Jump to content
BrorSvensson

nex 7 vs a6000

Recommended Posts

About transcoding, if your NLE takes XAVC-S natively (which it probably does, it's a pretty supported codec by now)  Nothing beats editing and grading the native file, only transcode when your computer is not powerful enough to edit the native footage so ProRes/DNxHD is much lighter for the machine. Transcoding is a cumbersome process that takes time and effort and is best avoided if you can edit the native files. 

I guess it depends on how much post work you do and what you're doing it for. If you're just making a couple edits and uploading to a website, then yeah... No need to transcode. But if you're doing a heavy grade and adding extensive effects, then transcode. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

You can select individual clips and transcode them. I'll look again to see if there's an option to transcode the clips in the timeline automatically. You could be right though that it transcodes the entire original file, (not just the section in the timeline).

I'm not sure though that transcoding is even necessary. The only time I've ever seen it remove codec issues was with the mark 1 omd em-5 footage, which would become really macro-blocky sometimes if you edited it natively. With other cams I've occasionally tested this, transcoding one clip in the timeline but not the others, and I've never been able to see a difference. I guess if your media is fast enough to handle the increased amount of data, then editing transcoded footage should be lighter on the processor. But I'm always amazed at how well fcpx performs, even on lowend laptops. I was playing with someone else's 100 Mbit GH4 footage, and even that worked ok on the Air.

By no means am I an expert about these things, but I believe the point of transcoding is so you are not editing the heavily compressed, original file. I believe the native, compressed files are recorded in a manner where not all of the information, for every frame, is recorded. When the file is transcoded to prores or other intermediary codec, that information is expanded for every frame, giving you larger file sizes to work with but also making it less taxing on your system. I am new to FCPX but I believe if you have optimizing unchecked and proxy unchecked, then you are working on the native files and not until those files are rendered, or exported, will they be transcoded to whatever you delineate as your delivery codec. 

At least that's how I understand it, but again, I am relatively new to post... So I may be wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

 

 

I am actually shocked to see this much moire on the a6000., I even think that something might have went wrong here, did you switch between the 5t and a6000 maybe? the 5t moire/aliasing seems much closer to the a6000 and the a6000 seems closer to the 5t, or wrong settings maybe? shooting 60p? 720p? post processing error? Maybe it's due to the un-scientific nature of the test? (exact camera positions, motion- which do alter moire significantly in millimeter changes)

Anyhow I haven't been able to reproduce it at all on mine and XAVC-S certainly does seem to take aliasing/edginess away even farther. Compared to my Canon DSLRs, moire is about 20/30% of that, and basically non existent in real world shooting, it's probably there on a fine brick wall at a distance but not on the subjects that moire crazily on the Canons and nex 7 generation at all, it's a much cleaner image of artefacts. 

Both Philip bloom and Andrew report the lack of aliasing/moire in their tests. and so does my camera. 

http://philipbloom.net/blog/a6000/

http://www.eoshd.com/2014/04/surprise-sony-alpha-a6000-video-mode-huge-improvement/

Your video will get me a bit obsessive and I will start looking at bricks with the a6000 sensor though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually shocked to see this much moire on the a6000., I even think that something might have went wrong here, did you switch between the 5t and a6000 maybe? the 5t moire/aliasing seems much closer to the a6000 and the a6000 seems closer to the 5t, or wrong settings maybe? shooting 60p? 720p? post processing error? Maybe it's due to the un-scientific nature of the test? (exact camera positions, motion- which do alter moire significantly in millimeter changes)
Anyhow I haven't been able to reproduce it at all on mine and XAVC-S certainly does seem to take aliasing/edginess away even farther. Compared to my Canon DSLRs, moire is about 20/30% of that, and basically non existent in real world shooting, it's probably there on a fine brick wall at a distance but not on the subjects that moire crazily on the Canons and nex 7 generation at all, it's a much cleaner image of artefacts. 

Both Philip bloom and Andrew report the lack of aliasing/moire in their tests. and so does my camera. 

http://philipbloom.net/blog/a6000/

http://www.eoshd.com/2014/04/surprise-sony-alpha-a6000-video-mode-huge-improvement/

Your video will get me a bit obsessive and I will start looking at bricks with the a6000 sensor though. 

Nothing whent wrong it's just what it is. But also that building is quite special. Even the NX1 moires on it.

Share this post


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...