Is the a6000 worth buying an external recorder for?

Samuel H said:
Well, I don't know what *çç%%&& means, but
Click to expand...
"Scheisse!" :grin:

Samuel H said:
the a6000, while far from perfect, is a very strong contender.

Just for comparison...

Canon 5D3 internal H.264 video
Click to expand...
Why is this excellent video review site only in German?! LOL

Related question: are there telltale signs that tell you if an artifact moire etc are due to compression codec or due to lack of full sensor readout (eg line skipping)? Is the specific cause discernable to the naked eye?
 
No idea why they don't make an English version, it's a very useful site (so good I often read their stuff with google translator, which is kind of painful). The only thing I would like them to improve, apart from the language thing, is that they should at least note which settings they use on each camera. And setting up a standardized real-world usable-DR test would be awesome.

Now, regarding these crops: any issues you see there are likely to be caused by sensor readout or image processing before the encoding step takes place. Codecs usually make a very good job in this kind of images. Codecs can struggle with textures and gradients, and with motion, none or which are found here.
 
Samuel H said:
No idea why they don't make an English version, it's a very useful site (so good I often read their stuff with google translator, which is kind of painful). The only thing I would like them to improve, apart from the language thing, is that they should at least note which settings they use on each camera. And setting up a standardized real-world usable-DR test would be awesome.
Click to expand...
I've bookmarked the video DSLR page. It's a bit painful, but really good stuff that gets to heart of the matter. [/QUOTE]

Samuel H said:
Now, regarding these crops: any issues you see there are likely to be caused by sensor readout or image processing before the encoding step takes place. Codecs usually make a very good job in this kind of images. Codecs can struggle with textures and gradients, and with motion, none or which are found here.
Click to expand...
So the A5100 may have a saving grace after all, since it seems like it has both a more efficient codec and also a faster compression rate (where the more efficient codec alone should be equivalent to raising the compression rate of the poorer codec I think). But these things can only be seen on video, not a video still.
 
Samuel H said:
How hard do you push your clips in post?

If you apply strong color grades, you may have had your images fall apart, they definitely did so on my NEX-5N: after pushing and pulling to get my desired result, I would start to see obvious macroblocking, particularly in dark parts of the image that had motion and had been pushed up. Moving to the a7S, with its much better XAVC-S codec, solved this for good. And ProRes would be even better, in the sense that it keeps small detail alive, that the internal codec blurs away.

Switching over to an a5100 would solve this too (it shoots XAVC-S), but you'd lose the lovely viewfinder. Ah, decisions, decisions...
Click to expand...

Samuel, while the XAVCS codec helps retain detail, these cameras (well, a5100 and a6000, dont know about the A7S) have no ability to turn off noise reduction for video. So The shadow detail especially gets destoyed if you try to push it up at all, at least in the mid/higher ISOs. Regardless, there is absolutely none of that nice fine grain and detail that you see in the GH3 and GH4 in the A5100/6000 because noise reduction is always on full blast. Absolutely ridiculous, as it really gets crawly and loses too much detail in the higher ISOs and makes getting noise profiles in neat video more difficult.
 
Don't bother with the Ninja Star, if you get a recorder, go with one that has a nice screen too and other features. Such as a BMD Video Assist or a Video Devices PIX-E5
 
Oh and Mak sure you update your A6000 to the latest firmware so you can take advantage of the lovely XAVC-S codec on it.
 
JoeThePro said:
Samuel, while the XAVCS codec helps retain detail, these cameras (well, a5100 and a6000, dont know about the A7S) have no ability to turn off noise reduction for video. (...)
Click to expand...

Well, at least with the a7S an RX10 and other slog2-capable Sonys you have a lot more usable DR (even after the NR), so what you see in the shadows here (those areas that show excessive macroblocking) would be just pure black on a 5D3 (cine4 has around the same headroom in the highlights as the 5D3, but a stop and a half more in the shadows; slog2 has actually less headroom in the shadows than a 5D3, but it has a couple more stops in the highlights, so I usually overexpose by a stop to make it more balanced).

Even the 5N had nearly a stop more DR in the shadows than a 5D3...

http://www.similaar.com/foto/shootout_2014/dynamicrange.html
(check the samples at the bottom to get an idea of how big the difference is)
 
Samuel H said:
Well, at least with the a7S an RX10 and other slog2-capable Sonys you have a lot more usable DR (even after the NR), so what you see in the shadows here (those areas that show excessive macroblocking) would be just pure black on a 5D3 (cine4 has around the same headroom in the highlights as the 5D3, but a stop and a half more in the shadows; slog2 has actually less headroom in the shadows than a 5D3, but it has a couple more stops in the highlights, so I usually overexpose by a stop to make it more balanced).

Even the 5N had nearly a stop more DR in the shadows than a 5D3...

http://www.similaar.com/foto/shootout_2014/dynamicrange.html
(check the samples at the bottom to get an idea of how big the difference is)
Click to expand...

Its true that the a6000 does have a good amount of usable dynamic range, and pretty much anything is better than canon's DR these days. :) Im actually very surprised at the amount of retained highlight detail that can be recovered in post. This is the first 8 bit codec Ive worked with that actually stores some data above 100 ire that can be recovered. Looks to be about a half stop just "eyeballing" it.
 
(in fact that's not something you have to recover, but an error you have to fix: it records full range, but Premiere and others read it as limited range and introduce a super nasty hard clip, you have to apply 16-235 output levels to bring the footage to legal levels and get your highlights back)
 
Samuel, if this is the case, and that "extra" headroom should be in the file to begin with, then this is some pretty good DR. It doesnt seem to be clipping the shadows at all though, so maybe it would need a 0-235 output levels transformation instead of 16-235?
 
Yes, it's exactly like you have in mind. The camera records 0-255, but Premiere thinks it's 0-235 and clips it very badly in the highlights (not the shadows).
Using 16-235 or 0-235 output levels depends on what your target is. For the web, I think 0-235 can be the best choice, but I'm far from an expert on this. Just make sure you do the 235 part before you start your color work.
 
Samuel H said:
Yes, it's exactly like you have in mind. The camera records 0-255, but Premiere thinks it's 0-235 and clips it very badly in the highlights (not the shadows).
Using 16-235 or 0-235 output levels depends on what your target is. For the web, I think 0-235 can be the best choice, but I'm far from an expert on this. Just make sure you do the 235 part before you start your color work.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I use Resolve mainly, though. Im not sure how (other than setting the last clip or track node with a curve adjustment) to change the output levels to 0-235 there, any tips?
EDIT: NVM, I got it sorted out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top