A6400 Video struggles

[Scott D]

Hi, i'm new to video recording and am starting up a DIY You Tube channel. I've recorded about 8-9 projects and i'm just not very happy with the picture quality before I bring it into Davinci Resolve for post editing. The picture is grainy and not sharp. I've watch dozens of A6400 video settings youtube videos and I think my settings are as most of those videos say to use. Below are the settings...if anybody has suggestions on why this is happening or how to fix I would appreciate the feedback. Attached is a still from a video i shot to show a before view of a kitchen. here is a video link https://youtu.be/lR4GeqW7jks and a second raw video clip of some woodworking https://youtu.be/6iPPfATIKTg
is it just because i need to clean up the picture in post? I would have thought the video quality would have been better than this though without editing.

kit 16-50mm 3.5lense
Shutter Priority: 1/60
Usually F 3.5
Format XAVC S HD
Record Setting 30p 50M
Focus Area Wide
Picture profile off
AF On
Metering Mode Multi

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Welcome Scott, good to see another a6400 YouTuber on the forum!
Here is my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_ulUEPSWk9vdcGZULOLHPg
I have been making cooking videos and I usually shoot with these settings:
Sony 35mm f1.8 Lens at f2 for talking head and f4 for view of the food
Mode: M
Exposure: 1/50
Format: XAVC S HD
Record setting: 24p 50m
Focus area: center
metering mode: center
picture profile: off
autofocus: on

Your videos look fine to me, in fact, YouTube automatically played them for me at 720p and I had to bump it up to 1080p since I'm on my pc and not my phone right now... but I know the instinct to want the sharpest picture possible! What are your ISO settings? I like to use a fixed ISO value wherever possible and keep it as low as possible. When I'm shooting against a dark background (like my countertop) I use auto but set the ISO min to 100 and max to 2500. I think the professionals usually have an abundance of light from studio lights and use lower ISO settings for improved clarity. I've got a cheap video light on my wishlist for next month's purchases myself...

What focal length do you use most often? have you thought about filming with a prime lens?

BTW, stills from videos usually suck, so you're not doing anything wrong there. When I make thumbnails for my videos, I dedicate a few minutes to taking an actual still photo to work with.

 

[Scott D]

Thank you Chris for your feedback. Since I was using shutter priority my ISO was auto...looking at the metadata, those two clips had ISO of 320. Focal length is 16mm. I definitely am considering shooting with a prime lens but wanted to start off with the kit lens to see how it looked. I wonder if the lens will make the difference I'm looking for. Who would have thought making a you tube video was so intense

I guess my search for a budget friendly prime lens begins now

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Thank you Chris for your feedback. Since I was using shutter priority my ISO was auto...looking at the metadata, those two clips had ISO of 320. Focal length is 16mm. I definitely am considering shooting with a prime lens but wanted to start off with the kit lens to see how it looked. I wonder if the lens will make the difference I'm looking for. Who would have thought making a you tube video was so intense

I guess my search for a budget friendly prime lens begins now

Brother, there are people out there making YouTube videos with cellphones (and have thousands of subscribers!). We are the minority of detail-oriented creators who are never happy!
I would say that if you like the 16mm view, the Sigma 16 is a fantastic prime lens and as a bonus it also has a short focusing distance (so you can do close-ups of your work if you hold the camera a few inches away).

As far as budget options... you get what you pay for

 

[Scott D]

I've had my eye on the Sigma 16mm and Sigma 50mm lenses for a couple months. I need to figure out which would work best for DIY / woodworking videos. I'm going to shoot the next video using 24p 50m to see how that looks. Definitely a ton to learn still. thanks for your thoughts!

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Regarding the frame rate, have you ever used a go-pro? I came from using go-pros for my kayaking and fishing videos, so I would shoot in 30 or 60 frames per second so I could slow down the footage sometimes if I had a big fish to show off. 24 frames per second, in contrast, is what people generally recommend for a more "cinematic" look and feel.

Regarding the Sigma 16, its very versatile, I love mine.
The Sigma 56mm is a great lens, but I see more people recommending it for shooting Portraits than for video work.
A budget option that falls in-between these two lenses is the Viltrox 23mm lens:

Viltrox AF 23mm F1.4 APS-C Lens For Sony E-Mount

Sample Images Appreciation Sony ILCE-6300 | Viltrox 23mm F1.4 E | f/1.4 Sony ILCE-6300 | Viltrox 23mm F1.4 E | f/1.4 Sony ILCE-6300 | Viltrox 23mm F1.4 E | f/1.4 Sony ILCE-6300 | Viltrox 23mm F1.4 E | f/1.4 Sony ILCE-6300 | Viltrox 23mm F1.4 E | f/1.4 NOTES: If you would like a square lens...

viltroxstore.com

Sharp & AF! The Viltrox 23mm F1.4 AF Lens Review

In this video I check out the new Viltrox 23mm F1.4, which is an autofocus APSC lens for Sony E Mount. Buy direct from Viltrox and USE COUPON "ARTHUR" for 1...

www.youtube.com

I'm always up for nerding out on these details, good luck!

 

[garuda]

The picture is grainy and not sharp.

I agree Scott. You have a good camera for video. But footage should be better. Your settings aren't what I would use, but you can experiment.

...if anybody has suggestions on why this is happening or how to fix I would appreciate the feedback.

I think lighting is the important concern right now, lighting can make all the difference, especially when shot indoors. I would correct cam settings and lighting before buying a prime. The kit lens should do it. Learn first with kit lens in beginning, and learn more about your needs first --- majority of shooting distances, ambient light or light modules, etc. It's like buying houses, living in your first house only teaches you exactly how you want your second house to be built ( what floor plan, layouts, amenities, etc. In the interim use the kit and be researching lenses traits before buying; then you won't later have a stable full of lens of which only half you actually use.

I would have thought the video quality would have been better than this though without editing.

Yes, it should be. The 6400 is entirely capable of hi-qual footage. Since I don't know the specific particulars of what you're now doing or not doing, it's hard to offer intelligent specific suggestions. Focus on youtube Tutorials and not so much on hotdogs just show-off their skills, but not explaining how or what they're doing to get superior results. And READ the camera guide manual on movie settings. I had to, to really understand the camera and menu settings. And yes, your vids are a bit soft, but don't get discouraged, read and practice. I'll try to keep an eye on this thread in case you become serious.

Here's a 3-minute film I made at 1080p many moons ago. Will give you idea of how 1080p can look. Of course, watch in 1080 at Youtube:

click here for video
.

 

[Ivanturas]

Don't know, guys... OP's video looks technically fine to me. As mentioned, lighting and other items could make it look better, but it doesn't look grainy to me. It does look quite blocky, but so does Mike's Japanese Festival video, and that's Youtube's fault (unless you actually encode your final export at low bitrates).
Maybe it'd be better to see an actual, untouched clip, not re encoded on Youtube. That'd require uploading the video file somewhere. But as said... doesn't look half bad to me.

 

[garuda]

Don't know, guys... OP's video looks technically fine to me. As mentioned, lighting and other items could make it look better, but it doesn't look grainy to me.

OP's first vid could be better IMO, second vid looks much better. But if Scott is looking for really good vids, then I'm going to be a bit more critical -- not to insult, but rather help him perfect his vids.

It does look quite blocky, but so does Mike's Japanese Festival video, and that's Youtube's fault (unless you actually encode your final export at low bitrates).

I don't know what you mean by "blocky." And if you think you see it in mine (or any YT vid) I'm curious its meaning. I agree that YT often tortures an uploaded vid, but pls describe blocky. Do you mean due to lack of light? If yes, that's why I think lighting is crucial to quality. Perhaps you are watching at LOW resolution. Always view at 1080 or better.

YT Sample Blocky

Maybe it'd be better to see an actual, untouched clip, not re encoded on Youtube. That'd require uploading the video file somewhere. But as said... doesn't look half bad to me.

I agree, not half bad. But Scott expressed disappointment and I agree if he wants it at best. We started where Scott is, not a problem. I was clueless when I started, thinking my videos looked decent until I saw other people's. Even some of mine could be cleaned up, but it depends on how good I want it to be as to how much work I expend. Everyone is diff in quality they seeking. I try to go by what questioners is asking for, I never said I was good at this, just trying to help.

 

[Ivanturas]

Not criticizing your answer, Mike... just like you, I'm trying to help. And from my point of view, I'd say it seems to be more a matter of composition/lighting/etc rather than a technical, in-camera issue. I can't see the mentioned "grain" or any gain issues, and it seems sharp enough, considering how much sharpness Youtube takes away, which is why I asked for an actual video file, which could be more telling regarding sharpness and noise.

About "blockiness"... can't really play the entire video you posted right now, and I can't raise the volume on it either... but it seems to be addressing color posterization more than compression artifacts, which is where blocky imaging comes from. This pic should be a nice example of it; of course, this is a more extreme level, reminiscent of old AVI's & MPEG's, for illustration purposes:

Another one, this time more akin to the usual compression artifacts seen in JPEGs:

 

[garuda]

Not criticizing your answer, Mike... just like you, I'm trying to help. And from my point of view, I'd say it seems to be more a matter of composition/lighting/etc rather than a technical, in-camera issue. I can't see the mentioned "grain" or any gain issues, and it seems sharp enough, considering how much sharpness Youtube takes away, which is why I asked for an actual video file, which could be more telling regarding sharpness and noise.

About "blockiness"... can't really play the entire video you posted right now, and I can't raise the volume on it either... but it seems to be addressing color posterization more than compression artifacts, which is where blocky imaging comes from. This pic should be a nice example of it; of course, this is a more extreme level, reminiscent of old AVI's & MPEG's, for illustration purposes:

.
Ivan, in your samples above I see mostly: grain noise and mosquito noise (around edges). And somewhat out of focus.
In Scott's, I see mostly just noise.

Regarding my vid, granted, as you said, YT does a number on their quality. But this blocking and noise in mine I don't see. Yes, the footage is not always in perfect focus because of too fast camera movement & AF tracking lag --- but I don't see blocking.

Take a look at a frame I captured in my video, There is some res issue because it's a screen copy from video playback. But where do see blocking. It seems fairly sharp for being screen copied and pasted here. Pls be honest.
Zoom in as tight as you can and pinpoint the blocking you see, for example on the hands (which is where the focus is intended). I want to know if I'm missing something here. Thanx.

Ivan, zoom in as tight as you can.

 

[Ivanturas]

It seems fairly sharp for being screen copied and pasted here. Pls be honest.
Zoom in as tight as you can and pinpoint the blocking you see, for example on the hands (which is where the focus is intended). I want to know if I'm missing something here. Thanx.

View attachment 8783

Ivan, zoom in as tight as you can.

Never mind, I'm just being super strict regarding compression. Hands look good, specially on the knuckles... but I do bet if you uploaded the same frame from the original footage, or a graded, high-bitrate export, we'd see huge sharpness improvements.

My point being, there's only so much quality a YouTube video can display, and our cameras already exceed that by far. In terms of bitrate:

FullHD @24fps:
YouTube: 8mbps
A6400: 50mbps

UHD4K@24fps:
YouTube: 35mbps
A6400: 100mbps

As I said, I'm not saying your video is soft. Streamed videos are. And because they're the new norm, people is already used to that quality, and I'm not saying everyone should be watching RAW videos, but even consumer formats, with bitrates lower than out-of-camera clips, but way higher than streaming, such as, for example, a UHD Blu-ray disc; pop one in, and you'll be reminded of what a good consumer video format looks like.

That's why, when speaking about our camera's sharpness, noise, etc., I think YouTube screencaps won't help much.

 

[garuda]

.... My point being, there's only so much quality a YouTube video can display, and our cameras already exceed that by far.

Well Ivan, perhaps you and I should have asked earlier, when Scott was judging his footage as being a disappointment, if he was viewing the footage on his computer monitor using the NLE s/w, or judging the degraded Youtube version. Our mistake maybe. Oh well...

.... As I said, I'm not saying your video is soft.

Actually, that video is soft. It's an old vid, filmed with a lower-tech cam, and back in my prehistoric days of learning thru trial and error. So honest criticism is acceptable. Point being, I offered yoou to view footage to isolate what you meant by "Blocking" (which I couldn't find on that vid. --- Soft, yes. Blocking, not really.

Streamed videos are. And because they're the new norm, people is already used to that quality, and I'm not saying everyone should be watching RAW videos, but even consumer formats, with bitrates lower than out-of-camera clips, but way higher than streaming, such as, for example, a UHD Blu-ray disc; pop one in, and you'll be reminded of what a good consumer video format looks like.

I agree.

That's why, when speaking about our camera's sharpness, noise, etc., I think YouTube screencaps won't help much.

In general, I agree. But this screencap was not to demo screen qual, but rather to show no evidence of blocking. So presenting a poorly copied screencap that doesn't show evidence of any blocking, actually works in my favor. That is, if blocking was present, a screencap would tend to accentuate that blocking, I think, Perhaps we're just on diff pages in assessing blocking. But I do agree w you on raw and bitrates. Sounds like you know your stuff.

We likely overwhelmed Scott w all this psycho-babble, forcing him to sell his camera and move to Siberia.
.

 

[Ivanturas]

We likely overwhelmed Scott w all this psycho-babble, forcing him to sell his camera and move to Siberia.

@Scott D, don't do it! If you keep your cam, you could take amazing shots in Siberia

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

My point being, there's only so much quality a YouTube video can display, and our cameras already exceed that by far. In terms of bitrate:

FullHD @24fps:
YouTube: 8mbps
A6400: 50mbps

UHD4K@24fps:
YouTube: 35mbps
A6400: 100mbps

OK, ^ THIS is an eye opener for me. So am I just wasting storage space by exporting all my 1080P 24fps videos in 50mbps?

 

[Ivanturas]

OK, ^ THIS is an eye opener for me. So am I just wasting storage space by exporting all my 1080P 24fps videos in 50mbps?

If they're your final master files, I'd even export on something that isn't as lossy as H.26x, but if they're your upload-to-youtube videos, then yes, you are.