Art and Photography

Video Resolutions

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 24th, 2014 3:18 pm
Tags:
None
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
These sample videos for Fujifilm looks fine for "family" use:

Fujifilm X-T1 XT1 Video Test



Fujifilm X-E2 sample movie / teszt videó
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 19, 2005
5042 posts
2739 upvotes
Earth
hoodlum wrote: Fujifilm has the worse video of all manufacturers. I would not recommend them if you are interested in video.
+1. Ask the biggest Fuji fan and they will agree. Although they start getting better with the new X30, I'd still go with Panasonic for video. My Fuji cameras are for stills. Don't buy a Fuji if video is important. Although they can and probably will add more video features via firmware update, your physical controls isn't great for video.

If it's any indication, one of the biggest firmware request for the Fuji X-T1 is to tun off the video record button and allow users to remap it to another function.
Some people just don't get that online forum posts shouldn't always be taken seriously.


$99 10GB/month Can/US/Mexico, 1000 minutes, free evenings and weekend
Deal Addict
Jun 29, 2008
1897 posts
557 upvotes
North York
Find a system and camera that suits you first, whether it'd be Panasonic m4/3, Fuji X, Oly m4/3, Canon/Nikon DSLR, Sony Alpha... Worry about the video resolution second. You could have a camera that shoots in all resolutions and bit rates but if the ergonomics is a turd, you're not gonna use it and then it's all pointless. Or if the lenses you want are too expensive or heavy or hard to use for video, same end result. Great specs, poor usability = bad time.
Sr. Member
Jan 20, 2004
769 posts
248 upvotes
iHateShaw wrote: Any noticeable difference between 24p and 30p?
Just so you can understand the differences between 24p, 30p and 60p:

24p is progressive at 24 frames/second, this is the framerate in which movies are recorded in, so it provides a more cinematic look to the footage. Also for 24 frames/second, fast panning will not be as smooth and may have more stutter to the panning action.

30 frames/second will look slightly smoother than 24.

60 frames/second will look much smoother and realistic, less cinematic and will remind you of how old camcorder videos looked.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 13, 2009
5244 posts
3527 upvotes
If it's for family use, get something that's easy to operate and anyone can use it.

Who cares if bitrates aren't high enough or dynamic range isn't wide, if no one in the family can use it.
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
thericyip wrote: Find a system and camera that suits you first, whether it'd be Panasonic m4/3, Fuji X, Oly m4/3, Canon/Nikon DSLR, Sony Alpha... Worry about the video resolution second. You could have a camera that shoots in all resolutions and bit rates but if the ergonomics is a turd, you're not gonna use it and then it's all pointless. Or if the lenses you want are too expensive or heavy or hard to use for video, same end result. Great specs, poor usability = bad time.
Ryus wrote: Just so you can understand the differences between 24p, 30p and 60p:

24p is progressive at 24 frames/second, this is the framerate in which movies are recorded in, so it provides a more cinematic look to the footage. Also for 24 frames/second, fast panning will not be as smooth and may have more stutter to the panning action.

30 frames/second will look slightly smoother than 24.

60 frames/second will look much smoother and realistic, less cinematic and will remind you of how old camcorder videos looked.
Thanks for the great info/advice.
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
bhrm wrote: If it's for family use, get something that's easy to operate and anyone can use it.

Who cares if bitrates aren't high enough or dynamic range isn't wide, if no one in the family can use it.
I will be the sole user for the camera. I wouldn't be bothered with bit rates etc if I'm buying a $400 camera.

But I'm planning to buy either a $800 or $1300 camera, depending on the specs, to have better quality photos and videos over my current under $500 compact. It is a big investment compared to a bottom-of-the-line compact that costs $200 and as such the need to research into the specs for a $1000 investment.
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
I was looking at the Sony Alpha 7's from Sony website. What is this AVCHD? When I download the AVCHD recording to my computer, is that a MP4, AVI, MPEG or something else?

Within AVCHD, what is PS and FX?


Sony Alpha 7

AVCHD:
PS - 1920 x 1080/60p@28Mbps
FX - 1920 x 1080/60i@24Mbps
FH - 1920 x 1080/60i@17Mbps
FX - 1920 x 1080/24p@24Mbps
FH - 1920 x 1080/24p@17Mbps

MP4:
HD - 1440 x 1080/30p@12Mbps
VGA - 640 x 480/30p@3Mbps
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
Sony Alpha 7 24MP
Sony Alpha 7R 36MP
Sony Alpha 7S 12MP

Most megapixels for camera models go higher as they advanced to a later model. The Alpha 7S, which is the latest model, dropped from 36MP to 12MP. Why does the latest Alpha 7S model has a lower megapixels? Would a 12MP camera be "inferior" to a 36MP camera?

The Sony website for Sony Alpha 7S has this "12.2MP sensor optimized for 4k and low light video". Did it mean the Alpha 7R with higher megapixels cannot capture good quality 4k and low light video?
Deal Addict
Jun 29, 2008
1897 posts
557 upvotes
North York
AVCHD is just the file format that Panasonic and Sony uses.
PS/FX/FH are just codes Sony calls for different bitrate outputs. Simple google search.

Seriously, all this doesn't matter. Neither you or anybody else will notice a difference in quality. Spec is important for TV broadcast or Film and if you're shooting with multiple cameras.
Don't get hung up on specs. And this is coming from a TV grad and ex-camera salesman.

stack21 wrote: I was looking at the Sony Alpha 7's from Sony website. What is this AVCHD? When I download the AVCHD recording to my computer, is that a MP4, AVI, MPEG or something else?

Within AVCHD, what is PS and FX?


Sony Alpha 7

AVCHD:
PS - 1920 x 1080/60p@28Mbps
FX - 1920 x 1080/60i@24Mbps
FH - 1920 x 1080/60i@17Mbps
FX - 1920 x 1080/24p@24Mbps
FH - 1920 x 1080/24p@17Mbps

MP4:
HD - 1440 x 1080/30p@12Mbps
VGA - 640 x 480/30p@3Mbps
Deal Addict
Jun 29, 2008
1897 posts
557 upvotes
North York
7R was made for photography. 7S was made for video.

They'll both do a good job and the normal eye can't tell the difference between the two.
The 7R was designed for photo, so for higher resolution for bigger prints, cropping, and detail, it has a higher megapickle count.
The 7S was designed for video, it'll do better in more extreme instances (eg. 4K or low light).
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
thericyip wrote: AVCHD is just the file format that Panasonic and Sony uses.
PS/FX/FH are just codes Sony calls for different bitrate outputs. Simple google search.

Seriously, all this doesn't matter. Neither you or anybody else will notice a difference in quality. Spec is important for TV broadcast or Film and if you're shooting with multiple cameras.
Don't get hung up on specs. And this is coming from a TV grad and ex-camera salesman.
Thanks for info. Lots of technical stuff from Google search.
http://www.community.sony.com/t5/Camcor ... td-p/33529

It looks like the "file format" for AVCHD is also MP4, which is what I wanted as I don't need to get additional software to play/edit a AVCHD format. And it also means I can get a MP4 output from the Sony camera with 1920 x 1080/60p@28Mbps. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The spec sheet from Sony has explicitly stated MP4 output is 1440 x 1080/30p@12Mbps which prompts me to ask the question. All I needed is what general public is doing for HD videos, which is, at the moment, 1920 x 1080 and MP4.


AVCHD:
PS - 1920 x 1080/60p@28Mbps
FX - 1920 x 1080/60i@24Mbps
FH - 1920 x 1080/60i@17Mbps
FX - 1920 x 1080/24p@24Mbps
FH - 1920 x 1080/24p@17Mbps

MP4:
HD - 1440 x 1080/30p@12Mbps
VGA - 640 x 480/30p@3Mbps
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
thericyip wrote: 7R was made for photography. 7S was made for video.

They'll both do a good job and the normal eye can't tell the difference between the two.
The 7R was designed for photo, so for higher resolution for bigger prints, cropping, and detail, it has a higher megapickle count.
The 7S was designed for video, it'll do better in more extreme instances (eg. 4K or low light).
This is highly valuable info. The 7R and 7S are pretty close in price and costs $600 more than the 7.

Is there a noticeable difference in image quality between:

- Full frame (35.8 x 23.9 mm) and APS-C (23.6 x 15.6 mm)
- APS-C (23.6 x 15.6 mm) and Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm)

I'm wondering if the Full frame or APS-C or Four Thirds can capture images close to the medium format cameras as seen in the images from the link below. Medium formats are too expensive to own.
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/ ... 40-review/
Sr. Member
Jan 20, 2004
769 posts
248 upvotes
stack21 wrote: Is there a noticeable difference in image quality between:

- Full frame (35.8 x 23.9 mm) and APS-C (23.6 x 15.6 mm)
- APS-C (23.6 x 15.6 mm) and Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm)

I'm wondering if the Full frame or APS-C or Four Thirds can capture images close to the medium format cameras as seen in the images from the link below. Medium formats are too expensive to own.
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/ ... 40-review/
LOL, now you are just opening up another huge can of worms here! Short answer, Yes. Will it make a difference for you, No.
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
Ryus wrote: LOL, now you are just opening up another huge can of worms here! Short answer, Yes. Will it make a difference for you, No.
Answer not impressive enough, lol. I already know that.

Differences in image quality:
- Full frame (35.8 x 23.9 mm) and APS-C (23.6 x 15.6 mm)
- APS-C (23.6 x 15.6 mm) and Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm)

This can translate into Sony Alpha 7 vs Fujifilm X vs Panasonic Lumix.
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
Interesting write-up on Full frame vs APS-C (Crop Frame):

http://www.photoventure.com/2013/05/08/ ... d-to-know/

Which brings us to you. What do you need to know about full-frame vs APS-C cameras when making your decision to upgrade?

Viewfinder performance
If you switch to full-frame cameras like the Canon EOS 6D or recently announced Sony A7r you’ll find that the images appear brighter in your viewfinder. This is simply because your full-frame camera provides a larger mirror.

Wider views with wide-angle lenses
Full-frame lenses deliver their ‘true’ focal length on full-frame cameras. There’s no need to apply a focal factor.

Lenses
Your lenses never go obsolete – and at the prices you paid for them, you probably don’t want to have to re-buy them! What you need to know about using lenses on full-frame vs APS-C cameras is that you can use your crop-factor lenses on a full-frame camera, but the camera will restrict the sensor area to an APS-C size rectangle in the middle of the frame and you won’t get the benefit of your full-frame camera’s resolution.

Depth of field
When you make the switch to full-frame, the change in the appearance of depth of field, or out-of-focus areas, becomes obvious. Let’s put it this way. If you put a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera, in order to capture that same angle of view on an APS-C camera you’d need a 35mm lens. And the 35mm lens will yield much more depth of field because of its shorter focal length. If you’re a landscape photographer, the shallow depth of field you’ll get shooting full-frame might cause trouble for you. If you’re a portrait or close-up photographer, however, this could make all the difference.

Image quality
Images taken with full-frame cameras (provided the photographer knows what he or she is doing!) will generally have more dynamic range and better fine detail than photos taken on APS-C cameras.

Low light
A full-frame camera will generally produce cleaner images in low light. Push your ISO up to the higher settings and you’ll be amazed at the results it can deliver. If you do a lot of shooting at night, this could be a reason to make the jump.

Body size
While you get more dynamic range, cleaner images at higher ISO settings and better resolution with full-frame, you’re also getting a bigger camera body. And, frankly, that’s a deal-breaker for some people. If you’re a street photographer and speed and portability are your chief concerns, a smaller APS-C camera might be best for you. Even many compact system cameras now boast APS-C sensors and can deliver DSLR-quality images.

File size
Prepare to invest in bigger – and more expensive – memory cards if you switch to full-frame, as these cameras produce much bigger file sizes. This will also, of course, affect your computer and photo storage options.
Deal Addict
Jun 29, 2008
1897 posts
557 upvotes
North York
lol ok this is getting to be too much... this is way too complicated for what you're trying to do. Your budget is $800-$1300, why are you even looking at the a7 series? You can have the best video quality in the world but if you don't know how to shoot or edit, it's going to be garbage anyway.

In the end, your choices are the following. Go to a camera store and try them out. Get the kit and spend the extra money on lenses and accessories.
1) Sony A6000
2) Canon T4i
3) Nikon D5200

Done. You do not need to look at any other camera.
Sr. Member
Jan 17, 2013
778 posts
379 upvotes
Thanks for the camera recomendations. I would go for them if I am on an "amateur" track. I am prepared to put more money into this project such that I can have three budgets. There is a $1300 budget, $3000 budget and a $12,000 budget. The $3000 budget is for Sony A7 (is getting A7 instead of A7R a mistake because of price?), the $12,000 budget is for a medium format camera. I want to take quality photos for enlargement. The only medium format that I think I can buy at that $12,000 budget is the Pentax 645Z. But I think the reviews out there do not rate the 645Z in good light. Before making a decision, I read Fujifilm will be releasing a medium format in the near future, that is something I will be interested in and would wait and hope it is priced the same as Pentax 645Z.

There are quite a bit of info out there on Full Frame vs APS-C, and APS-C vs Four-Thirds. It doesn't look like anyone here has expertise on full frame or APS-C but from what I read so far, the difference between Full Frame and APS-C is negligible so it may not be worthwhile to pay more or to carry a heavier body. I am still in the midst of researching and won't be able to formulate anymore questions until I finish my reading. Thanks for answering my questons.
Deal Addict
Nov 21, 2008
1399 posts
301 upvotes
North Vancouver, BC
stack21 wrote: Trying to understand video resolutions:

I know 1920x1080 is higher in quality when compared to 1280x720.

1. 1280x720 (60p) is higher in quality when compared to 1280x720 (30p), correct?

2. Does 1920x1080 comes in 30p and 60p? If yes, is it worthwhile buying a camera that shoots in 1920x1080 (30p) but not 1920x1080 (60p)?


Video is nothing more than a succession of pictures (or frames). The more frames you have for a defined period, the more information you have, so a higher frame rate will result in a video that is "smoother".

The higher the resolution, the more data. Without any compression of the data, the higher the resolution the more definition you should have for a picture.

A decent explanation of progressive versus interlaced:
http://www.isfforum.com/FAQs/view/All-A ... eo/33.html

Stick to progressive.

As for video encoding formats, you should read up on them if you want to understand them. For example, MP4 isn't really a video recording format; it's a container format for video and audio. The video can be encoded in various formats with MP4, as can be the audio.

Different video (and audio) encoding formats, along with their settings, will result in different amounts of storage requirements. They will also result in differing "quality" when the media is played back.

You'll find different video encoding schemes between manufacturers, but there's pretty much a few universal standards.

If you plan to do editing, you might want to look into what video recording format is best. With still photography on most cameras, the image data is stored in a compressed format, but with advanced cameras, the raw data can also be stored. Having the raw data provides an editor with the ability to manipulate the image data more as the compressed format typically loses information during the compression process. This applies to video data.
Deal Addict
Aug 1, 2010
1588 posts
1599 upvotes
Montreal
What kind of video were you planning to shoot? Most videographers don't like shooting 60p but rather 24p to keep that cinematic effect.

Top

Thread Information

There are currently 2 users viewing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)