Sony RX10 with 24-200mm constant f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor !

joe 1008 said:
The day I see footage from the RX10 with 10 stops of DR I'll definitely buy one. Until now it's probably been less.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the blown highlights are PARTIALLY due to improper NLE settings that cut off the top end information rather than remap it.

The sensor within the RX100 has been mapped at 12 stops in RAW, but the video DR is unknown.
 
Is there any major difference between the NLE setting required for the RX10 compared to the RX100? I mean, some of the RX100 footage I could find looks a bit more pleasant to me - smoother highlights and not so crushed blacks. Or is it just me? Anyway, if one could manage to tweak the sensor in video mode only close to 12 stops that would be awesome.
 
joe 1008 said:
Is there any major difference between the NLE setting required for the RX10 compared to the RX100? I mean, some of the RX100 footage I could find looks a bit more pleasant to me - smoother highlights and not so crushed blacks. Or is it just me? Anyway, if one could manage to tweak the sensor in video mode only close to 12 stops that would be awesome.
Click to expand...

i have no idea if the RX100 records to IRE 109 as the RX10 as been reported to do. If your NLE cuts off at 100 you will lose valuable information and clip highlights.
 
Last edited:
The 5N needs a 16-235 levels filter when loaded into Premiere, otherwise highlights are just awful. And I'm guessing the RX10 will be the same, since it seems many more Sony cameras share this non-issue. RX100 owners should know that, RX10 testers probably don't.
 
Here are some examples of how not paying attention to the 16-235 vs 0-255 issue produces EXACTLY the blown highlights, crushed blacks, and more limited DR we have been seeing in early RX10 samples. This is a well known issue when editing footage from Sony cameras. The fix they describe has its own issues, and is not the only way to approach editing Sony footage.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/8612/mac-avchd-gamma-issues-the-fix

"This Rec.709 portion of a 601 space (16-235 instead of the full 0-255 the FS100 shoots in) is incorrectly remapped to 0-255 by Quicktime. Therefore apps that use Quicktime at their core like Premiere, trip up. This makes a huge difference to the image. When fixed, you recover over 10% of your dynamic range, highlight and shadow detail, along with a much smoother roll off to whites and blacks."

"...bringing the output levels down whilst keeping the input levels at 0-255 fixes the problem and brings all the detail present in the AVCHD back into the image."
 
Last edited:
Quoting from EosHD: "The reason why Apple, Sony and Panasonic have let this occur on such mature, shipped products with still no fix or no acknowledgement of the issue is unclear." - and we are talking about an article that was written more than a year ago! This kind of stuff makes me feel... well, I better don't write the words that come to my mind.
 
If the format allows color-space metadata and the camera or the software are not using it right, then it is an issue, and they should resolve it. If the format doesn't support color-space metadata, then it's not an issue, it's just an extra step you have to go through in your workflow to make sure you don't have a color-space mismatch. It takes seconds to take care of this (although I must admit I have forgotten this step more than once, and then it can take hours to redo all the color grade with correct highlights).
 
It seems as if none of the video samples I have seen have had the proper settings in their NLE, so I still wonder about the ultimate IQ, DR and highlight roll off of the RX10.
 
Is the remap issue Mac-only (as the EOSHD article focuses on) - or with the PC version of Premiere as well?
 
Again, horrid shooting, non existent composition and no idea what the settings might be.
However, especially knowing that it's so badly handheld and youtube compressed - I'm seeing some real resolution in the two clips at the bottom.
Certainly as resolute as the GH3, which is why I'm there with this camera.
With upcoming projects I was looking at adding another GH3 and both the 12-35mm and 35-10mm. That was a budget of about $3500.
I consider that a steal for the quality of image from the GH3 and those two lenses.

I'm seeing IQ as good and likely better here, with far superior video features, one lens that covers both Pany zooms (and it's looking parfocal), for the cost of one of those lenses.
I'm going on record as believing that once some of us get shooting with this thing we're going to find that it's a real breakthrough concept.

http://chinese.engadget.com/2013/11/13/sony-cyber-shot-rx10-review/
 
Last edited:
Is is just me or in all these clips starting out wide the compression seems horrible, but as they zoom in the quality gets much better. I've manually switch both videos to 1080p setting in YouTube. Maybe it's my connection?
 
azonicbruce said:
Is is just me or in all these clips starting out wide the compression seems horrible, but as they zoom in the quality gets much better. I've manually switch both videos to 1080p setting in YouTube. Maybe it's my connection?
Click to expand...
It's a problem with youtube's new interface. They start downloading the video at a low resolution. At some point, you manually switch to a higher resolution but they've already downloaded the beginning of the video in low resolution. Youtube will eventually start sending the rest of the video in the higher resolution, but they still play the beginning at the original lower resolution. It's really annoying, and it happens even if you pause the video immediately.
 
Steve R said:
Is the remap issue Mac-only (as the EOSHD article focuses on) - or with the PC version of Premiere as well?
Click to expand...
Premiere on Windows definitely has this issue.


jimagine said:
Again, horrid shooting, non existent composition and no idea what the settings might be.
However, especially knowing that it's so badly handheld and youtube compressed - I'm seeing some real resolution in the two clips at the bottom.
Certainly as resolute as the GH3, which is why I'm there with this camera.
With upcoming projects I was looking at adding another GH3 and both the 12-35mm and 35-10mm. That was a budget of about $3500.
I consider that a steal for the quality of image from the GH3 and those two lenses.

I'm seeing IQ as good and likely better here, with far superior video features, one lens that covers both Pany zooms (and it's looking parfocal), for the cost of one of those lenses.
I'm going on record as believing that once some of us get shooting with this thing we're going to find that it's a real breakthrough concept.

http://chinese.engadget.com/2013/11/13/sony-cyber-shot-rx10-review/
Click to expand...

Since the strong point of the RX10 image is sharpness and resolution, and its only drawbacks seem to be the small sensor and maybe non-stellar DR (jury still out on this one), it seems like a very good alternative indeed for the GH3, which was not great in any of these aspects either.
 
Last edited:
I need to ask this but why do people prefer this camera over a traditional video camera? It seems like what most people want here is a traditional video camera zoom range. If people really want a camera that functions just like a video camera why not just buy a real video camera?
 
Thomas Smet said:
I need to ask this but why do people prefer this camera over a traditional video camera? It seems like what most people want here is a traditional video camera zoom range. If people really want a camera that functions just like a video camera why not just buy a real video camera?
Click to expand...

With this camera you potentially have a large portion of the cinema like image, and control of focus, found in DSLRs but not in camcorders at this price range, but with a lower cost and more resolution than comparable DSLRs.

Much. much cheaper than comparable DSLRS with comparable lenses of same quality. Almost one third the price of similar GH3 outfit.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
I need to ask this but why do people prefer this camera over a traditional video camera? It seems like what most people want here is a traditional video camera zoom range.
Click to expand...
I'll second what philiplipetz said, and add that for certain types of shooting, the fact that it's small, self-contained, and doesn't look like a camcorder are also plusses.
 
It is a lot cheaper than a traditional video camera with a similar sensor size, and it is cheaper than a DSLR with a comparable lens. In fact, if your budget allows for this but not much more, and you don't need an even bigger sensor, it's difficult to think of a more attractive option. The only ones that come to mind are BMPCC or D5200/D7100 or even NEX-5N/5R/6, but only if you can live with cheap-ish vintage primes.
 
The biggest advantage for me is the 24-200mm equivalent f/2.8 constant aperture lens. Another lens with these specs simply does not exists elsewhere in other camera systems, and if it would, it would cost more than my first born.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I need to ask this but why do people prefer this camera over a traditional video camera? It seems like what most people want here is a traditional video camera zoom range. If people really want a camera that functions just like a video camera why not just buy a real video camera?
Click to expand...

I would also add that, while there is not such a shallow DOF as with a common DSLR, you can mimic the look of a 2/3" video camere at 1/10 of the price. If this camera proofs to work fine it could become a real alternative for news adquisition for local TV channels with a more "expensive" look than you can get with 1/3" cameras.

I could even imagine a pro level camera based on the RX10 concept with a dedicated video body, better codec and maybe 4K. But such a camera would definitely cannibalize Sony's higher end cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top