New low-cost Pentax K-x w/HD video!

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

I don't see how they can without making the stills look soft.

Just like oversampling in audio systems, they can filter digitally. That would allow crisp stills and fantastic video, given long enough filters. The challenge is to read all of the pixels fast enough, and to have enough juice in the DSP.

Red essentially takes this approach, but not (yet) in camera. We get a heavily oversampled 4k image, and can filter in post to get a super-sharp 3k (or so) result with no aliasing. That's why Scarlet 2/3 is 3k. It's intended to produce a 1080p or 2k result.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

I don't see how they can without making the stills look soft.

It's *THEORETICALLY* possible. Read out the full sensor 24x a second (not skipping pixels), then downconvert the full sensor res 24p signal to normal HD (taking care here with the low pass filtering). Of course, high quality downconvertors don't come cheap, and the effort of reading the full sensor at 24fps (let alone 50 or 60) shouldn't be underestimated.

This is the problem with a hybrid camera. The requirements for good stills are totally different to those of video.

Yes, and rather than what I theorised above, it will probably be far more cost effective to just buy a dedicated stills camera and a separate dedicated video camera for a long time to come! That will also allow stills to be taken of the video production....... ;-)

[Robert Rogoz]

Jon, i think the possibilities are there, but I think it's very slowly trickling down. There are some technical issues with how scans are done for still and for motion- also true with film cameras as well. I don't believe that hybrids are the way of the future, but larger sensor are. Also the issue is the compression, which in case of DSLR eliminate them from any fast action shooting so far- maybe it won't be the case in a year or two, but this is the case for now. I don't believe it will be any different with K-7.
I just think a lot of companies tend to hype up their product and then not deliver. The case and point is JVC's HM100, which promised a lot, lots of positive reviews, but you can't even place a filter on a lens without swiss army knife!
As far as Canon goes- I think it is not any cheaper then other solutions out there. When you add the cost of the body and some good lenses it would be equal to buying a video camera, 35 mm adapter and MXO2 mini for uncompressed recording.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I think you're right, Robert. It will take some time before HDSLRs solve the video problems. The main reason is that they won't necessarily sell lots more cameras if they get rid of rolling shutter and aliasing on the video side. Most buyers are looking to take stills. There's more hope of the video camera developers latching on to larger sensors and pushing the technology forward.

RED is one of the first to enter this race. Not so many years ago, people were gobsmacked by the idea of an S35 camera for under $18k. Scarlet S35 will cut that in half or so. RED is absolutely motivated to provide great video performance. But they won't offer the HDSLR economy in terms of sensor size per dollar. At least not for their Gen 2 products.

NAB will be interesting. Which companies will be ready to announce large sensor video cams? Which will be repackaged HDSLRs? Which will have improved video performance? Which will be adopted by broadcasters and Hollywood?

We live in interesting times...

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

Also the issue is the compression, which in case of DSLR eliminate them from any fast action shooting so far- maybe it won't be the case in a year or two, but this is the case for now.

Certainly with the Pentax and Nikons that are using low bitrate MJPEG - it's simply a bad choice for HD video period but especially falls apart with high motion. However the h.264 of the 5/7D doesn't fall apart like that - it's certainly no worse than HDV and in my own experience a little better. Ultimately all it will really take is for one of these cameras to offer live full-res 1080p out via HDMI and then the compression simply becomes a question of how much you are willing to invest in outboard capture devices. That's certainly within the technical capabilities of the current equipment, it's really just a question of customer demand & manufacturer's priorities - if Canon do ship a video-centric camera based around one of these sensors I would be very surprised if it didn't have this feature.

As far as Canon goes- I think it is not any cheaper then other solutions out there. When you add the cost of the body and some good lenses it would be equal to buying a video camera, 35 mm adapter and MXO2 mini for uncompressed recording.

Well, cost of lenses is going to be the same with either solution. However, it's not just a question of cheaper - I would choose my 5D over the setup you describe any day. First, you lose a stop or two of light via an adapter, and whatever video camera you're using is going to be less sensitive to light in the first place. Not only can you not shoot in low light effectively, but you have to have fast 35mm lenses and shoot them wide open. Second, you've doubled the amount of glass between your sensor and the image, plus added a ground glass element which degrades your image even further, lowering contrast and often introducing visible diffusion in highlights. You also have more stuff to set up to make it work right - which also means more stuff to go wrong - and the whole rig is bulky and cumbersome.

My 5D, Nikon 85mm f/2 AIs, and Enduro carbon-fiber monopod make an incredibly light and fast combination to shoot almost anywhere without drawing attention to myself, cost less than $3k total, and will out-shoot any 35mm adapter combo in that price range. I'd pay twice what I it costs for the improvement to workflow over using a video camera with an adapter.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I'm with Evan. I wouldn't consider a 35mm adapter solution now that HDSLRs have emerged.

[Brian Standing]

Any idea on a price on this puppy yet?

And does it record at the same bitrate (72mpbs, I think) as the K7?

[Brian Standing]

OK, found the price at B&H. Very nice.

Now, about that bitrate....

[Evan Donn]

Interesting, I didn't realize the k7 used such a high bit rate, although based on this review- Pentax K-7 Digital Camera Video - Full Review - The Imaging Resource! - the math works out to about 45mbps. The high-motion frames in that review are actually very good, so if the bit rate is the same but you're only shooting 24fps I would actually expect even better quality.

They also mentioned there that the sensor-based IS does a good job of eliminating the jello effect due to the rolling shutter when shooting handheld, which means this body combined with some inexpensive used k-mount primes could make for very decent video.

[Bill Koehler]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

Interesting, I didn't realize the k7 used such a high bit rate, although based on this review- Pentax K-7 Digital Camera Video - Full Review - The Imaging Resource! - the math works out to about 45mbps. The high-motion frames in that review are actually very good, so if the bit rate is the same but you're only shooting 24fps I would actually expect even better quality.

I'm surprised the numbers aren't a little higher because Pentax's manual says you should expect to hit the 4 GB file size limit in the highest quality mode between 7 and 8 minutes.

I also find it interesting that the highest data rate numbers are generated recording 720p, not the 1056 x 1024 format. That just cements my opinion that with this camera you will get the best footage shooting 720p. The scaling issues you run into blowing up the 1056 x 1024 frame to fill the 16x9 aspect ratio frame everyone's HDTV has unavoidably throws away any and all extra resolution you thought you were getting anyhow. So you might as well record the 16x9 720p image with better (less) compression.

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

They also mentioned there that the sensor-based IS does a good job of eliminating the jello effect due to the rolling shutter when shooting handheld, which means this body combined with some inexpensive used k-mount primes could make for very decent video.

I think the in-camera image stabilization of the Pentax cameras is their one biggest advantage.

[Gary Hanna]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

Unfortunately they went with MJPEG for the video codec though. No word on data rate but considering it's SD based I wouldn't expect it to be particularly high. Expect it'll fall apart with motion pretty easily.

The K-7 actually has the highest bit rate out of all the DSLR hybrids, going up to 72mbs.

I've seen tons of footage from both cameras...the codec doesn't fall apart.

[Graham Hickling]

How high does the K-x go?

There's not much K-x footage out yet - but a few comments that the jello effect is pretty bad, worse than K-7 (slower sensor scan I guess). Would you agree Gary?

[Gary Hanna]

Haven't noticed, never tried a K-x, but haven't seen anything bad on the few samples available. All the hybrids have that issue, just keep the camera still.