Hi

So over-sharpened and compression artefacts when viewed as 4K presumably due to the low bit-rate use.

Nothing can be done about the bit-rate unless someone finds a hack for the firmware, but can't sharpening be turned off? Still some people like the false look of lots of sharpening, but less sharpening would help a little towards reducing that mosquito noise, and can always be applied later "to taste".

Regards

Phil

Cliff Totten, thanks for the 'Dynamic Range' shots. For my needs, doing some Pan&Scan in post of theater footage, the darker blacks would be important to me. Could you take the AX100 footage and bring up the blacks without too much noise?

Steve, you are hysterical. You have mastered the art of suppressing anything positive and accentuating anything negative. Even you editorial remark that the GH4 is 'the best camera', is clearly something you have made up. That is NOT what the review said. You are truly disingenuous in your writing style. If you think your style is 'objective', I would suggest you look the up the meaning. An objective person would have said that the GH4 may be the better camera for SOME PEOPLE. That would depend on their use and application. But a blanket statement like yours simply discloses your motive pure & simple.

I've seen the AX100 output on an 85" UHD TV and I don't see the artifacts and I didn't press my nose up against the screen. "Proving" artifacts by showing a 720p YouTube video, greatly enlarged, is truly, honestly, hysterical. If owners saw anything like that, there would be returns galore. There aren't. Owners, even those that approached the purchase with some skepticism, have been won over by the wonderful output of this camera.

You have bent over 21 ways to Sunday to show your dislike for the camera, we get it. And yes, this is enough of your silliness.

Looks like Stephen van Vuuren nailed it in his previous post. Trolling by any other name.

Back to our regularly scheduled program. A brief AX100 video for which the full rez file can be downloaded if you're a member.

Shots by a lake on Vimeo

Hi

So over-sharpened and compression artefacts when viewed as 4K presumably due to the low bit-rate use.

Phil

That's where I was going.

Folks saying they didn't see aliasing had me go back at look at the "artifacts." Most were around tiny details so they certainly seemed like aliasing. But, then I found crap around the big black lamp. No way this could be aliasing -- way too big an object. Moreover, it was blocky -- suggesting compression artifacts.

So I used Pavtube to convert one .mp4 clip to uncompressed 422. No artifacts! So it wasn't IN the .mp4 clips. But I still had no fix. :(

Started with FCP X. I imported clip as .mp4 copy and generated FHD proxy. According to Apple, when the export is done -- the original .mp4 would be used. Export still had artifacts!

Next step, import .mp4 clip converted to ProRes 422 UHD and ProRes Proxy FHD. Surely, during export FCP X would chose the ProRes 422 UHD. Export still had artifacts!

So, I imported making ProRes 422 UHD but not ProRes Proxy FHD. Now I had to switch from viewing Proxy to viewing Optimized (ProRes 422 UHD) video. Thankfully, this still plays fine. Now during export, FCP X had no chance to use the FHD proxy. Export had NO artifacts! Either FCP X has a nasty bug -- or I'm missing something. However, FCP X has always worked fine in the past.

Adding to the confusion -- when a bad export was played at FHD the artifacts were smoothed out and couldn't be seen. But, as I posted, not seeing something doesn't mean something isn't there. Only when I played ALL (1:1) pixels -- could the artifacts be seen. That was my fear. These wouldn't be seen when watched on an HDTV, but as soon as one bought a UHDTV, they would see the artifacts. Too late -- screwed.

One other puzzle was revealed. Why didn't my exports look super high-resolution? Because they were UHD to FHD to UHD.

-----------------------------

Someone posted they were going to export movies to an SDXC card and then plug it into their future UHDTV. Assuming the UHDTV needs -- as I expect it will -- XAVC S clips, the poster will have to find an XAVC S ENCODER that plugs-in to their NLE. So far, it doesn't look like Sony has released one. Someone should check Vegas. If it's there, try writing to an SDXC card and seeing if the camera will play it. If there isn't one, the SDXC card idea won't work. Streaming will be necessary.

============= UPDATE

It seems one does not need to import to both OPTIMIZE and PROXY. Simply import COPY TO FCP X and CREATE PROXY.

Until the Proxy has been made, select PLAY ORIGINAL. Editing may be slow depending on your computer.

Once Proxy is ready, switch to PLAY PROXY.

Before Export, you must switch to PLAY ORIGINAL!

Now, I need to re-edit and post some of what I shot.

[QUOTE=Ken Ross;1839947[/QUOTE]

Every statement I posted was a quote from Slashcam.

"Doch im Moment sieht es danach aus, als ob Panasonic die meisten 4K-Herzen in dieser Preisklasse deutlich für sich gewinnen kann."

Translate and then please post so others see what they actually said. By the way, you even misquoted me.

Next time use Slashcam's or my actual words with quotes so we know you are willing to stand behind what you say. Your consistent misquoting reveals you are so threatened you are willing to lie -- over and over trying to convince others that Slashcam supports your conclusions.

Actually, there will be no "next time" for your posts.

Ken saying he didn't see aliasing had me go back at look at the artifacts. Most were around tiny details so they certainly seemed like aliasing. But, then I found crap around the big black lamp. No way this could be aliasing -- way too big an object. Moreover, it was blocky -- suggesting compression artifacts.

So I used Pavtube to convert one .mp4 clip to uncompressed 422. No artifacts! So it wasn't IN the .mp4 clips. But I still had no fix. :(





I'm very aware of artifacts and have always been bothered by them in various DSLRs I've owned as well as the NEX VG20 & VG30. There just aren't those artifacts in the AX100 videos. They are really amazingly clean.

So much can go wrong in encoding/transcoding with these different NLEs and quality can get away from us very fast. So it's wise not to point the finger at the camera before being sure.

My comments were accurate and I stand by them. Slashcam did NOT call the GH4 a better camera. They said it would have more appeal (their opinion) and it might be more cinematic since it isn't as sharp, but they did not say it was 'a better camera'.

I am not 'threatened' by Slashcam or you. In fact I think the review was fair and complimentary toward the AX100. You are again being silly. The camera speaks for itself and owners don't need to be convinced. However when someone talks about 'artifacts' with such a degree of certainty, only to find out later it was their error induced by the NLE, owners know the person has misspoken because they simply don't see what you saw.

I read the translated Slashcam, didn't see it as one way or the other - the AX100 is what it is, it produces some nice output that at least viewing on a 1080 screen doesn't have any major nastiness (I don't have a way to view at 4k).

That 720p YouTube video "proved" absolutely nothing, other than artifacts can happen, every processing stage or conversion adds the opportunity for problems and issues!

One can look for flaws and find them (I'm still contemplating the implications of "glamour" video, like weddings, at 4K...). OR one can run into workflow or operational "issues" with new tech. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, even if it's misplaced or wrong.

I've learned to rely on reviews (and reviewers!) only so much - let's take an example of the Slashcam RX10 profile, which shows an "optimized" 12 db image that's entirely blown out... that's not a "good" example, by any means! That's not the first time I've seen UN-representative images, sometimes they get changed later...


Let's quit the spittin' match and get back to the nuts and bolts.

OK, so the manual sucks, that's 98.673% of manuals

OK, so it's really sharp... that's nice

OK, so the 30p thing may make for some issues with fast motion... oh well, nothing we didn't expect

OK, there's some RS - it's a CMOS chip, did we NOT know about this? DO we not know how to work around it by now?

OK, it's a compressed format, there may well be some situations where there are artifacts... again, this is a surprise?

Aliasing? I'm not seeing it, maybe some are... or are imagining it... or something... digital imaging can have "issues", new tech can run into challenging shooting situations, post processing can introduce all sorts of additional problems...

Next time use Slashcam's or my actual words with quotes so we know you are willing to stand behind what you say

The advantage of having Germany as my neighboring country and the fact that I grew up with German tv is that I do understand the language, not perfectly but I don't need a google translation to read and understand the article in it's native language, the problem with quoting a google translated text is that certain nuances get lost and can result in weird, funny looking texts that can even be misunderstood. My personal opinion is that a site like slashcam who uses these kind of translation engines to provide their non-german readers with text can't be taken seriously.

For instance, a better translation of below sentence is:
"Doch im Moment sieht es danach aus, als ob Panasonic die meisten 4K-Herzen in dieser Preisklasse deutlich für sich gewinnen kann."

"At this moment it clearly looks like Panasonic could win most of the 4K hearts in this price range".

It does not mean the GH4 is the best camera like you stated, it only means that the gh4 could become a more popular camera, as you see the difference lies in the small nuances and how you interpret the text.

But that alone is actually a quite ridiculous statement, the gh4 and the AX100 are 2 completely different camera's and they serve 2 totally different markets, the only thing they have in common is that they can shoot in 4K. It's like comparing my sony cx730 with the panasonic gh3 just because both can shoot 1080p 50p and then to say the gh3 is the best camera because it can do higher bitrates.

Every statement I posted was a quote from Slashcam.

"Doch im Moment sieht es danach aus, als ob Panasonic die meisten 4K-Herzen in dieser Preisklasse deutlich für sich gewinnen kann."

Translate and then please post so others see what they actually said. By the way, you even misquoted me.

Next time use Slashcam's or my actual words with quotes so we know you are willing to stand behind what you say. Your consistent misquoting reveals you are so threatened you are willing to lie -- over and over trying to convince others that Slashcam supports your conclusions.

Actually, there will be no "next time" for your posts.


Steve, since you seem to be trying to make a threat...

HERE is the entire (admittedly rough) translation of the WHOLE sentence/paragraph, not the half portion you posted:

"But at the moment it looks like as if Panasonic most 4K heart can clearly win in this price range"...
<OK, so that supports your OPINION, followed by>

"Even if scenic and cinematic work is not the strength of the FDR-AX100, it is nevertheless a nice 4K model for all which, which allows users to quickly shoot out of hand do not need the flexibility and the data rates of GH4 and / or are looking for a relatively compact all-in-one device. Who wants to spend time with anyway color grading and much material takes almost unedited, also get with the Sony a very coherent 4K image Out-Of-The-Box, which in the editing program on FullHD scaled down looks fantastic. Especially the combination with the XLR adapter K1M could to send a clear buy signal for many users"

<which supports the OPINIONS of the users Sony envisions for the camera, even if these are not people who will rush out to buy your books or read your reviews!>


Context works both ways... and manufacturing a controversy is "modern" journalism I suppose... ain't the Internet grand!? Good theatre, I suppose, thought of it as a "marketing technique" myself in one little niche I'm in!



The GH4 is certainly a compelling upgrade path IF you've already got the lenses and accessories, which one might well have IF they are trying for budget "filmic" output... I've looked at the GH series, nice output, but an investment in an entirely new system isn't of interest...

I'd rather have the AX100 for event and everyday use, and I can re-use some accessories I've already got...

I have no Spielbergian delusions or ambitions, so the "BM" cameras don't intrigue me that much... though they are "interesting".



Here's the best part, there ARE people who WILL find these other cameras useful for what they want to do, ad go out and buy them, helping put food on tables, make house and car payments, keep the economy going, and so on.

Can't we all just be good with that?

Thank you Noa!

My German is pretty rusty, but you are spot on that "universal" translators, while useful, often fail on nuance and context.

And of course, since EVERYTHING you see or read on the Internet is TRUE... or NOT... one has to come to their own conclusions, and sometimes let opposing "opinions" stand or fall on their own merits, or lack thereof!

I've seen enough output from the AX100 to feel it's worth adding in, and it can replace some existing cameras for my uses. I'll continue to wish the RX10 had 4K enabled...

You've got some GH investment, so I'm sure in the back of your mind... the GH4 is at least gnawing a little!

In the end different tools for different purposes, and this new 4K mountain we are about to climb should be about figuring out how to deal with this new format, not about slogging one or another camera!

WE need a thread or forum section about "4K workflow (and cameras?)", as I'm sure we will all be facing challenges!

That 720p YouTube video "proved" absolutely nothing, other than artifacts can happen, every processing stage or conversion adds the opportunity for problems and issues!


OK -- if I have to answer one at a time, I'll do it.

You clearly didn't read that the 720p was a sample of the Dual Record function. I put it up so other can see how good it looks.

Steve, since you seem to be trying to make a threat...

"... the FDR-AX100, it is nevertheless a nice 4K model for all which, which allows users to quickly shoot out of hand do not need the flexibility and the data rates of GH4 and / or are looking for a relatively compact all-in-one device.


OK -- if I have to answer one at a time, I'll do it.

Clearly you didn't accurately read my post -- perhaps because you needed something to attack with.

I said:

"Panasonic dares (unlike Sony) with the GH4 for the first time, not artificially to protect its own Pro devices, but on with the GH4 any possibility of free, which seems to be somehow justifiable in this price range. Sony would do so, the FDR-AX100 would be much more competitive. << THEY SEE IT AS LESS COMPETITIVE >> But at the moment it looks like as if Panasonic most 4K heart can clearly win in this price range. << THE GH4 IS THE BEST CAMERA >>

READ THIS BELOW THAT YOU AVOIDED QUOTING:
Even if scenic and cinematic work is not the strength of the FDR-AX100, << EXACTLY >> it is nevertheless a nice 4K model for all who do not need the flexibility and the data rates of GH4 and / or are looking for a relatively compact all-in-one, which allows users to quickly shoot out of hand. << EXACTLY >>

Threat -- I don't make threats. Ken is no longer an issue for me.

On the rx10 there was also a review on a site run by a German guy who claimed that eventhough the camera produced nice images he had to delete several shots because they where not usable to him as a result of the codec breaking apart. You will always have people that shoot high detail fast moving scenes, then freeze frame it, blow it up 400% in photoshop, stick their faces against the screen, look for artifacts and then say the camera sucks.

I have shot some footage with my rx10, which can also be seen in my signature under "Videos" and in it's native form it looks fantastic on my big lcd screen viewed from a normal distance, from what I have read the ax100 even adds to that experience by providing a even sharper downsampled 1080p, for me the imagequality of the rx10 is more then good enough for my paying wedding clients.

Also when talking about price ranges, you have to bear in mind you need to add double the cost of a gh4 body for all lenses required, add a good nd filter to that price and the gh4 is more then twice the price of the ax100 (which is a all in one solution) which many people tend to forget. Ofcourse if you already heavily invested in m4/3 glass and have a gh3 like me the step to a gh4 body only is just a small and obvious one. But I"ll say it again, I don't see what the gh4 has to do with the ax100 as they are totally different camera's for different purposes.

"Doch im Moment sieht es danach aus, als ob Panasonic die meisten 4K-Herzen in dieser Preisklasse deutlich für sich gewinnen kann."

"At this moment it clearly looks like Panasonic could win most of the 4K hearts in this price range."



When you "win the heart" of a woman it means she has decided to pick you amoungst others. She sees you as the BEST choice. Your weakening of the clear meaning of their words won't work.

But, I agree that they -- not me -- said something stupid.

Threat -- I don't make threats. Ken is no longer an issue for me.

Oh my, I've been rendered irrelevant by Steve Mullen. How can I go on? 😃

The advantage of having Germany as my neighboring country and the fact that I grew up with German tv is that I do understand the language, not perfectly but I don't need a google translation to read and understand the article in it's native language, the problem with quoting a google translated text is that certain nuances get lost and can result in weird, funny looking texts that can even be misunderstood. My personal opinion is that a site like slashcam who uses these kind of translation engines to provide their non-german readers with text can't be taken seriously.

For instance, a better translation of below sentence is:
"Doch im Moment sieht es danach aus, als ob Panasonic die meisten 4K-Herzen in dieser Preisklasse deutlich für sich gewinnen kann."

"At this moment it clearly looks like Panasonic could win most of the 4K hearts in this price range".



Precisely. That was exactly how I too intrepeted it. Of course if you're trying to put the camera in a bad light, you might say something quite different. ;)

OK -- if I have to answer one at a time, I'll do it.

Clearly you didn't accurately read my post -- perhaps because you needed something to attack with.

I said:

"Panasonic dares (unlike Sony) with the GH4 for the first time, not artificially to protect its own Pro devices, but on with the GH4 any possibility of free, which seems to be somehow justifiable in this price range. Sony would do so, the FDR-AX100 would be much more competitive. << THEY SEE IT AS LESS COMPETITIVE >> But at the moment it looks like as if Panasonic most 4K heart can clearly win in this price range. << THE GH4 IS THE BEST CAMERA >>

READ THIS BELOW THAT YOU AVOIDED QUOTING:
Even if scenic and cinematic work is not the strength of the FDR-AX100, << EXACTLY >> it is nevertheless a nice 4K model for all who do not need the flexibility and the data rates of GH4 and / or are looking for a relatively compact all-in-one, which allows users to quickly shoot out of hand. << EXACTLY >>

Threat -- I don't make threats. Ken is no longer an issue for me.



Hmm, I seem to see that EXACT part quoted... but anyway... maybe you really are seeing things that aren't there, and not seeing things that are? I hate it when that happens <wink>!

And your explanation on that 720p clip wasn't informative enough to "read"... but again, whatever. Maybe I missed the part about "dual record function", but I'm not even sure what you refer to or how it's applicable... I "infer" that your point is that YOU are seeing artifacts under the set of conditions particular to your setup, that's fine, and maybe you are "on to" something, but it's not consistent with what others are finding and seeing.


Steve... no "attacks" from my end, I've always taken what you post with due respect, but at this point, as much as I appreciate your apparent frustration with the AX100, lousy manuals, and PC's, and universal translators, and people who just want to grab a camera and shoot with good results, and maybe something you ate for lunch... it's not adding much to the "info"... Lots of things to get frustrated over nowadays, but that's not what DVi is here for...

Take it for what it's worth... if you don't think the AX100 is worth writing a manual or whatever on, try to realize there are others who will find it a perfectly usable device, and RESPECT that...

Does anyone have an idea on a PAL release for the Ax100??

Precisely. That was exactly how I too intrepeted it. Of course if you're trying to put the camera in a bad light, you might say something quite different. ;)

Bring it on, I'm still lookin' fer that "open box return DEAL"!

So can I turn <on> the "sarcasm font"...

The AX100 is obviously a terribly flawed, inadequate camera with horrible artifacting and rolling shutter that cannot possibly be used to take pretty scenes and filmic works of art! The manual is the most boring horrible uninformative drek I've read since the Affordable Care Act... and the buttons are just all wrong! The audacity of Sony to release such a horrid product onto the market should result in all Sony execs being hunted down, tarred and feathered! Go buy anything else lest your eyeballs bleed from the tragedy that lies within...

Sarcasm font <off>


Now to go find my "open box deal"...

Started with FCP X. I imported clip as .mp4 copy and generated FHD proxy. According to Apple, when the export is done -- the original .mp4 would be used. Export still had artifacts!

Next step, import .mp4 clip converted to ProRes 422 UHD and ProRes Proxy FHD. Surely, during export FCP X would chose the ProRes 422 UHD. Export still had artifacts!

Are you sure your proxy step isn't introducing artifacts or other video issues? I've never had to work with proxy files, not once in the past 10 years since my nle's have always worked at full speed with the raw files right from the camera so I don't know what damage proxy files do or don't do to the video footage. Maybe that would explain why we aren't seeing what you see. Can you just skip the proxy files? There's no need to do that nowadays since most every computer can play back the raw files at full speed anyways for years now and you'll save time and a ton of disc space that way as well. Maybe it will also solve your video issues in the process. Because clearly we're seeing two different results from the same camera, which to me seems to indicate a failing in the proxy files process.

As I explained in my post, the proxy files were fine but were FHD. During export, because they were chosen without my realizing it, they were upscaled from ProRes Proxy FHD to UHD. No wonder they looked so bad before they went to YouTube.

I've updated my post and all is well. Now I can see what correctly edited and 4K streamed files look like. But, better to catch the error and fix it now.

Hmm, I seem to see that EXACT part quoted... but anyway... maybe you really are seeing things that aren't there, and not seeing things that are? I hate it when that happens <wink>!

And your explanation on that 720p clip wasn't informative enough to "read"... but again, whatever. Maybe I missed the part about "dual record function", but I'm not even sure what you refer to or how it's applicable... I "infer" that your point is that YOU are seeing artifacts under the set of conditions particular to your setup, that's fine, and maybe you are "on to" something, but it's not consistent with what others are finding and seeing.

You are correct -- I never said Dual Record function. It only says, "Sony AX100's 1280x720p proxy from camera." But, that wasn't very clear if you don't have the camera.

But, please go back and read my long post on how I found the source of the artifacts and now know how to avoid them. Still don't know if I found a FCP X bug when working with UHD or if I just didn't read the manual. :)

Sorry, about saying attack. I have always respected you too. Contrary to what folks believe, I really want the AX100 to work because I have a major trip ahead.

Still need to see if RS bothers me, if the stutters that sometimes occur are a problem, and how bad motion judder from 24p/30p are. Low-light in my living room seems fantastic, but must shoot to see the noise present.

Lastly, I want to see if FilmConvert can change color to match motion picture stock and add grain. As Slashcam said, the super sharpness works against a cinema look. But, maybe a blur filter?

And, if folks are open to it, I can link to a movie shot by the Digital Bolex that is so much better than the DSLR stuff we've all seen. It looks like 35mm film -- not the soft crap I think we all hate. Motion judder is very nice. I'd love to have the OPTION to have a more arty look.

Thus, the FDR-X100 limited in XAVC S 4K recording the data stream to about 60 Mbit /s Since this is not yet to be a h.265/HEVC-Codec, this is about a AVCHD FullHD power with 15Mbit /s comparable. For some, moving some details short. << THIS MAY BE CRITICAL >>
No, No, No, No, and it can't be said too many times!!

It is completely wrong to scale bitrate figures like this.

60Mbs for 4k does *NOT* equate to 15Mbs for HD, you can't do a simple comparison like that. It's a general rule that if you increase the pixel count by a given factor, then to get equivalent quality, you need to scale up the bitrate by a lesser factor. Quadrupling the number the pixels does not need four times the datarate for equivalence.

It's also worth remembering that when AVC-HD is spoken about at "24Mbs" - that figure represents a MAX figure - not average. I think I've heard (??) that the 60Mbs figure spoken of is AVERAGE (NOT max) which further complicates comparison.

(Anybody with the camera can easily check the latter. Film an exact time of shot (say 5 minutes) at HD AVC-HD 24Mbs, then 4k 60Mbs, and compare file sizes. If what I've suggested above is correct, then I'd expect the 4k file to be around 3x the size - not 2.5x as a simple 24:60 comparison would suggest. I'd be keen to get a definite answer to that.)

At the end of the day, the question is "is the 60Mbs mode good enough?"

My own feeling is that it's probably roughly comparable to what the top rate of AVC-HD manages in normal HD. If that's good enough for you in HD, then this 60Mbs mode is probably good enough for you in 4k. It's unlikely to get any "broadcast quality" seal of approval - but neither did AVC-HD. Do you see pots half full or half empty?

Let's all remember what we're talking about here. It's not a top notch, full pro camera, and it's unreasonable to expect it to come with a codec worthy of such. There are good reasons for that - not just manufacturers stunting product - they may have good reasons to keep bitrate down to lower the number of consumer complaints who try to use it with too low spec memory, then blame the camera.

On the rx10 there was also a review on a site run by a German guy who claimed that eventhough the camera produced nice images he had to delete several shots because they where not usable to him as a result of the codec breaking apart. You will always have people that shoot high detail fast moving scenes, then freeze frame it, blow it up 400% in photoshop, stick their faces against the screen, look for artifacts and then say the camera sucks.



Yup. We've got two of them right here, one of which posts on multiple forums showing us those 400% blow ups. The fact is I know of no camera, at any price, that can stand that kind of scrutiny. But if you're trying to single one camera out, what better 'ammunition'.

Silliness, all of it. I mean really, who the hell watches footage like this???

Here is a quick and dirty UN SCIENTIFIC test of dynamic range between the AX100, FS100 and EX1r.

I set the bright lit area to the right at just barely 100 IRE on each camera and let the rest of the shadows below it fall as it may. (when you place it into your NLE, your scopes will place the top peak highlight at about 95 IRE or so.)

These are all un graded screen caps. However, please note that there are 2 FS 100 frame captures. One used no profile and the other used the Able Cine flat profile. The FS100 is an 8 bit sensor read out and written to an 8 bit codec so I don't think the flat profile will really add any "true" dynamic range. (FS100 lens is a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 Nikon mount with no F-Stop value)

Grade them any way you want and compare. There is a significant difference in the 3 cameras.

This test was done in a very dimly lit storage room. So it's a really brutal low light test.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4564537/AX100%20-%20FS100%20-%20EX1r%20DR%20Shootout.zip

CT

Cliff- was this screen cap from the AX100 shot in-camera as a 1080p clip, or was it a 4k clip downresed to 1080p?

Bring it on, I'm still lookin' fer that "open box return DEAL"!

So can I turn <on> the "sarcasm font"...

The AX100 is obviously a terribly flawed, inadequate camera with horrible artifacting and rolling shutter that cannot possibly be used to take pretty scenes and filmic works of art! The manual is the most boring horrible uninformative drek I've read since the Affordable Care Act... and the buttons are just all wrong! The audacity of Sony to release such a horrid product onto the market should result in all Sony execs being hunted down, tarred and feathered! Go buy anything else lest your eyeballs bleed from the tragedy that lies within...

Sarcasm font <off>


Now to go find my "open box deal"...

LOL, thanks, I needed that.

Dave, it seems so many of us are in a trance, unable to see the horrendous artifacts and are simply 'blinded' by all that scrumptious detail. When I went over to Apple a week or so ago, the same phenomena occurred. I had a 'crowd' of about 5 or 6 people gawking at my footage, asking questions about what camera shot it, where is it available and so on. I guess they too were drawn into this trance.

No, No, No, No, and it can't be said too many times!!

It is completely wrong to scale bitrate figures like this.

60Mbs for 4k does *NOT* equate to 15Mbs for HD, you can't do a simple comparison like that. It's a general rule that if you increase the pixel count by a given factor, then to get equivalent quality, you need to scale up the bitrate by a lesser factor. Quadrupling the number the pixels does not need four times the datarate for equivalence.

It's also worth remembering that when AVC-HD is spoken about at "24Mbs" - that figure represents a MAX figure - not average. I think I've heard (??) that the 60Mbs figure spoken of is AVERAGE (NOT max) which further complicates comparison.

Excellent point and yes, the bitrate is a variable one. I've seen over 70Mbps during complex scenes.

(Anybody with the camera can easily check the latter. Film an exact time of shot (say 5 minutes) at HD At the end of the day, the question is "is the 60Mbs mode good enough?"

My own feeling is that it's probably roughly comparable to what the top rate of AVC-HD manages in normal HD. If that's good enough for you in HD, then this 60Mbs mode is probably good enough for you in 4k. It's unlikely to get any "broadcast quality" seal of approval - but neither did AVC-HD. Do you see pots half full or half empty?



And the important point here is to know the tool you are working with. If you know that rapid pans will either make the codec falter or manifest evidence of RS, then you avoid rapid pans. I typically do that with any kind of shooting, so for me it's no biggie.

But the point is if you abide by these rules, knowing the limitations, your footage can look like it was shot at 100 Mpbs or more. Further, your footage can look sharper and more detailed than even those cameras that actually DO shoot 100Mbps or more. :)

Cliff- was this screen cap from the AX100 shot in-camera as a 1080p clip, or was it a 4k clip downresed to 1080p?

FS100 = 1080 28Mbps 60p
EX1r = EXCAM EX 35 Mbp/s 29.97p
AX100 = 4K 30p 60 Mbp/s

All were frame captured in a 1920x1080 project.

Some things I have noticed about grading the AX100. We all know how "tough" the FS100 codec is. You can stretch it and bend it pretty far considering it's 8bit. Even in the blacks. The FS100 alocates a good deal of bits into the shadows and you can play with them a good deal.

The AX100? Well?...not so much. Raising the blacks or bending the mid tones to raise the mid-level shadows WILL reveal compression artifacts. Don't get me wrong,...what Sony has done with 60Mbp/s is amazing. If you don't need to grade it, it holds up to motion pretty well. I have tried to break it and have pushed it pretty hard in dark room tests. It's good. It's solid enough to hold up to "normal" abuse. However, I'm certain that it's 100 Mbp/s sister "upgrade" will be much tougher. Adding 40 more VBR megabits will definitely make the blacks bulletproof. (as you all know, the blacks and shadows on any codec will be the first to "stress out" with complex detail under low but rate.)

Overall, I'm very VERY impressed with the camera. However, it's going back to Best Buy tomorrow. The rumors about the new Sony 4K A7s with FULL FRAME 12 Megapixel sensor are far too tempting! I'm taking my $2000 back from the AX100 and getting ready to pre order this Sony A7S 4K.

I only have 3 days left to return it. Best Buy only gives 15 days for returns and I'll be in Vegas at NAB on Monday. Bye bye AX100...it's be a fun and educational 2 weeks with you :(

Everyone needs to watch the Sony live NAB web stream on Sunday. Keep your AX100 receipts! This new A7S full frame 4k monster looks like the perfect GH4 killer.

CT

I've seen lots of "broadcast" that wasn't "quality"... cell phone footage is broadcast-able if the content is "important" enough... Go-Pro seems mighty popular as well...

The AX100 is a leg up on much of that!


I caught the A7S "announcement" as well, but considering the investment in FF E mount lenses (I'm presuming this will be a Full Frame camera, not APS-C), I think the AX100 looks "good enough", and as much as I've shot with my RX's for the last year for almost everything video (and of course stills), I still have uses for a "real" video camera... though I can wait until I find a "deal" on an AX! Maybe I won't have to wait too long for those "open box deals" <wink>!

Keep in mind that while the E mount has lots of options for adapters, the selection of FF lenses is a bit more limited... Somehow I'm also VERY skeptical of that "12Mpixel" sensor - that would be VERY "un-Sony" when everything else is 20Mp +, but I'll be watching...


Then again, I'm watching for the RX10M2 and the A77II... I think by this time next year anything other than the cheapest consumer devices will be touting "4K" of some flavor or another! I still wish 4K and higher bitrates were enabled in the RX10, though it would probably mean the AX100 wouldn't be that interesting!

I'm very impressed with the AX100. Hell,...I'd LOVE to keep it. I had every intention of doing that until today.

I too am wondering how a 12MP full frame sensor will function with FF lenses and APSC cropped lenses.

I cant wait to hear what Sony's plans are for this. I'll be at NAB on Monday so I can't wait to see it.

If worse comes to worse, I can always re buy the AX100 if I'm not impressed with anything else at NAB.

I would CERTAINLY have no problems buying the AX100 again. I feel comfortable with it...but an A7s full frame 4K camera? If it has 100Mbp/s XAVCs with an clean 4K HDMI out? Woah,..I cant turn that down, even if the body was $2,500!

I just hope you can shoot in true 4K with my APSC lenses.

CT

The rumors about the new Sony 4K A7s with FULL FRAME 12 Megapixel sensor are far too tempting!

My issue with full frame for video is that for some of my filming needs it will blur too much, for some projects I need a very deep dof so the AX100 is perfect for that. Also if the auto focus isn't perfect then things can look really bad with a full frame sensor when used for video. However for my other projects that are full manual focus with extremely shallow dof I've been using the VG900, so that A7s could replace the VG900 there. Although personally I hate camera form factor for video, so I'm hoping they have a replacement VG900 that uses the A7s's sensor, then I'll buy that. Result will be that the AX100 replaced my NX30, and the A7s (video camera version) will replace my VG900. Then my transition to 4k will be complete :)

No, No, No, No, and it can't be said too many times!!

Hey David, don't yell at me. Send an email to Slashcam. :)

It does seem like Sony may have chosen 60Mbps because on a 64GB card it nicely gives 2 hours -- just like VHS. Also, Sony has set FHD at 50Mbps. So 90Mbps would have been a "better" data-rate for UHD. Even if only for marketing purposes.

Overall, I'm very VERY impressed with the camera. However, it's going back to Best Buy tomorrow. The rumors about the new Sony 4K A7s with FULL FRAME 12 Megapixel sensor are far too tempting! I'm taking my $2000 back from the AX100 and getting ready to pre order this Sony A7S 4K.

I only have 3 days left to return it. Best Buy only gives 15 days for returns and I'll be in Vegas at NAB on Monday. Bye bye AX100...it's be a fun and educational 2 weeks with you :(

Everyone needs to watch the Sony live NAB web stream on Sunday. Keep your AX100 receipts! This new A7S full frame 4k monster looks like the perfect GH4 killer.

CT

Don't race back to BB quite yet Cliff. According to late breaking reports, you're going to get the same XAVC-S codec along with the same 60Mbps bitrate with the A7S in 4K. Sony hasn't changed a thing. They've just put it in the full frame body of the A7. Of course IMO that's a good thing. ;)

The other thing regarding the 100Mbps video of the GH4. I have yet to see one sample GH4 video that has matched the sharpness & resolution of the XA100. Not one. There was one video on YouTube that really had me laughing. It was perhaps 70% of the resolution of the AX100 and the comments below from prospective GH4 buyers were "OMG, the detail!!!". But I guarantee you if you showed those same folks the far more detailed XA100 footage, the response would be "Ah, too videoish".

Some just can't deal with so much detail and sharpness. I say 'bring it on!'. :)

Ken Ross - "According to late breaking reports, you're going to get the same XAVC-S codec along with the same 60Mbps bitrate with the A7S in 4K. Sony hasn't changed a thing."

Don't tell me that. If that's true, it's a HUGE let down.

Where did you read that?

Damn,.....Sony had Panny down on the ground but couldn't go for the final 100Mbp/s kill shot. If this is true, than the GH4 is a bit injured but still lives OK.

What about Sony's HDMI? Is it still locked? (like the AX100's)

CT

Cliff, saw it over at AVS. It may have come from eoshd. Not sure about the HDMI. Here's what I read, but remember, this is the internet:

"I’ve just had some information from a source that may be of interest to those awaiting Sony’s NAB announcement.

As we know from previous rumours the Sony A7S will feature a 12MP sensor. This is very good news for video.

My source says this will be 4230 x 2820 for stills. The cinema DCI format of 4K as seen in the GH4 is 4096 x 2160 which would mean only a very small crop of the sensor.

However according to the source the A7S features the same codec as the AX100, XAVC-S, which is Sony’s de facto consumer 4K standard. This consumer codec only supports 4K at Ultra HD resolutions in 16:9, which means a slightly larger crop of 3840 x 2160 (around 8MP).

That amounts to a 1.1x crop over full frame in terms of how wide your lenses are… The same crop as Speed Booster on APS-C (E-mount). Still very little difference so we really are going to get real full frame VistaVision 4K out of this beast.

I also did some research on XAVC-S. It records in MP4 format but perhaps rather disturbingly it has a much lower bitrate than the GH4′s 4K codec. It is just 60Mbit/s vs 100Mbit/s on the GH4 in Ultra HD.

I have not yet graded any footage from the Sony AX100 but it will be interesting to see how XAVC-S stands up at that bitrate. It is a very modern codec and bitrate isn’t everything."

I caught the A7S "announcement" as well, but considering the investment in FF E mount lenses (I'm presuming this will be a Full Frame camera, not APS-C), I think the AX100 looks "good enough", and as much as I've shot with my RX's for the last year for almost everything video (and of course stills), I still have uses for a "real" video camera... though I can wait until I find a "deal" on an AX! Maybe I won't have to wait too long for those "open box deals" <wink>!

Keep in mind that while the E mount has lots of options for adapters, the selection of FF lenses is a bit more limited... Somehow I'm also VERY skeptical of that "12Mpixel" sensor - that would be VERY "un-Sony" when everything else is 20Mp +, but I'll be watching...



I agree Dave. Personally I'm not at all tempted by the A7S. I don't have those lenses and if the rumors are true, the camera will offer essentially the same PQ as what I'm getting now, but for a lot more money than what the AX100 cost me. Of course you'll have the versatility of different lenses if that's what you're looking for. If I were going for the GH4, the 14-140 would be my 'go to' lens to avoid frequent lens changing. I don't see anything like that in the Sony FF lineup.

I'm also happy to avoid lens changing entirely. I've had too many instances of sensor dust as the result of lens changing in the field. The problem is that you generally don't spot the dust until you get home and then see your ruined shots. I've had mixed success with removing sensor dust from my VG30 and NEX7 cameras.

A 12 megapixel full frame sensor...talk about GIANT photosites? That's a photon sucking sponge.

Will it shoot 4K in APSC crop mode? 4K HDMI will also be a big question.

The picture profiles that are "pre compression" help too. Being able to shoot with lower color saturation and lover contrast is another plus too.

Damn Sony....sooo close! Those Panny folks are breathing a sigh of relief tonight!!

CT

60Mbs for 4k does *NOT* equate to 15Mbs for HD, you can't do a simple comparison like that.

It's yet another example you can't take slashcam that serious, when you make such a claim you better back it up visually by shooting under those exact conditions and show it is like that, not just say.

It is also clear Sony is aiming this camera at the consumer/prosumer market, the choosen datarate is probably a very good balance between quality, filesizes and easier workflow. By the looks of the videos that appear made with this camera Sony has succeeded in that goal.

Another claim made by them which I question

"Für einen 4K-Ausschnitt ist unser ISO-Testbild erstaunlich scharf. Leider tritt auch eine nicht abstellbare deutliche Nachschärfung zu Tage, ohne die das Sony-Bild deutlich cinematischer ausfallen würde."

Here it more or less says, "for a 4K crop our ISO testimage is remarkably sharp, only there appears to be a apparent and not possible to change after sharpening which would have resulted in a much more cinematic image if that was not the case."

So what are they saying here, cinematic is less sharp?
Here we have a camera capable of delivering very sharp looking through glass images, yet it's not good enough, because it's too sharp and because of that it's not cinematic.

If a camera being too sharp isn't cinematic than I guess cameras such as the Sony F55 and Red Epic Dragon must be terrible for shooting films. Unless they're trying to imply that their is sharpening going on in the image.

I think we need a German speaking person here to tell us what they really mean.

That's what they are saying, there is a incamera extra sharpening going on which might explain why people see that the ax100 image appears to be sharper then the one from the gh4.

Here it more or less says, "for a 4K crop our ISO testimage is remarkably sharp, only there appears to be a apparent and not possible to change after sharpening which would have resulted in a much more cinematic image if that was not the case."

So what are they saying here, cinematic is less sharp?
Here we have a camera capable of delivering very sharp looking through glass images, yet it's not good enough, because it's too sharp and because of that it's not cinematic.

And that Noa, as I've stated before, gets to the heart of the 'problem'. Here we have a $2,000 camera whose main fault (as viewed by a few) is that it's too sharp, too resolved, too window like, too real!

Those same people trip over themselves to buy equipment that's less sharp, almost muddy looking by comparison and then grade it so that the end result looks like color from another planet. OK. I exaggerate, but not by that much if you watch the endless YouTube videos from cameras like that. These folks want anything but the look of reality or their grading skills are really bad. Or perhaps they're Indie film makers and just want some artistic expression...sometimes lots of it.

That's precisely the group that turns their nose at the AX100. Two totally different target audiences in search of two totally different looks. Yes indeed, less sharp=more cinematic. ;)

I so remember when HD was launched a number of years ago, how excited I was. Here we had the promise of getting closer to that 'looking out of the window' feel. Everyone was excited over this. So now we have a small camera that gets us ever so much closer to that very look...much closer to even what those huge megabuck pro cameras were capable of. And this is the 4K down sampled look in HD! Now view this on a UHD display and your jaw drops. I plug the AX100 into my 64" plasma after shooting and I sit there, literally shaking my head at what I'm seeing. THIS is the look I love, this is the 'looking out of the window' feel I so appreciate and this is the look the cinema crowd so dislikes.

Don't get me wrong, I love the cinema look, but I love it when Hollywood does it and it's a movie worth watching. But for me? Nah, I'm never going to produce what Hollywood does, I can't write scripts like Hollywood does, I don't have the actors and I don't have the master colorists. It's just not what I shoot. Hell, I even find that the 'stylized' color that Hollywood is so in love with, is getting old, very old. It's almost a pleasure when you see a movie that isn't tinted a strong shade of amber or blue and actually resembles the world we see.

Give me reality!

That's what they are saying, there is a incamera extra sharpening going on which might explain why people see that the ax100 image appears to be sharper then the one from the gh4.

I think it's more than that, Noa, I really do. In the comparison videos I've seen between the GH4, BMC4K and others, the AX100 is actually resolving more detail than the others...and some of these cameras cost far more than the AX100.

If it was actually aggressive in-camera sharpening, that would destroy detail, not enhance it. No, it's pure resolved detail which is very different and very obvious. In some of these comparison videos you can actually read lettering on the AX100 clip you can't on the other cameras. In one test the irony was that the AX100 shot was actually wider than the BMC4K camera and, despite this, you could read lettering on the AX100 clip you couldn't on the BM. That's not in-camera sharpening doing this, it's the camera resolving more detail.

I also think that's what Slashcam was saying when they said something like 'near perfect 4K'. The camera may be pushing closer to the limits of 4K better than other 4K cams. That's what it looks like to me.

With that said, I wouldn't dismiss the GH4. I think those that have been providing samples from the pre-release models are, again, the Indie types. As such they're using picture profiles I would never use for that 'look of reality'. This may be softening detail and hiding, to some degree, what the camera is capable of.

We shall see. These are fun times!

Ken, I'm with you. I love the "looking out the window" clarity you can get with 4K. Some say the AX100 is too sharp? LOL, never. That makes me want it even more. I'll take high resolution any day.
Now, we'll have to wait and see if the rumored Sony A7s 4K camera is a reality. Full frame goodness in 4K? Nice!

Very well spoken Ken. You summed up exactly what my expectations are. I have a canon XF100, 5dIII, 70D, and waiting on UPS to deliver the AX100. I want my videos to look sharp and like reality. I can get some very nice videos from the Canons and If I add a little bit of sharpening they look great. But the DSLRs are a pain to shoot with.

I am following Andrew Reid's blog on his experience with the GH4. The thing that stands out to me is the videos he shot of the crowd of people. The white balance was off in his ungraded shot, looked to me to cold and very blue. However his graded shots looked horrible to me. Way too warm and did not look natural. For him that was the look he wanted.

I saw some videos from Driftwood and at least those videos looked more natural. It all depends on the look you prefer and my preferences are for the videos to look more natural and real world.

Maybe it is a generational thing. I am in my mid 40s. I think the younger generation all prefer that over saturated, unnatural warm look. All the photos I see on my social sites from the younger generation look that way. Maybe since they are using crappy cameras they feel like adding a bunch of preset filters will hide how crappy the original looks.

Anyway, really excited to be getting my AX100 today!

Well it will be interesting to see the 4K line from Sony next week. They may cover their bases with camcorders and still cameras that shoot 4K and likely if one wants to get a package that shoots all frame rates the total cost will be close to any other product in the line. If the marketing have any sense !!! They could introduce a XQD recorder so that the still cameras with clean HDMI 2.0 output will end up with comparable lens costing more than the PXW-Z100 or the FS700 setup !!! If 30P XAVC-S at 60Mbps meets the requirements it will come stock and compete with the GH4 maybe even better value. XAVC-S does have 30P at 100Mbps so does not need to stay at 60Mbps. Only a day and we will find out.

For consumers there is good reason to only shoot to 30P since the early 4K TV's will not show anything more. If you don't want customer complaints limit capability and 30P is what people are used to on Youtube etc anyway.

For the prosumer or professional they will use the 4K for different reasons. Up the price and give them more. When most 4K TV's and internet downloads go to 60P the whole range will be likely have the full frame rate range. A few years from now I expect when technology of processing and memory are on the next cycle.

Ron Evans

With limited testing the XAVC-S seems easy to edit in Vegas. A cheap laptop and 5 year old desktop seem to handle it like HD footage. Less hard drive requirements and need for high data transfer rates.

Starting to see the advantages of native editing.

Very true Dave. It's a pleasure editing XAVC-S 4K and not nearly as demanding as people might think. Even the encoding times in my Edius Pro 7 are great! The 1:48 second 4K video that I posted a page or two back, took only 2:45 to encode. So this really isn't taxing for most computers.

For a fair amount of applications, 30p seems to be "good enough" - the additional processing and storage for 4K/60p at higher bitrates are going to be an issue for a while.

Sony chose to go with conservative specs so you had a halfway decent chance of using "off the shelf" memory, TV, computers - wise choice for "consumer" products!

I'm still wondering what Panasonic's "answer" is - I remember they were having to use hand picked and tuned memory for their prototypes - that's NOT going to translate into real world (particularly "consumer") use...

I suspect the processing side of the equation is partially offset by newer, more efficient CODECs, but so far at least, I don't think you can beat the file size problem, either in the sense of requiring LARGER storage, and faster write/read times...

Hi

Panasonic are recommending UHS I class III memory cards, these support in excess of 200Mbps. Bit-rates on memory cards are already fast enough to support 60fps in 4K, the problem is the processing power to encode that in real-time at 4K resolutions with enough quality.

It seems unlikely cameras will come with any new codecs any time soon. This is because H265 is very processor intensive and in a portable device creates too much heat and uses too much power. Much like MPEG2 started off being the main recording format for HD (and still is on more professional gear) then H264 will take up a similar position for 4K, with new codecs such as H265 being reserved for distribution. Also these newer more complex codecs will not be good for editing.

Storage probably isn't so much a problem given the size of hard discs theses days.

Regards

Phil