Sony FDR-AX100

[Cliff Totten]

When watching low bitrate stuff like this, it's hard to seperate what the camera is really recording and what the highly compressed YouTube codec is showing.

The official Sony demo, if you rip it from YouTube is h.264 - high level at a 5.2 profile. But here is the kicker...it's only 15 mega bits per second!!! It looks realy damn good at 15Mbp/s...better than I ever dreamed imaginable for 4k so low.

The Cat video is nice but the official Sony demo has almost non of the problems that the cat video displays.

I can find literally nothing at all wrong with the Sony demo. (I hope it really was an AX100)

I'm going to hold all judgement untill I can see a raw AX100 60 Mbp/s clip straight from the SD card.

[Ken Ross]

I should also note that we're assuming the 60Mbps is a constant data rate and not a variable one.

Now granted this video was edited, but I observed data rates going into the mid 90Mpbs area during the complex scenes. So if this actually occurred during the original recording, we have a variable encoding bitrate and not a constant one. So who knows?

[Joey Atilano]

A new youtube video

????4K????????? - YouTube

[Ken Ross]

Looks good except for all the camera movement. Looks like the shooter thought this was an 'artistic effect'.

[Cliff Totten]

Not bad! No real Jell-O to speak of. I feel better now. We can all see the macro blocking in the high detail, fast moving scenes but then again, this is highly re compressed for the web.

It's still a bad idea to judge from this internet streaming stuff. It's nowhere close to the original camera bitrate.

The camera work was gritty and artistically shaky but that was good to see because that would have revealed vertical skew like crazy if the AX100 was prone to it. I think it held up well in that regard.

What do we have? 1 more week to wait? I'm also waiting for the Sony Pro sister to this camera to be announced any day now.

CT

[Ken Ross]

Cliff, this is why I think some are way too quick to find flaws with this camera based on very poor 'evidence'. I saw the same thing prior to the RX10 release.

Based on that insane camera 'Shake & bake' at the end of the cat video, some were condemning the camera as useless because of the jello. I said the 'test' was ridiculous and it proved nothing. This latest video, although I didn't care for the shooter's style, shows this is not the issue that some claimed.

I totally agree that the very obvious macro blocking was due to the YouTube compression. It had that signature throughout.

Prior to the release of some cameras, there always appear to be a few that almost hope these cameras fail. I see it time and time again. Very weird.

[Meng Li]

Man, I have to say that this is also a Sony promotion. They have some very badass guys to do the post processes and never mentioned anything about it when posting the videos. I believe that they also paid Google to have advanced codec compressing to make the stream bigger for the users watching the video, the waves of sea are much clearer that what I have posted onto Youtube. The actual picture quality into customers' hands are not going to be like this good, and possibly never will be. I also noticed there are some jelly parts in scenes involving fast movements (like on public transit), plus they also intentionally evaded some high contrast part and low light circumstances. At 0:47 when the sunshine comes in the colour noise just becomes way too outrageous, with jellies.
The bottom line is that, if you complain to Sony that you can't do this or that with a camera, they will show that the camera is fully capable to do it and it's just the user's fault. Not to mention what expensive stuff (including post processing filters) and how much time they have used to make it. Sort of like a 'buyers beware' but true.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Consumer malfunction, AKA user error, is a common failure mode for high tech and even many low tech items... If you've ever worked retail or repair in a tech environment, you just laughed...

As Ken stated, the RX10 was criticized for video issues, based on horrible reviewer camera "technique"... it's turned out to be a winner. Not "perfect", but not bad for most purposes once you get to know it... We'll have to see how the AX100 turns out when released into the "real world".

I'm sure there will still be "complaints" (see above), there always are. I'm just fascinated by all the "tinfoil hats" popping up of late... I'm not surprised that a manufacturer will put their gear in the best light, and it's not surprising that they use pros that make the most of it... not even surprised that it might take some extra effort or expense to get "closer" to that level of results... not even shocked that next year, they might have improved performance!

[Meng Li]

After taking some much closer look on the Retina screen of MBP 15" I just feel that Youtube video's terrible to watch in details. Similar area of colours are jellied everywhere, of course it's a problem of compressed codec. It may feel good under 720p or 1080p size, but meh. Maybe I am too much of a perfectionist, but I do have the advantage being a programmer, and know exactly what's caused by the codec or the camera itself. Maybe it's better to post it onto Vimeo and set to downloadable to get better quality, but Sony would never do so. At 0:40 it shows its weakness of DF. Too much detail could expose more. Smile. And to me this colour is 4:2:0 instead of 4:2:2. meh. I would't pick it up once I get into the world of latter.

[Anthony Lelli]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

Anthony -

When you use D90 and "broadcast quality" in the same sentence, I have to scratch my head and laugh... you say my "analysis is limited and childish"... not to worry, duly noted, keep it up and you'll find out where it ends up. Or was that the third swing and whiff?

I think you've already lost ANY AND ALL credibility you may think you have, so you go right ahead and adjust that tinfoil hat, please do yourself a favor and keep the conspiracy theories to yourself, along with the condescension and insults. OK?


We all know there is a difference between 30p and 60p - DUH! What we are discussing is what the practical implications of that are, not some crazy theory that the manufacturers could give us such a camera right now, and aren't doing it out of some whacky evil conspiracy to deprive us of the "perfect" camera of our dreams that they could sell to us for "peanuts"...

Think for a moment, if they COULD release this theoretical "dream" camera with "every" feature, don't you think they'd sell in huge #'s, right NOW, no need to trickle cashflow in over multiple years by selling "deficient" products improved incrementally here and there to try to sell product!?! Sign most of the DVi'ers up for three or four of these "dream cameras"... at least. I'll sell a few of my "crippled" cameras right away! Or NOT... I'm sure we'd all probably buy the "deficient" AX100 that didn't exist 10 years ago over the "deficient" HC1 that did, aside from the simple fact it DIDN'T EXIST... now it does, for the same MSRP... and the HC1 was not bad, in it's day!


30p 4K may turn out to be more usable (or less) than expected... many of us have come to appreciate/prefer 60p, at least as far as 1080 goes, so we have reservations. Until cameras are in hand and tests run, we can't know for sure. There are numerous practical (and factually based) reasons that have been discussed here for the "limitation"... and practical discussions of how to deal with it (or not). You might consider that's what it's about, using the equipment that's available to the greatest extent possible...

I'm not interested in credibility : I want them (all of them) to know that the entire industry has changed since the D90. Because we all got to see how easy it was. Dave think about it, for a moment : how easy it is to produce broadcast material with a decent sensor. And what they sold us until then looked like crap a split second after I (and you too I'm sure) saw what a D90 was capable of). What I see now is limitations like we never seen before. Tricks, gadgets to keep the segment alive at over 3K . (they can't sell crap for 7K anymore, at least we did get something out of that splendid D90) but still not good enough to bother the obscene money they want for broadcast stuff.
They are literally trying to resume playing with us like it used to be before the D90. Now let me be clear : which camera can compete against a GH2? Enough now. I did what I had to do for the good of my people. I believe that my message was loud and clear.

[Monday Isa]

Ok im scratching my head here at the last few pages in this thread. We're talking about a 4K consumer camcorder at $2,000. It has a 1" sensor and a 10x zoom. Yes 2.8-4 isnt optimal but what other camcorder is out there that can do what this camcorder can?

The GH4 is a great tool on paper but the samples of videos I've seen have not impressed me at all. Very few scenes where you can see fine detail. The AX100 on the other hand is just so detailed down-sampled its unreal for the price of $2k. There is still a great need for camcorders with fixed lens for some applications. The ease of shooting home videos or family events with a fixed lens cmera means I don't have to lug my FS700 around.

60Mbps for 4k will have its issues as others have stated but again this is Sony and i highly doubt they want to have the headache of customer after customer calling saying their class 6 card won't record 4k. They're just not going to deal with it. If a better 4k bitrate is needed wait for the pro-version and see if it works best. I have no problem with the problems that have been pointed out and for $2k Sony is getting my money.

[Paul Rickford]

Looking at that new video, the one thing that stands out to me is how good the lens seems to be, Yes poor camera work but lots of everyday situations -poor light, backlight and flair and the lens seems to cope with it all very well, way better than the CX700 series- can't see any purple fringing to worry about or soft edges.

I am really not getting stressed about the YouTube codec as I saw the main promo video at CES on quite a few monitors large and small and to me it looked amazing.

I'm more than sold, roll on delivery day.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Meng Li

Man, I have to say that this is also a Sony promotion. They have some very badass guys to do the post processes and never mentioned anything about it when posting the videos. I believe that they also paid Google to have advanced codec compressing to make the stream bigger for the users watching the video, the waves of sea are much clearer that what I have posted onto Youtube. The actual picture quality into customers' hands are not going to be like this good, and possibly never will be. I also noticed there are some jelly parts in scenes involving fast movements (like on public transit), plus they also intentionally evaded some high contrast part and low light circumstances. At 0:47 when the sunshine comes in the colour noise just becomes way too outrageous, with jellies.
The bottom line is that, if you complain to Sony that you can't do this or that with a camera, they will show that the camera is fully capable to do it and it's just the user's fault. Not to mention what expensive stuff (including post processing filters) and how much time they have used to make it. Sort of like a 'buyers beware' but true.

Here we go, more conspiracy theories. I thought we were past that, but I guess not. Sooo, let me ask you:

* What evidence do you have that Sony 'paid Google' to have 'advanced codec compressing'?
* What specifically are you referring to as 'also a Sony promotion'? Are you referring to the last posted video or the original true Sony promo launched a while ago?
* If you were referring to the last video just posted, and it was the Sony 'badass guys' doing the post production, then they should hire some new 'badass guys'. It wasn't particularly good.
* You say they 'intentionally evaded' some high contrast and low light circumstances. Evidence please? Additionally how do you know this last video was a Sony promo? Because of the logo in the lower right? That can be duplicated. To be honest, I never got the feeling this was actually produced by Sony.
* You say the waves of sea are so much cleaner than what you posted? What does this even refer to? Did you download the original YouTube video than re-upload it? If so, did you really expect it to look as good as the original?

Lots of accusations without any evidence...again.

I don't know guys, my head is spinning. I'm thinking it's time to talk about the elephant in the room. As long as I've been on these forums, I've seen many Sony haters out there. I don't know how they became that way, but it's very clear they exist and to deny it is just silly. Yes, there are also Sony lovers out there that think Sony can do no wrong, but that's not what I'm talking about lately with the AX100.

It appears that lately the Sony haters have come out of the woodwork with accusation after baseless accusation. This always seems to happen when a Sony camera gets particular notoriety just prior to release. This is kind of like swatting at bees, they attack.

To be very honest, I noticed this among some BMPCC owners prior to the RX10's release. Many of the attacks seemed to come from that group. It seems some don't like anything 'stealing' the notoriety of their particular gem. This is not limited to just cameras, I see the same behavior when discussion turns to video displays in the different forums. I guess it's human nature. But human nature not withstanding, it does a disservice to those looking for factual information.

Now to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying this is the behavior that Meng Li is exhibiting, but this is the internet where anyone can make any claim against anyone or any company and have no basis in fact to support it. So I see nothing wrong with calling people out when they make claims that are not supported.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Monday Isa

Ok im scratching my head here at the last few pages in this thread. We're talking about a 4K consumer camcorder at $2,000. It has a 1" sensor and a 10x zoom. Yes 2.8-4 isnt optimal but what other camcorder is out there that can do what this camcorder can?

Monday, I agree, it's truly amazing. I just sit here and scratch my head in amazement. Some people seem to be expecting $100,000 broadcast camera performance out of a $2,000 consumer camcorder. Rather than approaching it from the point of view that gee, here's a $2,000 4K camera that's offering us something that no other camera near its price class ever did before, they'd rather choose to micro-analyze the camera and/or make baseless accusations of Sony. They pixel peep (who does that with video and what does it prove?), draw 'jello' conclusions based on a shooter swinging the camera wildly as if having a seizure and on and on. I don't get it, I never did and I never will.

Originally Posted by Monday Isa

The GH4 is a great tool on paper but the samples of videos I've seen have not impressed me at all. Very few scenes where you can see fine detail. The AX100 on the other hand is just so detailed down-sampled its unreal for the price of $2k.

I've been a bit surprised by this too, Monday. I've found the GH4 samples posted thus far to be a bit disappointing and at least to my eyes, not looking quite as good as what I've seen from the AX100. Some show promise though. But again, I suspect that once the camera is released, we'll see some excellent video coming from it too. The GH series have been excellent performers and I doubt the GH4 will disappoint.

Originally Posted by Monday Isa

60Mbps for 4k will have its issues as others have stated but again this is Sony and i highly doubt they want to have the headache of customer after customer calling saying their class 6 card won't record 4k. They're just not going to deal with it. If a better 4k bitrate is needed wait for the pro-version and see if it works best. I have no problem with the problems that have been pointed out and for $2k Sony is getting my money.

Correct. But again, people are judging the AX100's bitrates by what they've known from AVCHD. That's a mistake. This is a more robust codec that doesn't require the same bitrate to perform at the same level. I'd say that based on what we've seen thus far, the codec is holding up quite nicely for its intended purposes. The other thing is, I'm not convinced the 60Mbps bitrate is a constant bitrate. It might be dynamic and peak when considerable detail is contained within the scene. Once I get mine, that should be easy to determine.

Would this be the ideal cam for action & sports shooting? Probably not, but even there I'll wait to see how it actually performs under those conditions before condemning it. The only thing I can state definitively, without pixel peeping, is that for the most part, I like what I'm seeing in the video samples released to date.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Paul Rickford

Looking at that new video, the one thing that stands out to me is how good the lens seems to be, Yes poor camera work but lots of everyday situations -poor light, backlight and flair and the lens seems to cope with it all very well, way better than the CX700 series- can't see any purple fringing to worry about or soft edges.

I am really not getting stressed about the YouTube codec as I saw the main promo video at CES on quite a few monitors large and small and to me it looked amazing.

I'm more than sold, roll on delivery day.

Yes, Paul, people should note that you are one of the few that's actually had the opportunity to watch the demo unhindered by streaming limitations. In addition, you've actually seen it on a UHD TV and were still very impressed. I've heard the same thing from 2 other people who have also seen it on a UHD TV.

That's why this pixel peeping stuff drives me nuts. Rather than watch a moving video from a traditional viewing distance, some would rather do a frame grab of an edited and re-encoded video and 'prove' that the camera has severe limitations.