Pentax Full Frame Comment
Posted 30/09/2013 - 08:31
Link
It's quite interesting this discussion and what is being said about RAW or compressed video. Just change the words to RAW and JPEG and change the meaning to still images and see what we have.
Best regards, John
Posted 30/09/2013 - 09:07
Link
richandfleur wrote:
The options for video raw mimic the photo RAW vs JPG. Raw means straight off the sensor, with no camera profile editing done, so no sharpening or attempts at colour correction etc. In video terms it's exactly the same. Being difficult for users to use isn't much of an argument to me, as you could say the same for RAW files really.
Video is one area Pentax is really lagging behind in. With the weather sealing and onboard image stabilisation (IF they allow mechanical stabilisation during video capture) Pentax would be really attractive to many budding film makers. From a sales perspective, assuming the hardware can handle it, many of the changes required are software based, so are features that could be added fairly easily. Many want to use pentax hardware in video work, not just Pentaxs older lenses.
I'm new to Pentax User and haven't followed this thread throughout. What I am saying may already be well known.The options for video raw mimic the photo RAW vs JPG. Raw means straight off the sensor, with no camera profile editing done, so no sharpening or attempts at colour correction etc. In video terms it's exactly the same. Being difficult for users to use isn't much of an argument to me, as you could say the same for RAW files really.
Video is one area Pentax is really lagging behind in. With the weather sealing and onboard image stabilisation (IF they allow mechanical stabilisation during video capture) Pentax would be really attractive to many budding film makers. From a sales perspective, assuming the hardware can handle it, many of the changes required are software based, so are features that could be added fairly easily. Many want to use pentax hardware in video work, not just Pentaxs older lenses.
CinemaDNG is a raw file format for video that uses DNG for each frame. I don't know how attractive that makes it for Pentax. (I created the Wikipedia CinemaDNG page, but I don't claim to be an expert on this whole topic).
Posted 30/09/2013 - 11:46
Link
ronniemac wrote:
After 10 seconds I decided to remain blissfully unaware of this f.f. vs. crop sensor explanation.
Mine too although I'll hold my hand up to the beard and glasses....
Stuey wrote:
You have to listed to someone who so closely resembles a university lecturer
Perhaps a little unfair on my occupation? but I admire your staying power. You have to listed to someone who so closely resembles a university lecturer
After 10 seconds I decided to remain blissfully unaware of this f.f. vs. crop sensor explanation.
Smeggypants wrote:
"more detail per pixel" - ROFLMAO. What a stupid thing to say!!!
I made a good decision then."more detail per pixel" - ROFLMAO. What a stupid thing to say!!!
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
Posted 30/09/2013 - 12:45
Link
I'm still trying to make up my mind between a new dslr or a Pentax 67. At the moment the 67 is winning...
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
Posted 30/09/2013 - 14:32
Link
giofi wrote:
Equal to what?Smeggypants wrote:
An example is the number of time lapse images. Restricted to 99 in the K20D, 999 in the K-5 and it seems 2000 in the K-3.
Totally absurd. The limit on time lapse frames should be the capacity of the SD card, not some arbitrary number. This kind of hamstringing camera features annoys me greatly
I thought that time lapse photography requires an equal number of shutter actuations? If that is the case, could that be the reason for the limit?An example is the number of time lapse images. Restricted to 99 in the K20D, 999 in the K-5 and it seems 2000 in the K-3.
Totally absurd. The limit on time lapse frames should be the capacity of the SD card, not some arbitrary number. This kind of hamstringing camera features annoys me greatly
If you want to make a 2 minute time lapse at 25fps, that's 3000 frames already.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 30/09/2013 - 15:24
Link
Smeggypants wrote:
If you want to make a 2 minute time lapse at 25fps, that's 3000 frames already.
Equal to the number of frames.... So if you have 3000 frames, 3000 actuations. Is that correct? If yes, than an unlimited number of frames might lead to a shutter replacement fairly quickly?
giofi wrote:
Equal to what?Smeggypants wrote:
An example is the number of time lapse images. Restricted to 99 in the K20D, 999 in the K-5 and it seems 2000 in the K-3.
Totally absurd. The limit on time lapse frames should be the capacity of the SD card, not some arbitrary number. This kind of hamstringing camera features annoys me greatly
I thought that time lapse photography requires an equal number of shutter actuations? If that is the case, could that be the reason for the limit?An example is the number of time lapse images. Restricted to 99 in the K20D, 999 in the K-5 and it seems 2000 in the K-3.
Totally absurd. The limit on time lapse frames should be the capacity of the SD card, not some arbitrary number. This kind of hamstringing camera features annoys me greatly
If you want to make a 2 minute time lapse at 25fps, that's 3000 frames already.
Posted 30/09/2013 - 15:38
Link
Time Lapse is what it says, pictures taken after a lapse of time. Usually this means something like a flower opening, so even 99 shots would be more than enough.
Shooting 3000 frames at 25 frames a second is a movie, which is quite different, and there is a movie mode anyway.
Does anybody actually want to shoot 3000 frames in Time Lapse?
Shooting 3000 frames at 25 frames a second is a movie, which is quite different, and there is a movie mode anyway.
Does anybody actually want to shoot 3000 frames in Time Lapse?
Best regards, John
Posted 30/09/2013 - 16:02
Link
99 and 999 suggest a limit imposed by a limited number of digits in the readout.
2000 seems to imply a limit of the "well surely that should be enough for anyone" class, which the IT industry has repeatedly shown to be a silly thing to say.
2000 seems to imply a limit of the "well surely that should be enough for anyone" class, which the IT industry has repeatedly shown to be a silly thing to say.
you don't have to be mad to post here
but it does help
but it does help
Posted 30/09/2013 - 16:08
Link
johnriley wrote:
Time Lapse is what it says, pictures taken after a lapse of time. Usually this means something like a flower opening, so even 99 shots would be more than enough.
Shooting 3000 frames at 25 frames a second is a movie, which is quite different, and there is a movie mode anyway.
Does anybody actually want to shoot 3000 frames in Time Lapse?
When I hear 'timelapse' I think 'timelapse movie'.Time Lapse is what it says, pictures taken after a lapse of time. Usually this means something like a flower opening, so even 99 shots would be more than enough.
Shooting 3000 frames at 25 frames a second is a movie, which is quite different, and there is a movie mode anyway.
Does anybody actually want to shoot 3000 frames in Time Lapse?
Because I live in the 21st Century.
Posted 30/09/2013 - 16:24
Link
Pentaxophile wrote:
Because I live in the 21st Century.
certainly a common way of presenting such an image sequence, but I'd be very disapointed if the camera assumed that this was the intended output.
johnriley wrote:
Time Lapse is what it says, pictures taken after a lapse of time. Usually this means something like a flower opening, so even 99 shots would be more than enough.
Shooting 3000 frames at 25 frames a second is a movie, which is quite different, and there is a movie mode anyway.
Does anybody actually want to shoot 3000 frames in Time Lapse?
When I hear 'timelapse' I think 'timelapse movie'.Time Lapse is what it says, pictures taken after a lapse of time. Usually this means something like a flower opening, so even 99 shots would be more than enough.
Shooting 3000 frames at 25 frames a second is a movie, which is quite different, and there is a movie mode anyway.
Does anybody actually want to shoot 3000 frames in Time Lapse?
Because I live in the 21st Century.
you don't have to be mad to post here
but it does help
but it does help
Posted 30/09/2013 - 16:48
Link
Pentaxophile wrote:
When I hear 'timelapse' I think 'timelapse movie'.
Because I live in the 21st Century.
When I have done timelapse it is with the intention of making it into a movie so 300-500 shots to get a few seconds sequence is common and so, yes, it does rather pump up the shutter count!When I hear 'timelapse' I think 'timelapse movie'.
Because I live in the 21st Century.
Andy
Andy
Posted 30/09/2013 - 20:33
Link
johnriley wrote:
Time Lapse is what it says, pictures taken after a lapse of time. Usually this means something like a flower opening, so even 99 shots would be more than enough.
Shooting 3000 frames at 25 frames a second is a movie, which is quite different, and there is a movie mode anyway.
Does anybody actually want to shoot 3000 frames in Time Lapse?
Yes, done it a few times. One example I did nearly 3000 frames at 10 seconds apart to make a time lapse of a day looking out of my window over about 20 hours. The resultant timelapse when rendered was about 2 minutes long.Time Lapse is what it says, pictures taken after a lapse of time. Usually this means something like a flower opening, so even 99 shots would be more than enough.
Shooting 3000 frames at 25 frames a second is a movie, which is quite different, and there is a movie mode anyway.
Does anybody actually want to shoot 3000 frames in Time Lapse?
If you want to take 99 shots of a flower opening and view that over 4 seconds, then fine, but many time lapses are much longer than that
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 30/09/2013 - 20:38
Link
giofi wrote:
If you want to make a 2 minute time lapse at 25fps, that's 3000 frames already.
Equal to the number of frames.... So if you have 3000 frames, 3000 actuations. Is that correct? [/quote]Ahhh yes, I see what you mean. yes that's correct. Smeggypants wrote:
Equal to what?giofi wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="Smeggypants"]An example is the number of time lapse images. Restricted to 99 in the K20D, 999 in the K-5 and it seems 2000 in the K-3.
Totally absurd. The limit on time lapse frames should be the capacity of the SD card, not some arbitrary number. This kind of hamstringing camera features annoys me greatly
I thought that time lapse photography requires an equal number of shutter actuations? If that is the case, could that be the reason for the limit?[quote:3496ace15f="Smeggypants"]An example is the number of time lapse images. Restricted to 99 in the K20D, 999 in the K-5 and it seems 2000 in the K-3.
Totally absurd. The limit on time lapse frames should be the capacity of the SD card, not some arbitrary number. This kind of hamstringing camera features annoys me greatly
If you want to make a 2 minute time lapse at 25fps, that's 3000 frames already.
Quote:
If yes, than an unlimited number of frames might lead to a shutter replacement fairly quickly?
Well it would if you rattled off a 100,000 shots fairly quickly, but if someone is buying a camera for such heavy timelapse use then they'd know wearing the shutter out is the price to pay
If yes, than an unlimited number of frames might lead to a shutter replacement fairly quickly?
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 30/09/2013 - 22:53
Link
womble wrote:
I'm still trying to make up my mind between a new dslr or a Pentax 67. At the moment the 67 is winning...
Hi Kris,I'm still trying to make up my mind between a new dslr or a Pentax 67. At the moment the 67 is winning...
Horses for courses as I'm sure you'll appreciate. I bought my 67 a few months ago, but you might also have to budget for a bigger bag too!
The results on film are spectacular but trying to find affordable scanning that shows them off to their best is somewhat harder...
John.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2098 posts
13 years
North Island - New Zealand
The timelapse limit is a complete have as it's simply a timer. ie take a photo once every minute. To have a number limit is useful if you only want this to happen for the next 2 hours, but it's silly if you want this to continue for the next two days until you return etc. It's a firmware limit that's not related to anything physical as it's simply a regular shutter release.
The options for video raw mimic the photo RAW vs JPG. Raw means straight off the sensor, with no camera profile editing done, so no sharpening or attempts at colour correction etc. In video terms it's exactly the same. Being difficult for users to use isn't much of an argument to me, as you could say the same for RAW files really.
Video is one area Pentax is really lagging behind in. With the weather sealing and onboard image stabilisation (IF they allow mechanical stabilisation during video capture) Pentax would be really attractive to many budding film makers. From a sales perspective, assuming the hardware can handle it, many of the changes required are software based, so are features that could be added fairly easily. Many want to use pentax hardware in video work, not just Pentaxs older lenses.