Sony RX100 IV - 4K

Samuel, it could very well be youtube's ugly compression... Maybe the original file doesn't have it. I'm sure once they start shipping we'll see pretty soon how they handle those situations.
 
Yes, I said it could be a youtube thing. Please somebody check this if you get your hand on one of these cameras.
 
Last edited:
This is a touch off topic, but found this video on Vimeo of a documentary filmed with a rx100,
https://vimeo.com/88834429

I am really liking the video quality from such a small camera. so easy to just carry with you.
really tough to decide between this and the RXII, but leaning toward the rx100 IV
 
Samuel H said:
This piece has some very interesting info about the sensors in the RX100 IV, RX10 II, and a7R II. The part that impressed me the most (and the reason I'm posting it on this thread, not the a7R II thread): this 1" sensor has 12 ADCs per column (87552 ADCs in total). That's insane. The usual thing is one, some sensors have two. The readout time in this sensor must be really fast: it's basically global shutter "by force" instead of "by design".

Let's see what the a7000 brings to the table (if/when it arrives), but I see myself buying an RX100 IV for slowmo, for the N4000, and for all those moments where you'll only have a good camera around if it fits in your pocket.
Click to expand...

not the brute force global shutter you and I were hoping for

http://youtu.be/ygxp-1fwhRw
 
It always speaks good of a camera when a reviewer says they'll buy it ! Good portents for those of us interested in his bigger brother - thanks Johnnie
 
Hi Kurth.

Those few extra shots in 250fps with a sensor readout of 1,824 x 1,026 effective pixels in less then $1000 has the potential to enhance almost every production :)....

Anyway, thanks for taking the time reading the article!

Johnnie
 
Johnnie - my pleasure ! ....a couple of points. One...so far , I've found , from the posted samples thus far, that the 480/500fps mode is close to acceptable, esp. if the scene has foreground subject with shallow dof. The main question I've got , and I've posted this around, is why do the higher frame rates have non-16/9 ratios. Is sony using that extra vertical resolution to magically improve the overall resolution, because all the frame rates are exported as 16/9 1080p, right ? And the 960/1000fps mode definitely looks better than 360p, imho.
 
Hi Kurth.

As you wrote, all frame rates are exported as 16/9 1080p. The camera is using a reduced number of effective pixels when recording those slow motion modes (240fps/250fps (1,824 x 1,026), 480fps/500fps (1,676 x 566), 960fps/1,000fps (1,136 x 384) but to "why are those are non 16/9", I'll check.

I've forwarded your question to my Sony contact and hope to hear her answer soon. Then will share the info.

Thank you!

Johnnie
 
no...thank you...'cause my only sony contact...puts me on hold and then is a computer talking !
 
Hi Kurth.

Here is the Sony representative answer to your answer (Why do the higher frame rates have non-16/9 ratios?)
Because this is the best quality to achieve such a high speed shooting.
The data from the effective pixels is up-scaled to Full HD.

I'll try and get something more specific and more to the 16/9 point...

Thanks!

Johnnie
 
Samuel H said:
My guess is that it is an actual 16x9 image, with more rows skipped than columns.
Click to expand...

yeah....and the results are better than just what the horizontal line resolution leads one to believe. It'll be interesting when someone can shoot a chart and we can see the actual effective resolution

...thanks Johnnie !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top