Sony FDR-AX100

[Adriano Moroni]

Hello friends, today is a sunny day in my town. I have just made some shots in countryside. Then at home I have connect my AX100 to make some tests. I have connected the camera by HDMI: my HDTV read the HDMI of the camera but it was not able to signal pass. Therefore I did another test by USB cable but I get the same problem. Then I have connected AX100 to an external WD TV HD Media Player but despite the player read the USB connection but it was unable to read the clips. A writings told me that file was in reading-only. Yet in the AX100 options everything is enabled correctly.
I cannot watch the video directly from AX100 to HDTV.
Later I made the editing and I have exported in H.264/mp4 HD file with these preset:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...creening/2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...eening/1ac.jpg
The result was a shame. A VHS video is better than 4K video. All video was flickering, it was
unwatchable. I made some tests with XVAC S H and the video was almost perfect, there wer some slight flickering but it did not disturb the sight. It looks amazing, I'm embittered for that dreadful 4K sight, I cannot get out of my head the wrong purchase, that is Sony AX100.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

If that theory is correct, the "artifacts" are just the product of how our eyes "see" a series of high detail/high contrast "moving" images, not a "flaw" in the images.

And I'd agree with that Dave. But I've seen that same flickering in almost all of my HD cameras in certain instances, so I don't think it's unique to 4K. As I've mentioned before, I think the issue is simply 'initiated' at a different point with 4K since it resolves so much more detail. With HD, that threshold is lower since less is resolved, but that threshold is still reached and the artifact can still be seen.

Even if in certain situations the effect were slightly exacerbated, I'd gladly take that for the far greater impact the 4K video has. There's simply no comparison. But again, I honestly don't see this issue to any greater extent in 4K or when 4K is down rez'd to HD. In the latter case, I'd again take the far greater detail in the down rez'd video than any HD camera's HD video. Again, no comparison.

I just think so much is being made for something that's only seen occasionally and is simply nothing new to the world of video. I can even remember shimmering with good ol', tape-based, SD recording on my 3-chip Sony VX2000 & VX2100...and those were among the best SD cameras out there. :)

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

@ Ken -

This is what has me baffled about Steve's contentions... and it's not the first time I've seen Sony cameras criticized when there was actual visible DETAIL over and above a comparison camera, but somehow there was something "wrong" with the Sony images... and the other camera was of course "superior". I've learned that there is not a lot of love for Sony out there, even when they get it right... or mostly right (I'm the first one to scratch my head and gripe about some "weird" design decisions!)

Pause a video from the AX100, where are the "artifacts"... generally it looks like a good STILL, better than you'll typically get from video, but it's got more DETAIL. I've looked at some "4K" from the BMCC online, and it looks PAINFULLY SOFT by comparison... no thanks, not interested in a "4K" camera that doesn't look as good as the RX10 and costs lots more (and is more hassle to shoot with to boot)... just saying it's "4K" does not evidently equate to resolving that resolution, IMO.

Couldn't agree more. There are some guys who just have it in for Sony and it's just amazing. As we've all seen, Steve has been looking, no searching, for issues, any issues with the AX100. Bizarre. As you know, I am totally brand agnostic. If Shnooky Incorporated (yeah, I made that up) made a great 4K camera that was better than the rest, I'm there. If it's Sony, I'm there and likewise Panasonic. Here I think Sony hit a HR with the AX100 and that's why I'm in the Sony camp with this one.

And yes, I agree, some of these 4K cameras just look too soft to me, not much better than some of the HD I've gotten out of the RX10. I'm in 4K for the 4K experience and that to me is unprecedented resolution. I have yet to see a camera that resolves the detail that the AX100 can. Slashcam apparently had the same conclusion...at least at the point they did their tests.

I agree 100% about frame grabs from the AX100, they look like they came from a DSLR. It's really a pretty amazing experience.

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

There simply is not nor has ever been a "perfect" camera under ALL conditions - they only capture a representation or impression of what we "see", and when processed, may "improve" upon that, or make it worse. Some are better than others. Again, post processing and display methods/equipment can factor in in many ways. Some good, some not. I've seen LOTS of badly edited stuff "proving" a camera is flawed, when it only shows "user malfunction". It obviously must be the equipment, not the operator... or not.

Exactly. Steve has blamed the AX100 for mistakes he's made and some others do the same. We've even had posters here who refused to even read the AX100 manual, but instead asked endless questions and pointed the finger at the AX100 for things they could have easily discovered with just a little effort.

We all want the entire 4K process to be smooth as silk. Unfortunately, as with many new techs we first embrace, that's not always the case and one has to do some digging and problem solving to get at the root cause of issues. But IMO it's well worth it.

You and I both agree, without any doubt, the biggest issue with the AX100 is 30fps. However even there you can work around the problem or, at the very least, minimize the issue. To see the results I've been seeing, I'll gladly take 30fps for this kind of PQ.

[Dave Blackhurst]

@Adriano -

Just plugged an AX100 into two TV's one a 4K model, one a 1080 HDTV - both displayed perfectly good images, even in poor light (OK, some noise due to low light, but still, as good or better than my PJ7xx series camera). Actually at the moment, I'm pretty impressed with both the image and the low light performance, wow...


You have developed a truly bizzare pattern...

A: The hinges might break,what a terrible camera...
EVERYONE ELSE: The hinges are fine, and seem plenty robust. WOW, look at the image quality

A: There is no strap lug, what a terrible camera
Everyone else: There's a nice metal "D" ring to attach a lanyard/strap to, if needed. WOW, look at the image quality

A: I bought the wrong adapter, what a terrible camera
Everyone else: OK, so it might be a little tricky sorting out this new shoe... WOW, look at the output quality.

A: My old HDTV I paid a lot for won't display video, what a terrrible CAMERA purchase
Everyone else: Hmm, looks really good when connected to HDMI, in both HD and 4K, WOW, that looks GOOD for a $2K camera!

A: My video looks worse than VHS tape, and flickers
Steve: See, I told ya so...
EVERYONE ELSE: Every camera has some degree of artifacting, but this one is pretty clean and super sharp... wow!

A: MY video looks bad, what a terrible horrible camera.
Steve: See, I told ya so...
Everyone else: DANG, the output from this camera looks pretty amazingly good, with "maybe" a few "issues" here or there, Might have to fiddle with adjustments in post to get optimal results, but mostly, WOW...


I don't think this is a "language" issue any longer, and it borders on "trolling". EVERY issue you've attacked the camera on has been either baseless or apparently unique to... YOU.

If you'd like help, fine, but you appear to be far more interested in bashing the camera than in figuring out HOW TO PROPERLY OPERATE IT! Your absolute refusal to accept that there might be something wrong with your setup, or your TV or... perhaps user malfunction... is tiresome. I think the rest of us know it's not the camera (presuming you didn't get a DEFECTIVE one, which "might" be the case, but seems HIGHLY unlikely).

Please just send the camera back and go buy one of those "truly great HD cameras at half the price", whatever they are, and be done with it.

Sorry for the rant, but perhaps you just aren't ready for life on the bleeding edge...

[Ken Ross]

^ I think that pretty much nailed it, Dave. Thanks for making me smile! ;)

I've given up even responding, I know it's hopeless. How many times did he refuse to look at the online manual and instead asked endless questions that were right there in the manual. Yes, this is no longer a language barrier.

When I saw, "a VHS video is better than 4K video", I knew this was getting beyond absurd. But hey, Steve probably agrees. But fear not, he'll have a book that will address all these 'problems'. You see if you don't have 'problems' what's the point of the book. ;)

Gotta love it.

[Dave Blackhurst]

@ Ken -

Yep, the theory would "hold water" for ALL resolutions and frame rates short of ultra high frame rates, but would be "worse" with lower frame rates, and at varying parts of a given image, due to the specific image being captured (and perhaps be NON-existant in many scenarios). BUT, as we've touched upon, "high contrast" and movement are where a problem "might" arise more noticeably, and with highly detailed images, there are perhaps more opportunities. Good reason to try for shallow DoF where you can, and be prepared to watch for problematic parts of a scene (always been a problem, like that checkered shirt I mentioned a couple posts ago!).

Dealing with movement artfully has ALWAYS been a problem, no reason for 4K images to be exempt, and not a particular surprise to see "issues" here or there. Figure out where it's a problem and deal with it as a camera OPERATOR.

From the get go, I presumed 30p won't work for EVERYTHING, and looked on the 60Mbps 1080 XAVC S as a practical workaround, nice to have the option. If I'm shooting fast action, a couple pokes at the screen, I have a capable camera for THAT, more capable than anything else I've got, due to the higher bitrate!

With the last major "bug" in the new computer build squished, I need to go do a few things, like figure out what "my button" in the menus refers to, and maybe shoot some test footage to play with in edit! The AX100 certainly feels solid and good in the hand, well balanced, nice handstrap, lots of buttons to fiddle with to make adjustments, will be a good complement to the RX10 and RX100 as a "camera system".


As far as "brand agnostic", I'll admit to checking out all the options, but I do appreciate it when Sony "gets it right" and I don't have to go buying a whole bunch of new accessories! I don't think I'd think twice about a GH4 IF I had the investment in the GH system, even if it's got some "issues". NO camera is "perfect", but I've been reasonably happy with what Sony produces, though I've owned Panasonic and Canon, and I'm really looking forward to trying the new "Schnookie X10,000" because the number is just so HUGE <wink>!

[Ken Ross]

@ Dave

So we now have a waiting list of 2 for the Schnookie X10,000. Can't wait for the release date!

[Adriano Moroni]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

@Adriano -

Just plugged an AX100 into two TV's one a 4K model, one a 1080 HDTV - both displayed perfectly good images, even in poor light (OK, some noise due to low light, but still, as good or better than my PJ7xx series camera). Actually at the moment, I'm pretty impressed with both the image and the low light performance, wow...

You have developed a truly bizzare pattern...

Dave, as soon as possible I will sell my Ax100 and you will not read my bizzarre post anymore. ;)

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

It could be shutter speed with some folks, but I shoot at 24p at 1/48th-1/50th. Exactly correct.

You may see it with the GH4 on some samples because it has a Sharpness control and so you never know what it has been set at. Actually, you can see it on HD content when it's been over-sharpened or rescaled without first being passed through an anti-aliasing filter.

It really doesn't matter if one calls it moire, because moire is simply a specific type of aliasing that occurs on closely spaced horizontal (typically) spaced lines.

But, this is well understood and there is no reason for me to explain it here.

What's good is that this thread has now switched from "I see nothing senior, nada" to "I see it but it doesn't matter to me." For some it may be fine to buy and use a 4K camera that can create aliasing even though other 4K cameras do not -- and this issue is not a problem with the HD cameras we own.

But, there are those of us who will not buy a camera that can create artifacts when others view their video. Hell, I won't watch my video with aliasing. We won't because there is no need to! There are other 4K cameras that have an industry wide professional recognition and there will be many more lower-cost consumer cameras! What's the rush to 4K when there are truly great HD cameras at half the price?

But that's your choice--at least everyone now knows what their choice involves. Good luck. Over and out.

All I can say is the AX100 puts out a hell of allot of resolution. It's actually quite shocking to even see how good the 1080 down sampled video looks.

Every single person I have showed my AX100 footage to have all said: "WOW!" I work for one of the largest media companies in the world. I have shown this footage to many of our employees and even our broadcast engineers. The one thought they all have in common is this "Wow,..that video came form THAT camera?....holy crap, thats amazing"

I have spent about 1 hour with the GH4 and I like it. Interchangeable lenses and a great internal codec are really sweet. But honestly, overall, the AX100 impresses me even more. The image "pops" like crazy and shooting with is just downright fun.

I shoot with my EX1r, Fs100, NX70 and RX10. Yes, the AX100 will not "replace" any of them but it does have it's own "niche" in my collection.

All I can say is that I am very very happy with the AX100 and it's certainly knocking people's socks off left and right all over the place.

Now for you Steve? Based on your writings, I strongly suspect that the AX100 really might not be the camera for you. That's too bad. But for Sony to make a camera that pleases 99% of the people I talk too? I'd say they have a home run on their hands!

There are very few 4K offerings for the $2000ish price point. But I can definitely say that the AX100 is ALLOT of camcorder for the price, It's got full manual control, good dynamic range, OK codec and crazy amounts resolution. It covers allot of functional "check boxes" for me. It's easy to carry around and a great "run and gunner".

CT

[Ken Ross]

^ And that's the point. The video is amazingly good, even forgetting the price point. There is no HD camera that can even come close. Like you, I've yet to meet anyone I've shown my videos too that was less than amazed. Nobody but nobody pointed to any artifacts and this includes 65" UHD TVs.

When one person stands nearly alone, with an opinion that runs totally contrary to what everyone else is seeing (including broadcast engineers!), there's usually something that can explain why. ;)

I've even played my videos at Apple and Best Buy stores and have never failed to get a crowd gathered asking 'what camera made that video?'. The BB guys actually prefer it to the demo loops that play endlessly at their Magnolia centers.

[Adriano Moroni]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

All I can say is the AX100 puts out a hell of allot of resolution.

You are right. I made a test: if I put my HDTV the sharpnes=0 (zero) I see a few clips with flickering, it could be I found the solution ... but with sharpness=0 I watch a weak video with so little sharpens. It is better I shot in HD directly because I watch a better video.

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

You have developed a truly bizzare pattern...I don't think this is a "language" issue any longer, and it borders on "trolling". EVERY issue you've attacked the camera on has been either baseless or apparently unique to... YOU.

Deja vu, anyone? This pattern has been going on for a long time, on a variety of forums, with a variety of cameras, by this poster, who has a long history of this kind of complaint. It's always the camera's fault when someone refuses to read the manual, learn how to properly operate the gear, provide helpful data, or perform simple tests to determine the source of the problem. Steve's cavlier dismissal of playing directly from the cam to a decent monitor in the proper mode, because you can't expect your clients to do this, is completely inappropriate, no disrespect intended. You perform this test as an experiment to find out if it is indeed the cam, not because you expect all future viewers to do this.

If the raw video is perfect in this test, then it is up to you do make sure it remains so for your clients. But you can't blame the cam if you fail to handle the video properly.

The poster may in fact be a very nice guy and a brilliant artist, but this endless series of threads complaining that Sony has promised something they can't deliver and has cheated him out of his money and oh why did I buy this awful camera that doesn't do what they promised, is getting tiresome.

Ken's video looked great. Steve's, less so. But as there are a million links in the chain between camera original and what we download on a variety of viewing devices, any flaws I saw, or thought I saw, I'd never once think of blaming the camera. That would be the last thing on my list. I always assume it is the fault of something in the chain of getting the video from the Net (or the shooter's editing PC) to my eyes. And so far I have never been wrong. On the rare occasion when the video itself is bad, it's because I screwed up some settings somewhere and a simple quick dip into the manual usually resolves the problem.

Dave has, as usual, nailed it. This is like buying a Ferrari and complaining because it won't start when you fill the tank with apple juice.

With all due respect to all involved, my sig line has never been more apt.

[Dave Blackhurst]

@Adriano -

I have set the sharpness to "0" on my Seiki 4K "monitor", everything is still plenty sharp... along with turning the backlight and color WAY down to get it it where it can be somewhat calibrated. Prior to that, I didn't think it looked very good, and I could have gotten a nice tan from sitting at monitor distances.

Sometimes you have to fiddle with things to get the best results... and 4K is a new thing, as I've said, life on the bleeding edge has it's moments! It may be a bit before everything "works" perfectly right out of the box, meanwhilst you must be patient, troubleshoot and adjust as needed.

I don't know what other camera you would find that would be "better", other than just picking up whichever HD camera you think you want (there's NOTHING wrong with that option, it will have a different set of quirks and faults, and I'm guessing the 60Mbps 60P from the AX would blow it away....), and frankly it sounds like it may be some of your OTHER gear that needs updating/adjusting.

I bit the bullet and re-cored my desktop (CPU/Motherboard/RAM to better handle video), plus went cheap on the 4K monitor (otherwise it was a non starter budget wise). Already gotten a lot of file maintenance done while stabilizing the machine, just loving the huge desktop space... years of video, pics, and docs organized in a few days... so even if it's not "top of the line", it's already paying off on the investment, even with the frustration of a new build! Just hooking the AX100 up to the HDMI, it looked stunningly good, can't wait to get shooting more tests...

[Adriano Moroni]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

I have set the sharpness to "0" on my Seiki 4K "monitor", everything is still plenty sharp... along with turning the backlight and color WAY down to get it it where it can be somewhat calibrated.

Just hooking the AX100 up to the HDMI, it looked stunningly good, can't wait to get shooting more tests...

I hope you can make some tests. I'd like to know if you get a better watching the 4K video with TV sharpness = "0" , with turning the backlight and color WAY down or if you get a better watching shoting XVAC S HD directly and editing those clips and exporting in 1920x1080.
I still did not any test but I think a HD video looks better than a 4K video with all those TV presets. I hope I make a mistake.

[Ken Ross]

Adriano, there is very obviously something wrong with your setup. Given the age of your HDTV, that might be the weak link.

But logically you have to realize when so many experienced users, on multiple forums, see nothing like what you report, the problem is in your system. No question.

Your request to Dave to try to turn down his display's backlight and color, make little sense when you're talking about 2 totally different displays from different companies in different set ups. I watch my edited 4K video on my HDTV and do absolutely nothing to the settings differently, other than one minor change, than I do for other material I watch.

That minor change is something I've mentioned several times, the engaging of the frame rate doubler in my HDTV. The sole purpose for this is to smooth out the motion in 30p video. The result is spectacular video that far exceeds anything I've ever shot with an HD camera. To compare this to VHS only demonstrates how horribly wrong something in your setup is.

You don't really seem willing to track down your issue or acknowledge that something in your system may be too old or poorly equipped to handle the 4K>HD down-conversions. But blaming the camera is just silly, it really is.

The many questions you asked prior to getting the camera showed how little research you were willing to do. Members here got frustrated with you because the answers to almost all your questions were so easily found in existing information, like the AX100 manuals.

At some point, if you're really serious about this stuff, you have to make some effort on your own to find these issues. Thus far you just dismiss it as the camera's fault. We can't help you with that kind of attitude. If don't want to make the effort, then I strongly recommend you return the camera, you're simply not ready for 4K. There's nothing wrong with that.