alexO

DPReview reports a6500 having the same crop for 30p in 4K mode. Looks like the sensor is identical to a6300, so I bet the rolling shutter is gonna be the same. 

Actually never mind, RS is the parameter of the single frame, so there should be no correction for fps. So 25p RS should be identical to 24p, while 30p should be 1.225^2=1.5 times smaller(26ms). This makes sense, it should be kept under 1000ms/fps, otherwise the next frame starts before the current one finished processing. So for 30p RS should be under 33ms, while 24p under 42ms.

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

I was joking, I agree, in perfect world we should be able to control any post processing which is automatically done by the camera. "It's not a bug it's a feature" is usually referred to an excuse made by software developers when they try to convince the user that a flaw in their program is actually what it's supposed to be doing.

I was joking, I agree, in perfect world we should be able to control any post processing which is automatically done by the camera. "It's not a bug it's a feature" is usually referred to an excuse made by software developers when they try to convince the user that a flaw in their program is actually what it's supposed to be doing.

When people talk about raw video I don't think they imply it at full native resolution of 28Mp, this would be insane. Look at 5Dm3 raw video for example, each frame is at HD resolution with 14bit of color information. So it's not true raw per say, but a downscaled raw instead. If we had video files with 14bit that would be perfect. No need for any kind of s-log tricks, which improve dynamic range but introduces banding and other issues after grading.

With 1.7X 4K crop you could forget about wide shots. So I guess it's only good news for NX1 owners, since having crop 4K functionality in NX500 makes it easy for samsung to add it as an aditional option to NX1 in the next FW update. If it's done due to lower processing power of NX500 (which I suspect is the case), I doubt we would expect a decent 1080p either. Since even NX1's 1080p is kind of luckluster compared to downscaled 4K in post. 
Oh well, I guess I am pulling out my preorder. 

That's a big turn off for me for NX500. I was expecting full readout->rescale for low light conditions to reduce the noise. Since Samsung decided to change how they produce 4K compared to NX1, they should have kept both options. 

Since LX100 uses the same sensor as GX7, I was able to convert LX100 raw after running exiftool (download from http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) on raw files tricking it thinking those raws comes from GX7: exiftool -model="DMC-GX7" <raw_file_name> Then you could use raw converter of your choice which supports GX7(I think all do).

Since LX100 uses the same sensor as GX7, I was able to convert LX100 raw after running exiftool (download from http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) on raw files tricking it thinking those raws comes from GX7: exiftool -model="DMC-GX7" <raw_file_name> Then you could use raw converter of your choice which supports GX7(I think all do).

There are plenty of discussions about a6000, but there are only few touching a5100. Is there a big difference between both in terms of video quality beside an XAVC-S 50mbit in a5100?
I am kind of confused if a5100 has an identical video engine/readout as a6000. In the initial a5100 press release Sony had the following statement:
"Additionally, with the power of the BIONZ X processor, the camera is able to read, process and output data from all of the sensor’s pixels during video recording, ensuring that it produces the highest quality video possible by eliminating aliasing, moiré and false color artifacts."
Which was later revised and removed. Not sure if it was a copy/paste error from A7s or there was some improvement made in the readout(potentially pixel binning of the whole sensor without any line skipping). But since the wording was ambiguous and kind of implied the direct pixel readout they decided just to get rid of this statement altogether.
I’ve seen some footages/test results/reports showing a significant improvement compared to older NEX’es and some showing very little. I suspect inconsistency could be attributed to different binning methods used for 24/25/30p and 50/60p modes. In the later mode engine might do line skipping to be able to keep up. Not sure how plausible is this theory.
 
In addition, I found this test which I am taking with a grain of salt since I couldn’t verify who did it. It shows the noise level of a5100 to be significantly lower at ISO 6400 compared to both A5000 and 5R. If this improvement is real, it should indicate that a5100 does in fact have less line skipping. And while pixel binning wouldn’t completely get rid of moire and wouldn’t produce same image as direct pixel readout, I will take it anytime over line skipping.

 
P.S. At this point I am basically deliberating if I should upgrade from my Nex 5R to either A5100 or Panasonic LX100, which would be better suited for non-professional work in moderate light conditions. In the case of LX100 I would probably film in 4K with intention to downsample it to get a razor sharp 1080p.