Jump to content

Surprise! New Sony RX10 sensor has 5K full pixel readout


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

I had the HX9v and dropped it in the sea,

I had RX100, but sold it in hard times.

This one solves all the problems of both (the noise, the slow lens), though it's bigger...

 

But it's too costly :( Luckily Sony cameras drop a lot over 6 months...

 

Still at 24/28mbps though. It's a chronic obsession for Sony...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

HDMI is 10bit on the $999 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera so no excuses Sony!

I'll believe it when I see it. If it does do true 5K readout to the engine processor and then uses the downscaling engine most cameras use when you set them to lower resolutions the video should be ra

Classic Sony SKU compartmentalisation! Camcorders are unpopular, they want to shift more of them, so the add a premium feature to an old-school camcorder in hope of shifting units made on a similar pr

It's ahame you can see the AVCHD muddiness in those YouTube clips. They are compressed for YouTube sure, but it's a generational loss.

 

Reading a 5K stream at 60p (Red Epic without Dragon upgrade does 5K at 96p) and destroying it with 28mbps AVCHD = utter lunacy = business.

 

Here's a 5K Epic stream NOT destroyed by compression at the recording stage! Then below some AVCHD-mangled RX10 down-scaled 5K, recompressed for YouTube. Set these both to 480p, and imagine if they didn't squash the life out of the RX10 footage... mmmm

 

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

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPu-q6N9Y0&feature=player_embedded

 

NOTE: Epic is a bit too sharp for me taste wise though it's great for compositing and post work, but Alexa is my favorite of the big boys, but you get the idea, Sony are obliterating a great achievement with an old codec :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame they release an RX10 that breaks with the RX100 and RX1 design. This camera looks so damn ugly!

Also, if RX100's sensor size is 16mm and RX1 is full frame, RX10 should have been APS-C.

 

This camera could turn out to be amazing, but IMO it doesn't deserve being called RX10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll believe it when I see it. If it does do true 5K readout to the engine processor and then uses the downscaling engine most cameras use when you set them to lower resolutions the video should be razor sharp, the difference would have jumped out at Dave and he would have been gushing all over the look of the video. But he didn't because I don't think the camera can do it - the dead giveaway that it isn't really doing this is that it should offer a limited 60 fps burst mode like the Nikon One cameras, but all I see in the specs are 10 fps. Now maybe it's using a binning technique that utilizes every pixel on the camera but I don't think it's discreetly sampling every pixel for its video mode.

 

A bit disappointing but hopefully we won't have to keep waiting too long; Aptina says it will have 1" sensors with accompanying processing engines capable of 4K ready next year. It's not that I want 4K - I don't - it's just that I want a 1080 mode that has been derived from an entire 4K image sample. JVC's PX10 was the first camera to do this but it threw away so much fine detail along the way it ruined the usefulness of it. Their conversion processor probably wasn't up to snuff. Hero did better, I don't know about Samsung's Note.

 

The reason you're seeing these fast smaller sensors is because it's a lot easier to bus the incredibly high numbers required for video off of smaller sensors than it is for large ones, that's just physics. That's why the A7's video is probably not going to be anything to write home about. For the smaller sensors I imagine the bottleneck right now is getting processors fast enough to take 5K worth of data and downsampling it to 1080 in realtime like you would for a smaller jpeg image, then encoding that to mp4. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fancy terminology. Lousy video quality. That's like saying Sony made a processor, that's 100 times as fast as the fastest i7. Though, this being a consumer video recorder, the quality is still damn lousy. The specs, well, that's advertising. God only knows what they put in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The high data rate/storage issue seems to be one that Sony already have a solution for. Many of their consumer handycams have internal solid state memory, and some have quite a lot of it like the HDR-XR260VE with a 160GB HDD built into it. An internal storage solution could be very useful for raw video, if only as a buffer to cope with delays writing to cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The advantage is that Bionz X can intelligently downsample and compress to 1080p from a much higher baseline than usual.

 

This will avoid moire and other artifacts and probably will increase the overall resolution when filming test charts, but there is a serious error in reasoning nonetheless. If the glass is calculated for a 5k sensor, it's not perfect for any other resolution. More so, if it is a giant zoom lens. In the recent years, there were lengthy discussions on various lenses for DSLR videography and their effect on the final image, and the choices for video were mostly not the same as for stills. This approach takes the (1) inadequate sensor and combines the (2) cameras' strategies to downsample the resolution with an (3) optimized glass, found by trial and error. 

 

The whole point of preferring VDSLRs over conventional camcorders or even FS700 or C500 (Shane Hurlbut: "videoish look") is the images' analog look-and-feel (not to be confused with an artificial 'cinematic look'!!!). As I see it, this look is achieved best by having interchangeable lenses whose characteristic bokeh predominates digital dodging.

 

Having less moire becomes the sole feature of the new Sony, and that doesn't suffice. What does 'intelligent downsampling from a higher baseline' mean in english? It means smudging pixels. The official clips are not exactly inspiring, and frankly, I think I can't stand another romantic landscape with muzak, intended clearly to leave me trembling in awe.

 

They probably are going to produce an external recorder capable to record 5K output from the sensor.

 

 

It's not as if we hadn't seen any ultra high definition / 8-bit / tiny sensor clips from consumer cams so far. The JVC something combines four 1080 signals to a threethousand something pixel image. Saw the official clips. Saw a live-signal at a trade show. Razor sharp image, no striking artifacts, but beyond doubt the ugliest mess of a pixel pulp ever. If everything is sharp in a giant image, it looks completely two-dimensional. Suitable for filming your fish tank.

 

When will people abandon the idea that higher resolution (alone) will improve *quality*?

 

EDIT: There is a new camcorder from Sony, coming in a few weeks for ~ 6000 €, the Z100. It does real 4k @ 600mbps, has 10-bit 422, 50p and 60p:

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

 

Certainly this is the *quality* I asked for. But it has a diminutive sensor. Comments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: There is a new camcorder from Sony, coming in a few weeks for ~ 6000 €, the Z100. It does real 4k @ 600mbps, has 10-bit 422, 50p and 60p:

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

 

Certainly this is the *quality* I asked for. But it has a diminutive sensor. Comments?

 

Classic Sony SKU compartmentalisation! Camcorders are unpopular, they want to shift more of them, so the add a premium feature to an old-school camcorder in hope of shifting units made on a similar production line.

 

Meanwhile they can slowly squeeze money from compact and mirrorless so they do,  removing features in order to leak them in slowly and create demand every release.

 

They could put a 4K mobile phone sensor in a camcorder body if they like and flog it on the stats.

 

Even though I sometimes wish I had it, the video look is what made me sell the RX100. It wasn't a matter of DOF or 24/25fps, it just looked wrong, when I cut it with soft Canon EOS 600D  ML2.3 the latter looked nicer. Plus you couldn't grade RX100 much because of the compression. Same with FS700, I got where I wanted colour wise in the end, but it really was falling apart at high ISOs.

 

This obsession with giving awful compression, unless you buy from a line that isn't selling is arrogant and cynical. The C300 has wiped out the FS100/7000 in corporate/TV/ad hire. For the most part that's because of the bitrate and ergonomics.

 

So I keep saying I want to justify the RX10... but do I? Statistically it's great, but will I just be disappointed with another videoish camera that doesn't reach its full potential, so they can sell me another next year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they had added a large sensor they would have cleaned up and wiped out most of their customers for their pro line. On the other hand in order to build such nice cameras as they do, they need a production line and design department that cant just sit idle after each camera and technology has in the past moved on and enabled them to do this. However that works against its own customers when they deny them cheap modern technology and bring about new companies that fill the gap and the reason why we see companies like atomos convergent design BMD getting a foothold. Although this camera will sell to many the growing competition sony face will also grow stronger because of this.
 
In my opinion this is a plaster on a limb amputation and Sony really need to rethink their short term strategy as they are losing goodwill as well as losing out to the competition. Many like Sony have gone down. Shame they just cant see it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it's like night and day. Most of the people over on dvxuser are mightily impressed by this camera and are singing it's praises and over here most of you seem to think it's crap. What gives?

 

 

I thought you found a corollary to my Bizarro World theorem.  But in reality I read several post over there of people complaining about the codec.  I for one think it is a very interesting camera.  Someone over there also noted the lack of 30 fps in HD.  There must be a reason for that because they have 24p and 60p.

 

I would just give it time.  If jgharding is right and the price drops significantly in a reasonable time frame I may pick this up and sell my Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS.  I just have to see the quality.  I can still keep my 50mm 1.4 to use with my 600D for shallow dof shots and low light work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it's like night and day. Most of the people over on dvxuser are mightily impressed by this camera and are singing it's praises and over here most of you seem to think it's crap. What gives?

 

 

Well, I said most people. The only really negative view was by one person, who made a number of posts. Someone mentioned the lack of 30p but said that was their only complaint. The overwhelming view over there is positive, very positive.

 

I was going to say maybe they were Sony fanboys not having an objective view.  But after reading the thread I actually don't think that is the case.  I think the people there are videographers in the traditional pre-dslr sense of the word.   They are seeing this cam as a convenient all in one workhorse for ok videoey looking video.   Whereas people here are more interested in ultimate image quality.  We judge dynamic range, detail and tonality to the same standard a still photographer does with stills.  It doesn't matter to us if a camera is twice as convenient: If it doesn't represent a significant increase in image quality for its price point then we aren't interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the people there are videographers in the traditional pre-dslr sense of the word.   They are seeing this cam as a convenient all in one workhorse for ok videoey looking video.   Whereas people here are more interested in ultimate image quality.  We judge dynamic range, detail and tonality to the same standard a still photographer does with stills.  It doesn't matter to us if a camera is twice as convenient: If it doesn't represent a significant increase in image quality for its price point then we aren't interested.

 

Of course, if you have the third DSLR or EVIL or so, you take all the industry's buzzwords with a grain of salt - and spit them out. And I'd tell traditional, pre-DSLR videographers that they should compare the price as well. Had this been a 600 € camera for hobbyists ...

Had the quality of the official demos really convinced us ...

 

I sometimes stop for a moment and see my life as that of a compulsive collector of electronic waste, with very little creative output, a pathetic wannabe. Though there is truth in this, there also are devices that make me go out and actually do something. The one most precious to me is my small, smart, versatile and quality-wise still impressing GH2 (have the G6 since recently, waiting for BMPCC). Does it have moire? Very rarely. Does it have good resolution? You bet! Does it cost 1200 €? A used one with a kit lens 14-40 and an SLR magic 12mm or 25mm. That's why this Sony is nothing to write home about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it's like night and day. Most of the people over on dvxuser are mightily impressed by this camera and are singing it's praises and over here most of you seem to think it's crap. What gives?


4k is great for making narrative films with a large sensor. It wont look very filmic with a small sensor and so narrative film makers will either use this and make narrative films that don't look very filmic or give it a miss In other words its pretty useless for narrative film making and the 4k just adds to the pain of what could have been a very sweet camera.
It may be of some use to docu or news gathering but why bother with 4k when there are a range of easy to deal with 1080p cams.
It will have a stunning image but ultimately of little use.
So its a novelty and because of its spec and some who must have the new toy it will sell.
The problem is its been cynically designed not to disrupt there higher end cameras and to sell to those who for the most part don't need it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this person over there, who links to one of Andrew's vids with the RX100 to show what it can do, makes a good point.

Have any of you SEEN the video that the RX100 and RX100M2 put out? It's PHENOMENAL quality for its size and price. And it fits in your pocket (literally) with lens.

Take a look at this: http://vimeo.com/45682834

Now consider that the RX100 Mark 2 (RX100M2) recently released is superior (esp. in the areas of low light and noise) to the above footage, and the RX10 (based on the RX100M2 sensor) is superior to THAT.

That quality, for the price, the video features (manual EVERYTHING, peaking, zebra, focus assist, histogram, clean output, audio and headphone jacks, ND)...and WITH lens (a Zeiss constant f:2.8 24-200mm equivalent)....I mean...COME ON.

 

I'm intrigued to see what it can do in capable hands and if the video really is a step up from the RX100 mkii. The sensor is tiny compared to a full frame but it's not that small- at the longer end you should be able to get some nice dof. And while the price is high, could you build a kit that replicates all that this has for a similar price? 24-200 f2.8 Zeiss lens, stabilization, 60p/24p, headphone and mic inputs, built in 3 stop ND, declickable aperture, clean hdmi, etc. The G6 is currently around $650. Add the 12-24 and the 35-100 f2.8 and you're looking at around $2,600 and you still don't have the ND, headphone jack, etc. I know it's not a fair test, there are advantages to the G6 like the sensor, which is quite a bit larger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...