cputeq wrote:
Could also be just a simple case of an "oops" in the firmware, which an update would cure.
I would hope that's the case, Sony isn't exactly quick with updates though. A99 #2 is supposed to arrive Monday, I just emailed Lens Rentals to see if I can get a Ninja 2 next weekend to test the uncompressed HDMI signal for comparison and put to rest any lingering questions about the A99's video quality.
photo chris wrote:
I would hope that's the case, Sony isn't exactly quick with updates though. A99 #2 is supposed to arrive Monday, I just emailed Lens Rentals to see if I can get a Ninja 2 next weekend to test the uncompressed HDMI signal for comparison and put to rest any lingering questions about the A99's video quality.
I wonder if it might not be worth contacting Sony directly to try to find out if this is a known issue/problem that they expect to resolve and if so in how long a time frame.
naturephoto1 wrote:
I wonder if it might not be worth contacting Sony directly to try to find out if this is a known issue/problem that they expect to resolve and if so in how long a time frame.
Rich
I was on the phone with Sony service for about 45 min as they went through the diagnostic playbook, they did say there are no known issues with A99 video, but what kind of info the people answering phones get is a mystery and when I called last week it had only been shipping for a few weeks.
I posted some video frames on DPreview. I grabbed a couple quick shots with the A99 and the EM5, a hastily thrown together still life and an outside shot. A99 #2 looks soft as well. I'll get out and shoot more, but if this continues my move to Sony will be short lived and I'll probably head back to Canon with the 5d3 now selling for $3000. Grrr...
After getting skewered for cooking the books and trying to discredit the A99 for some stupid reason - as if I'd drop more than $6,000 on camera and 2 lenses just to try and make the A99 look bad - I shot another test. Same bad results, the A99 is very poor at rendering any detail while shooting video. I'm no even going to bother with an external recorder as they add a minute amount of detail at most - they simply give me a braodcast spec codec for productions. I don't know which is the bigger deal, the A99 shooting absolute rubbish for video or the EM5 being able to trump it and the mighty Zeiss zoom with a $100 plastic kit zoom. I wonder how the EM5 would perform with some Leica R or Zeiss C/Y glass....
photo chris wrote:
I don't know which is the bigger deal, the A99 shooting absolute rubbish for video or the EM5 being able to trump it and the mighty Zeiss zoom with a $100 plastic kit zoom. I wonder how the EM5 would perform with some Leica R or Zeiss C/Y glass....
Can't imagine the lens would make much difference at all resolution-wise at 1920x1080...
alwang wrote:
Can't imagine the lens would make much difference at all resolution-wise at 1920x1080...
yeah, when it come to video resolutions any lens can vastly out resolve the pixels. it's how the frames are sampled and compressed that makes the difference in detail captured. the contributions of nice lenses for video are pretty much just 'look', speed, color, and contrast.
sebboh wrote:
yeah, when it come to video resolutions any lens can vastly out resolve the pixels. it's how the frames are sampled and compressed that makes the difference in detail captured. the contributions of nice lenses for video are pretty much just 'look', speed, color, and contrast.
In one of the EOSHD reviews it was said that for cameras such as the Panasonic GH1/2/3 which have great video sharpness it's actually desirable not to use a lens with ultra high microcontrast because it will look too 'digital'. DSLRs like the 5Dmk2/3 and also the A99 have quite soft video, so they would benefit more from a sharp lens (high microcontrast).
AhamB wrote:
In one of the EOSHD reviews it was said that for cameras such as the Panasonic GH1/2/3 which have great video sharpness it's actually desirable not to use a lens with ultra high microcontrast because it will look too 'digital'. DSLRs like the 5Dmk2/3 and also the A99 have quite soft video, so they would benefit more from a sharp lens (high microcontrast).
yeah, but you still won't get any more details, just more contrast so it looks sharp when you stand back from the screen.
is it possible sony is using high compression in order to allow higher frame rates? i forget, does the a99 allow high frame rates for slo-mo?
sebboh wrote:
is it possible sony is using high compression in order to allow higher frame rates? i forget, does the a99 allow high frame rates for slo-mo?
The A99's interal codec has a bitrate of only 24-25Mbps, but a higher bitrate (even uncompressed hdmi out) doesn't guarantee that the footage will get sharp. I believe the 5Dmk3 can do 90 Mbps but doesn't have uncompressed hdmi yet (will come in the next firmware update).
AhamB wrote:
In one of the EOSHD reviews it was said that for cameras such as the Panasonic GH1/2/3 which have great video sharpness it's actually desirable not to use a lens with ultra high microcontrast because it will look too 'digital'. DSLRs like the 5Dmk2/3 and also the A99 have quite soft video, so they would benefit more from a sharp lens (high microcontrast).
Photos from my A99 24-70z combo look good. Video is a mushy pile of goo.
sebboh wrote:
is it possible sony is using high compression in order to allow higher frame rates? i forget, does the a99 allow high frame rates for slo-mo?
The A99 has the same bitrate and frame rates as the Nex cameras. If I could find my LAEA1 to shoot a comparison with my Nex5n the A99 would get smacked around again by its pint-sized brother from another mother. Its just bad, really bad.
I shot the EM5 with all the picture profile settings at 0, if I dropped them and spent a few minutes with color correction and sharpening, the gulf would be even wider.
Unfortunately, yours isn't the first complaint I've read about this, Chris. There's a fairly prominent review on Amazon that mentions the same problem. Out of curiosity, does it matter if stabilization is turned on or off when shooting?
If it is a compression issue, hopefully it's something Sony can address in a firmware update. I'm interested in the video, but if that's the only problem, it likely won't stop me from buying. The NEX-7 is a fine video camera if I need it.
Aham - the Zeiss ZE/F lenses are very popular as well as the C/Y's when shooting video, I went the Sony route to get that look in one really good zoom. I found the high contrast look to be desirable, as do many others. When you cut the in camera sharpening, it can be brought back to a pleasing look in post.
Freak - Its worse with steadyshot on. As much as I tried, I couldn't get anything out of the A99 that looked better than the EM5. To make matters worse for the A99, the EM5 video with IBIS on still looks better.
I don't know if its a compression issue, when I plug my camera into my TV the image I see is every bit as bad. Its either codec related or there's a bug somewhere in the processing chain.
photo chris wrote:
I don't know if its a compression issue, when I plug my camera into my TV the image I see is every bit as bad. Its either codec related or there's a bug somewhere in the processing chain.
Or Sony just doesn't want to cannibalize sales from their videocamera division, just like Canon who have a similar kind of softness in their DSLRs (even the $15k 1D C). That's the feeling I get from things like this interview with Canon about the 1D C:
"EOSHD: I feel the actual detail in 1080p on the 1D X and 5D Mark III is closer to 720p in reality – so can this be improved to be competitive with the $700 Panasonic GH2?
Mike Burnhill from Canon: We will pass your feedback to the design team. Users for whom resolution is the most important factor in video recording may find that capturing 4K for final HD delivery meets their needs most effectively.
