A1 4k: "Binned" vs A7sIII...Help me understand

I have seen many comments both here and other sources like Youtubers talking about how the A7sIII will have better 4k video than the A1 because the A1 will use pixel binning for full sensor 4k.

According to dpreview:
"...the camera can't produce over-sampled 4K from its 8K footage, so you'll have to do that in 'post if you wish. Instead it offers pixel-binned 4K from the full width of its sensor at up to 60p, or up to 120p with a 1.1x crop. These can be captured as up to 10-bit 4:2:2."

What I'm not understanding is why this would be any worse than the a7sIII? My maths may be wrong, but doesn't it look something like this:

50mp ÷ 4 = 12.5mp (2x2 binned pixels). This is basically the same as the A7sIII 12mp: 4320x2880 vs 4240x2832.
So effectively we have a 12.5mp sensor but with two other potential benefits over the A7sIII: faster readout, and full RGB info per pixel.

What am I missing here? Is it simply that people see the term "Pixel Binning" and immediately equate that to meaning worse? Or is there an actual reason that this would mean inferior 4K video to the A7sIII?
According to Gerald Undone who knows more about the mechanics of these things than most reviewers, the 4K output of the A1 is every bit as good as the A7Siii. He demonstrated this with resolution charts from both. Just as important, there were no more artifacts in the A1 than in the A7siii

So, you get all the A7Siii offers plus 8K and other A1 benefits.
I discovered only the other week that the a7r2 4k full sensor video is also much better than the super 35 video that everyone claims is better, especially at high iso. why it is such a surprise is beyond me, marketing people have done a great job at pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

Don
 
Makes me wonder why the A7sIII was made with 12MPX. Seems like kind of a waste when it could have had more pixels like 18MPX to help justify more stills use.
 
Makes me wonder why the A7sIII was made with 12MPX. Seems like kind of a waste when it could have had more pixels like 18MPX to help justify more stills use.
Probably for maximizing high ISO noise performance.

It's notable that the a1 has better 4K noise performance than the a7Siii below ISO 12800 but from there on up the a7Siii takes over and rules. I would likely not do that (or not do it as easily) if it were 18MP rather than 12MP.

If that's the reason, it would be in line with the fact that the S in the model name stands for sensitivity (as opposed to video etc).
 
Makes me wonder why the A7sIII was made with 12MPX. Seems like kind of a waste when it could have had more pixels like 18MPX to help justify more stills use.
Probably for maximizing high ISO noise performance.

It's notable that the a1 has better 4K noise performance than the a7Siii below ISO 12800 but from there on up the a7Siii takes over and rules. I would likely not do that (or not do it as easily) if it were 18MP rather than 12MP.
"Rules" is a stretch. It's dual gain switch is iso12800, so it gets a slight advantage at that particular iso, but then the difference tapers-off and becomes negligible after that.
If that's the reason, it would be in line with the fact that the S in the model name stands for sensitivity (as opposed to video etc).
 
Makes me wonder why the A7sIII was made with 12MPX. Seems like kind of a waste when it could have had more pixels like 18MPX to help justify more stills use.
Probably for maximizing high ISO noise performance.

It's notable that the a1 has better 4K noise performance than the a7Siii below ISO 12800 but from there on up the a7Siii takes over and rules. I would likely not do that (or not do it as easily) if it were 18MP rather than 12MP.

If that's the reason, it would be in line with the fact that the S in the model name stands for sensitivity (as opposed to video etc).
Sil, it was for 4K30/60/120 without using a stacked sensor.

Remember the interview with Kenji Tanaka where he said the 'S' should stand for superb image quality?

"The ‘S’ originally stood for ‘sensitivity’ but now I think it should stand for ‘supreme’ in terms of image quality, and expression."

 
Makes me wonder why the A7sIII was made with 12MPX. Seems like kind of a waste when it could have had more pixels like 18MPX to help justify more stills use.
Probably for maximizing high ISO noise performance.

It's notable that the a1 has better 4K noise performance than the a7Siii below ISO 12800 but from there on up the a7Siii takes over and rules. I would likely not do that (or not do it as easily) if it were 18MP rather than 12MP.

If that's the reason, it would be in line with the fact that the S in the model name stands for sensitivity (as opposed to video etc).
Sil, it was for 4K30/60/120 without using a stacked sensor.

Remember the interview with Kenji Tanaka where he said the 'S' should stand for superb image quality?

"The ‘S’ originally stood for ‘sensitivity’ but now I think it should stand for ‘supreme’ in terms of image quality, and expression."

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...7s-ii-successor-this-summer-everything-is-new
Heh! I guess S has to stand for Something!! ; )

--
Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
https://500px.com/raycologon
https://www.instagram.com/raycologon
 
Last edited:
Makes sense. In order to keep the price point and performance they had to lighten the processing load.
 
The video performance of the a1 is better than the a7siii at 4K, even at ISO 32.000 if you shoot 8K video and use a denoiser: (around the 2:10 mark)


edit: For a “short-time with camera” he tells (and shows) a lot about ISO and stuff like 8K filming. Including experiences with footage in Resolve.
Great video, thx for posting it.
 
The video performance of the a1 is better than the a7siii at 4K, even at ISO 32.000 if you shoot 8K video and use a denoiser: (around the 2:10 mark)


edit: For a “short-time with camera” he tells (and shows) a lot about ISO and stuff like 8K filming. Including experiences with footage in Resolve.
To me the colors of the A7sIII look punchier (i.e. the A1 image is a bit more desaturated) and also more natural at the higher ISOs than what you get out of the A1. Most just look at "noise" and (resolution-)"detail", but think this color+desaturation stuff is just the way things are translated. Unfortunately, that has to do with the pixel size, and in less favorable circumstances can kick your rear end pretty hard. In return, most won't need such ISOs, so for them the A1 is the better choice then.
 
The video performance of the a1 is better than the a7siii at 4K, even at ISO 32.000 if you shoot 8K video and use a denoiser: (around the 2:10 mark)


edit: For a “short-time with camera” he tells (and shows) a lot about ISO and stuff like 8K filming. Including experiences with footage in Resolve.
To me the colors of the A7sIII look punchier (i.e. the A1 image is a bit more desaturated) and also more natural at the higher ISOs than what you get out of the A1. Most just look at "noise" and (resolution-)"detail", but think this color+desaturation stuff is just the way things are translated. Unfortunately, that has to do with the pixel size, and in less favorable circumstances can kick your rear end pretty hard. In return, most won't need such ISOs, so for them the A1 is the better choice then.
I'm seeing a lot more color issues with the A7siii, look:

f02ee2d67bcb45bcbc8c7b60c78d2670.jpg.png


You have ugly green patches on the A7siii, and this is minimized on the A1.

Not only that, but Gerald also said the binined 4k has better noise control than the A7siii.

The colors are better because when you pixel bin 8k => 4k, you get more color information per pixel than if you just do 4k, because of the Bayer filter.
 
The best is oversampling as with the A7iii. Only it is 4:2:0 8 bit.

Many point out the A7iii video still is better over the A7Siii with more detail and looks as good in low light.

maybe the A7iv will have 10 bit oversampled video.

Or even better 6K raw we could edit ourselves. 8k would be ideal but I don’t think the A7iv will have an 8k sensor. Still, 8k raw for editing to 4K is how to get the best video. It’s 2:1 for oversampling.
 
The video performance of the a1 is better than the a7siii at 4K, even at ISO 32.000 if you shoot 8K video and use a denoiser: (around the 2:10 mark)


edit: For a “short-time with camera” he tells (and shows) a lot about ISO and stuff like 8K filming. Including experiences with footage in Resolve.
To me the colors of the A7sIII look punchier (i.e. the A1 image is a bit more desaturated) and also more natural at the higher ISOs than what you get out of the A1. Most just look at "noise" and (resolution-)"detail", but think this color+desaturation stuff is just the way things are translated. Unfortunately, that has to do with the pixel size, and in less favorable circumstances can kick your rear end pretty hard. In return, most won't need such ISOs, so for them the A1 is the better choice then.
I'm seeing a lot more color issues with the A7siii, look:

f02ee2d67bcb45bcbc8c7b60c78d2670.jpg.png


You have ugly green patches on the A7siii, and this is minimized on the A1.

Not only that, but Gerald also said the binined 4k has better noise control than the A7siii.

The colors are better because when you pixel bin 8k => 4k, you get more color information per pixel than if you just do 4k, because of the Bayer filter.
The color sampling of 8K from the A1 is only 420 (10bit) while the 4K of the a7s iii can be 422 (10bit). So you do start with les color info.
 
The video performance of the a1 is better than the a7siii at 4K, even at ISO 32.000 if you shoot 8K video and use a denoiser: (around the 2:10 mark)


edit: For a “short-time with camera” he tells (and shows) a lot about ISO and stuff like 8K filming. Including experiences with footage in Resolve.
To me the colors of the A7sIII look punchier (i.e. the A1 image is a bit more desaturated) and also more natural at the higher ISOs than what you get out of the A1. Most just look at "noise" and (resolution-)"detail", but think this color+desaturation stuff is just the way things are translated. Unfortunately, that has to do with the pixel size, and in less favorable circumstances can kick your rear end pretty hard. In return, most won't need such ISOs, so for them the A1 is the better choice then.
I'm seeing a lot more color issues with the A7siii, look:

f02ee2d67bcb45bcbc8c7b60c78d2670.jpg.png


You have ugly green patches on the A7siii, and this is minimized on the A1.

Not only that, but Gerald also said the binined 4k has better noise control than the A7siii.

The colors are better because when you pixel bin 8k => 4k, you get more color information per pixel than if you just do 4k, because of the Bayer filter.
The color sampling of 8K from the A1 is only 420 (10bit) while the 4K of the a7s iii can be 422 (10bit). So you do start with les color info.
This is not correct. 8K 4:2:0 can be transcoded to 4K 4:2:2 or even 4:4:4,
 
The best is oversampling as with the A7iii. Only it is 4:2:0 8 bit.

Many point out the A7iii video still is better over the A7Siii with more detail and looks as good in low light.

maybe the A7iv will have 10 bit oversampled video.

Or even better 6K raw we could edit ourselves. 8k would be ideal but I don’t think the A7iv will have an 8k sensor. Still, 8k raw for editing to 4K is how to get the best video. It’s 2:1 for oversampling.
This is all beside the original point, which has already been covered and verified.
 
The video performance of the a1 is better than the a7siii at 4K, even at ISO 32.000 if you shoot 8K video and use a denoiser: (around the 2:10 mark)


edit: For a “short-time with camera” he tells (and shows) a lot about ISO and stuff like 8K filming. Including experiences with footage in Resolve.
To me the colors of the A7sIII look punchier (i.e. the A1 image is a bit more desaturated) and also more natural at the higher ISOs than what you get out of the A1. Most just look at "noise" and (resolution-)"detail", but think this color+desaturation stuff is just the way things are translated. Unfortunately, that has to do with the pixel size, and in less favorable circumstances can kick your rear end pretty hard. In return, most won't need such ISOs, so for them the A1 is the better choice then.
I'm seeing a lot more color issues with the A7siii, look:

f02ee2d67bcb45bcbc8c7b60c78d2670.jpg.png


You have ugly green patches on the A7siii, and this is minimized on the A1.

Not only that, but Gerald also said the binined 4k has better noise control than the A7siii.

The colors are better because when you pixel bin 8k => 4k, you get more color information per pixel than if you just do 4k, because of the Bayer filter.
The color sampling of 8K from the A1 is only 420 (10bit) while the 4K of the a7s iii can be 422 (10bit). So you do start with les color info.
This is not correct. 8K 4:2:0 can be transcoded to 4K 4:2:2 or even 4:4:4,
^ 100% correct.

This is kind of like the original topic here, where people comparing camera A to camera B see one factor (binning vs full sensor readout) and make incorrect statements or assumptions because they're ignoring the fact that camera A has 4x the resolution.
 
The video performance of the a1 is better than the a7siii at 4K, even at ISO 32.000 if you shoot 8K video and use a denoiser: (around the 2:10 mark)


edit: For a “short-time with camera” he tells (and shows) a lot about ISO and stuff like 8K filming. Including experiences with footage in Resolve.
To me the colors of the A7sIII look punchier (i.e. the A1 image is a bit more desaturated) and also more natural at the higher ISOs than what you get out of the A1. Most just look at "noise" and (resolution-)"detail", but think this color+desaturation stuff is just the way things are translated. Unfortunately, that has to do with the pixel size, and in less favorable circumstances can kick your rear end pretty hard. In return, most won't need such ISOs, so for them the A1 is the better choice then.
I'm seeing a lot more color issues with the A7siii, look:

f02ee2d67bcb45bcbc8c7b60c78d2670.jpg.png


You have ugly green patches on the A7siii, and this is minimized on the A1.

Not only that, but Gerald also said the binined 4k has better noise control than the A7siii.

The colors are better because when you pixel bin 8k => 4k, you get more color information per pixel than if you just do 4k, because of the Bayer filter.
The color sampling of 8K from the A1 is only 420 (10bit) while the 4K of the a7s iii can be 422 (10bit). So you do start with les color info.
This is not correct. 8K 4:2:0 can be transcoded to 4K 4:2:2 or even 4:4:4,
^ 100% correct.

This is kind of like the original topic here, where people comparing camera A to camera B see one factor (binning vs full sensor readout) and make incorrect statements or assumptions because they're ignoring the fact that camera A has 4x the resolution.
A lot of that has to do with misinformation by Sony in the past (calling line skipping “binning”) and the whole video/photo industry calling a sensor/camera 12, 24, 42, 45, 50, 61 or 100 Mpixels when much of the actual color data of these pixels is missing.

Today I heard that Samsung is going to start selling OLED television from next year on (they now call it QLED), where they have been dissing OLED in their fight with LG since 2013. Sometimes misrepresentation backfires on you, or in this topics case on a whole community.
 
Last edited:
The video performance of the a1 is better than the a7siii at 4K, even at ISO 32.000 if you shoot 8K video and use a denoiser: (around the 2:10 mark)


edit: For a “short-time with camera” he tells (and shows) a lot about ISO and stuff like 8K filming. Including experiences with footage in Resolve.
To me the colors of the A7sIII look punchier (i.e. the A1 image is a bit more desaturated) and also more natural at the higher ISOs than what you get out of the A1. Most just look at "noise" and (resolution-)"detail", but think this color+desaturation stuff is just the way things are translated. Unfortunately, that has to do with the pixel size, and in less favorable circumstances can kick your rear end pretty hard. In return, most won't need such ISOs, so for them the A1 is the better choice then.
I'm seeing a lot more color issues with the A7siii, look:

f02ee2d67bcb45bcbc8c7b60c78d2670.jpg.png


You have ugly green patches on the A7siii, and this is minimized on the A1.

Not only that, but Gerald also said the binined 4k has better noise control than the A7siii.

The colors are better because when you pixel bin 8k => 4k, you get more color information per pixel than if you just do 4k, because of the Bayer filter.
The color sampling of 8K from the A1 is only 420 (10bit) while the 4K of the a7s iii can be 422 (10bit). So you do start with les color info.
This is not correct. 8K 4:2:0 can be transcoded to 4K 4:2:2 or even 4:4:4,
What I said is not incorrect. The 8K is 420 when shot. I did not say what happens when you downsample it.
 
The video performance of the a1 is better than the a7siii at 4K, even at ISO 32.000 if you shoot 8K video and use a denoiser: (around the 2:10 mark)


edit: For a “short-time with camera” he tells (and shows) a lot about ISO and stuff like 8K filming. Including experiences with footage in Resolve.
To me the colors of the A7sIII look punchier (i.e. the A1 image is a bit more desaturated) and also more natural at the higher ISOs than what you get out of the A1. Most just look at "noise" and (resolution-)"detail", but think this color+desaturation stuff is just the way things are translated. Unfortunately, that has to do with the pixel size, and in less favorable circumstances can kick your rear end pretty hard. In return, most won't need such ISOs, so for them the A1 is the better choice then.
I'm seeing a lot more color issues with the A7siii, look:

f02ee2d67bcb45bcbc8c7b60c78d2670.jpg.png


You have ugly green patches on the A7siii, and this is minimized on the A1.

Not only that, but Gerald also said the binined 4k has better noise control than the A7siii.

The colors are better because when you pixel bin 8k => 4k, you get more color information per pixel than if you just do 4k, because of the Bayer filter.
The color sampling of 8K from the A1 is only 420 (10bit) while the 4K of the a7s iii can be 422 (10bit). So you do start with les color info.
This is not correct. 8K 4:2:0 can be transcoded to 4K 4:2:2 or even 4:4:4,
^ 100% correct.

This is kind of like the original topic here, where people comparing camera A to camera B see one factor (binning vs full sensor readout) and make incorrect statements or assumptions because they're ignoring the fact that camera A has 4x the resolution.
Yes, downsampling does that. What is incorrect is the statement that the 8K is not 420. It is. Nothing was ignored, the 8K sampling spec is 420. The 4K sampling is 422. Sure, downsample 4K and it can be 444. So what? And, yes, I do not like what I say as being labeled incorrect when it is not.
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top