FDR-X3000 time lapse. Bad quality in 4K

[darkframe]

Hi @karkalos314,

---

@karkalos314 schrieb:

The image size is only 2mb on 4k settings even though the Sony website says it should be around 8mb. 

---

obviously you've set the image size for time lapse shots to HD instead of 4K. Please see here on what you need to do.

Cheers,

darkframe

[darkframe · Accepted solution]

Hi again,

---

@karkalos314 schrieb:

In addition HD image size is ~420K...

---

well, you're mixing file size and image size.

An HD image, i.e. 1920x1080 pixels, leads to an image size of approximately 2.1 mega pixels (2.073.600 pixels exactly). However, that has got nothing to do with the size of the file. Due to JPG compression those 2.1 mega pixels may well fit into a 420 kb file.

The file size is much more depending on the content of the image than on the image resolution. A 4K shot of a blue sky with nothing more than the blue sky may lead to a smaller file than an HD shot of a bunch of trees with lots of leaves in different colours.

Cheers,

darkframe

[darkframe]

Hi once more,

---

@karkalos314 schrieb:

There are 2 resolutions during time lapse. 4K and HD

I am getting:

4K (3840 x 2160) (image size ~2M)

HD (1920 x 1080) (image size ~410K)

you've obviously not yet read my last post (maybe typing at the same time as me  )

2M is the file size of your 4K picture, 420K is the file size of your HD image. As long as your 4K image has got a resolution of 3840x2160 it is a 8.3 M image!

3840 x 2160 = 8.294.400 pixels, or, in other "words" approximately 8.3 M(egapixels)

Cheers,

darkframe

---

[darkframe]

Hi @karkalos314,

well, to be honest, I've had different experiences regarding the image quality of the FDR-X3000. I've produced a time lapse recording of the construction of our summer house in our garden in HD. Time covered was 3.5 hours and the quality was excellent.

In March I've been to Mexico and of course used the camera while snorkeling. I'm impressed by the quality of the 4K videos but disappointed by the quality of the images. Well, maybe I should have tried a different setting for the stills (can't actually remember which one I used).

As an example here's a short 4K clip which I took March, 9th in the afternoon. No editing up to now, except the (degrading) YouTube-conversion. Besides of that it's the original clip as recorded by the camera.

Errm, presently YouTube does offer the FullHD version only although I've uploaded the original 4K clip. Hopefully the 4K version will be available later.

Cheers,

darkframe

[IamNic]

Hi @karkalos314,

for me the 4K-timelapses I shot always looked great.

Like this one: 

As @darkframe already explained, the image size varies depending on what the camera captures.

Just for comparison - one still frame of video (if you shoot 4K 25fps 100Mbit/s) just takes up approx. 0.5MB of space.

In theorie the quality per frame is higher when using the 4K timelapse setting on your camera, yet you can't really compare the process of interframe compression (which happens during video shooting) to the shooting of individual photos in terms of space.

- Nic