to do a full sensor readout from a lower megapixel sensor.  If you use a 36 megapixel sensor you are stuck with line skipping or pixel binning and thus increase moire/aliasing.  A Nikon 810 looks like a wonderful tool to shoot landscapes for garganutun prints, but it falls flat when compared to cheaper lower megapixel video options.  Not sure how this can be made any clearer.

 

And it is perfectly fine if Nikon wants to go for the 36 megapixel lanscape shooter market.  But don't tell us it's a video centric camera.  It's not.

 

It's all about trade offs.  No one is saying 36 megapixels is useless.  It's just if you also want to have a video shooter the compromises particularly for the price are unacceptable to some people.  I would not be on a photo forum knocking the D810, but by the same token don't come on a video forum and tell us it is ideal or even close to ideal when cheaper lower megapixel cameras are blowing it out of the water.

I think we are in agreement then.

Michael

No that is what you are hearing.  That is not what I am saying.  I am saying the Sony a7s is 12.2 megapixels for a reason.  This is a video forum.  Understand?

 

 

 

 

 

And Canon Rebels outsell it.  What is your point?

 

This thread is about Nikon.  And my comment was 36 megapixels is a niche product.  The average DSLR consumer doesn't need it and videographers are doing much better with lower megapixel cameras.  Again, see the Sony a7s.

 

Comparing an 18 megapixel Canon rebel of today with a 5 megapixel camera from yesteryear is totally ignoring the law of diminishing returns.  Again Canon has proved with their sales numbers year after year that 18 megapixels is plenty for most people.  If you can't make the cover of a magazine or newspaper with 18 megapixels the problem is not with the camera.

You keep going back to "most people".  I'm not talking about "most people".  I'm talking about pros and prosumers.  A Canon Rebel is not in that category.

As long as there is a debayer, there will be a need for high MP sensors.  The 12MP sensor in the Sony is a stopgap measure.  That's the best they can do right now, and hit their ISO targets.  That sensor only has 6MP of green, and 3MP of blue and 3MP of red.  I guarantee in 10 years, the replacement model will have far more than 12MP.

Michael

The discussion I was having was about reality.  You can insult people with their iphones but the fact of the matter is you don't become the number one camera company in the world by selling $3,000 36 megapixel cameras to pros in 2014.  The megapixel race was in full swing in the 5 megapixels days and Canon ruled the roost with its 16 megapixel full frame Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II and bumping up the megapixel count every year in its consumer lines.  But times have changed.  You simply can't move bodies nowadays by simply increasing the megapixel count.  Yes there are landscape photographers out there that can't get enough of the megapixels but as this site has shown other things are occupying the thoughts of consumers and pros.  I certainly would take a more restrained megapixel count in exchange for better video.  I think a lot of people on this forum would.

Is the iPhone your tool for shooting video?  You seem a little sensitive about this.

I'm really not following where you are coming from at this point.  It sounds like you believe higher megapixels=worse quality.  To each his own.  The future is going to be higher megapixel sensors, and more processing power.  It will trickle down to the less expensive cameras, as it has in the past.  That's just technology moving forward.  There will be diminishing returns, but we are not even close to that, because the in-camera processing has been pretty weak.

Higher megapixels are moving bodies in the pro and prosumer video world.  Look at the sales of the GH4.  It's backordered for a month.  It's using 8MP to create 4K video.  People are shooting 4K, and downsampling it to 2K.  I don't think anyone thought this many people would be shooting in 4K, even when the delivery medium was 2K.

Michael

Did you guys update the firmware in your lenses?  Supposed to help.

Michael

Interesting review of the A7S by The Camera Store.  They liked it, but weren't super enthused.

The good news is they said Sony finally weather sealed an A7 series camera with the A7S.

It is a shame Sony didn't put 10 bit in the HDMI output, especially if you have to go to the trouble and expense of connecting an external recorder for 4K.  10 bit is even a requirement for Rec. 2020 for UHD.

Michael