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.


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

Regards

Phil

Yes I think it is the processing for realtime recording that results in my AX1 having a fan and consuming a NP-F970 battery in about 1 hour compared to my NX5U that will run for over 4 hours on the same battery. ( I really do mean the same battery !!! I have one that came with the AX1 and one for my NX5U and used both shooting for just over 2 hours with the AX1 ) As to space on hard drives I do not think that is the problem it is more the archive that will be the concern. At 60P the AX1 file size is about 6 times the file size of the NX5U for the same time period. An act of a play of just over an hour is 11G for the NX5U 1920x1080 60i 24Mbps and 62G for the AX1 60P at 150Mbps.

Ron Evans

From a "consumer" standpoint, those fast cards will be "expensive", and a SIGNIFICANT investment - 128G cards if you want to shoot very much... and what's the average HDD size... seems like 4Tb drives are at the higher end, though I see 6Tb listed... and SSD's aren't that large yet!

Certainly from a "content creator" standpoint, these are all necessary evils, but the costs of storage media will have to come down, and the sizes go up (like 1/2 the cost and twice the size, or both) in order to come even close to "consumer friendly". Not sure that the "traditional" computing market is operating under those metrics and expectations anymore...

I hate to say it, but with most consumers using phones and tablets, 30p lower bitrate 4k may become a practical "standard" fairly quickly, and the step up may be MUCH harder to sell...

For archive I now use LTO3 data tape which is fine for AVCHD and finished projects but I am now thinking of upgrading to maybe LTO5 ( to get some backwards compatibility with the lots of LTO3 tapes I have ). I still have no vision of 4K output it is still for cropping, that is my interest, so will be normal 1920x1080 or DVD !!! . WIll be interested to see what comes in the next few months. Downscaled AX1 is better than any of my current cameras and reminds me completely of the introduction of HDV.

Ron Evans

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...................
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...
Dave - as far as different framerates go, it can't be said too many times that as far as storage goes the key fact is that it depends whether you're talking about interframe or intraframe codecs.

If it's interframe, then datarates and file sizes do NOT scale up proportionally with framerate. Compared to 30p, the filesize for 60p is not twice as big (as may be supposed) - a more likely figure is somewhere around 10-20% larger. (Keeping quality and all else equal.)

The reason is that it's typical to keep the TIME INTERVAL between I frames constant, which may be typically 1/2 sec. Hence, for 30p, you'll get 14 difference frames between the I frames, for 60p you'll get 29. But the I frames are far larger in file size than difference frames - and you still only get two per second - hence the overall increase in coded data rate is much less than the doubling that may be expected.

(The above is oversimplified, but it illustrates the reasoning.)

That's why, for AVC-HD, 30p gets coded at 24Mbs, 60p gets coded at 28Mbs for equivalent quality - not the 48Mbs that may be thought.

Move into the high end world, such as XAVC with intra-frame compression, and that's when you have to consider a fixed amount of data per frame. So with intra-frame compression, then yes, double the framerate and you will double the file size.

I think that's the thing that's amazing - how much better the AX100 looks, even downsampled compared to other video cameras. The RX10 looked (and still does look) very very good... yet the AX100 bests it. I don't think any of us were quite expecting that much difference...

It's similar to the SD to HDV transition, that was about 4x plus or minus increase in resolution, and we're going 4x over that (scary to think that 4K is 16x more pixels than good ol' SD!). And it DOES look good, which is why I suspect the adoption curve will be faster than HD. The effect of "looking through a window" is more addictive and attractive than one might expect.

I think that's where DVi needs a couple new forum areas, both under the "4K" banner, one for those of us using (or at least trying to) these new toys, and another area for the post "issues" and how to deal with the workflows!


My new "cheap" smartphone has a noticeably sharper and better screen than my "last years model"... consumers are going to expect better and better screens with higher resolutions (yep, even the "tiny" screens are going high rez), I know my old eyes certainly appreciate the improved resolutions!

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.

That's what they are saying and they are correct. That's because they understand the difference between SHARPNESS and DETAIL.

Pro camcorders often have two controls: Sharpness and Detail. The Sharpness control adds/subtracts to mid-frequency signal strength -- in other words the EDGES of objects. The Detail control adds/subtracts to high-frequency signal strength -- in other words object detail such as hair.

Since ACTUAL 4K resolution will not be visible at typical viewing distances, but your UHD buyer expects to see a significant increase in resolution -- the solution is to boost both Sharpness and Detail in a 4K consumer cameras. The reason to boost detail is a prosumer lens doesn't have enough MTF at the highest frequencies, so an electronic boost is used to compensate. Nothing new here -- this is SOP in the consumer world. (Like boom-boxes with upper bass boosted so buyers will think they offer real low-bass reproduction.)

Film and digital cinema cameras are exactly the opposite. Because of lens quality, sensor, and electronics design -- they deliver a smooth frequency response through the mid-range and into the high-frequencies.

CLARITY is close to what we mean when we talk about RESOLUTION. A picture is CLEAR when it shows reality without artificial enhancement AND WITHOUT ARTIFACTS -- things that should not be in the picture.

Artifacts come from both spatial and temporal aliasing. The latter are called motion judder and the wagon wheel effect. The former includes Moiré and ordinary aliasing. A flickering artifact -- dynamic spatial aliasing -- can occur when very fine detail is in motion as detail moves from one photocite to photocite.

Normally, a well designed OLPF prevents spatial aliasing. However, when a camera also takes photos the OLPF is set very high so photo resolution isn't compromised. But designers often set the OLPF too high because they know that many viewers will see the false detail as real detail. It makes the camera look like it has more resolution than it does. Obviously, this trick is used by consumer cameras. And, just as obviously, they should not be used by digital cinema cameras.

So just as digital cinema cameras don't add enhancements, they also take great pains to avoid introducing spatial artifacts. But, what about 24fps.

Our eyes sense motion judder on the basis of object edge hardness. When a camera applies edge enhancement there is no way to avoid visible motion judder. Thus, the "sharper" the camera the more visible judder. Digital cinema cameras -- and film -- don't have edge enhancement so motion judder is far less visible.

Of course, to some this makes their images seem soft. And, the first generation of DSLRs were to my eyes, painfully soft. Digital cinema cameras, both high-end and low-end, have overcome this problem. (Perhaps so will the new Sony and Panasonic DSLRs.)

Bottom-line you have a choice to make. What is the look you want. Slashcam, is correctly noting the AX100 does not deliver a cinema look. For those who don't want that look -- no problem. But, you should at least understand why you are getting the look you like. And, be aware that -- as I posted much earlier -- the cinema look is becoming the reference look for cameras.

And here we have another AX100 video, with just loads of real detail and no artifacts. Superb 'clarity'. ;)

As opposed to most AX100 videos, Billy Chiu shot this in a somewhat different setting. Very nice.

Be sure to choose the highest resolution:

http://youtu.be/tzh-jqhnjUA?hd=1

Since ACTUAL 4K resolution will not be visible at typical viewing distances, but your UHD buyer expects to see a significant increase in resolution -- the solution is to boost both Sharpness and Detail in a 4K consumer cameras.

Not entirely true. Actual observed 4K resolution is dependent on BOTH viewing distance and screen size. It's impossible to talk about one without the other. Larger screen sizes require a lesser viewing distance to see ACTUAL 4K detail. We need to state both to be accurate. So an 85" screen, viewed at typical viewing distances, will show actual 4K resolution. Smaller screens will require a closer viewing distance. A 55" UHD screen viewed at a typical viewing distance won't show true 4K resolution. Of course we can throw in the other variable, visual acuity.

What's obvious when you see the comparative videos between the AX100 and more expensive 4K cameras, is you're seeing more real DETAIL with the AX100. The legibility of things such as writing and fine details will not be made more legible by increasing 'apparent sharpness', but only by increasing the actual resolution of the camera. That's quite obvious in the comparison videos I've seen. So I don't really care what anyone calls it, but when one sees more DETAIL, that means the acquisition equipment has more resolution. It's really that simple.

I fully understand the difference between apparent sharpness & resolution and the AX100 is delivering more resolution, no matter what one thinks is happening to apparent sharpness.

This is what somewhat baffles me... I was reading another "preview" of the AX100, and the mention was made that the audio was somehow enhanced (sort of like the video is somehow "enhanced"...). The immediately following notation was that listeners thought it sounded better than similar samples from a (presumably) un-enhanced camera....

SO, if most viewers are seeing what they only IMAGINE is better detail and hearing what they only imagine is better audio (because apparently the manufacturer found some fairy dust that tricks people into seeing and hearing things), this somehow disqualifies the camera from "serious" use or consideration??

<insert head scratch here>

I realize there are "tricks" and enhancements, but either the sound is better or it's worse, either you can see small, finer details, of they are fuzzy... it's either one or the other.

I do respect that if there is undesirable image or audio degradation due to "enhancement", that is a bad thing, but I'm not seeing or hearing that... and I'm pretty sure my eyes haven't got fairy dust in them! I could use a system upgrade to 4K, but my 1080 is not "bad"... and artifacts shouldn't just magically vanish with downrezzing, right?

If sharp images are "bad" because we aren't used to them, OK, I'll buy that they border on "jarring", which may not be the desired artistic "effect", but can't one just back off to the 1080/60p/60mbps setting if you want it a little softer? Just a thought...

I realize there are "tricks" and enhancements, but either the sound is better or it's worse, either you can see small, finer details, of they are fuzzy... it's either one or the other.



Exactly. That's why I referenced the comparison videos. The ability to read a word that's legible in an AX100 clip and not being able to read it in a more expensive 4K 'cinema' camera clip (despite the fact that the framing on the cinema camera was tighter) shows the AX100 has greater resolving ability.

I too don't think this is the result of fairy dust, nor does this kind of picture quality disqualify it from serious use. Anyone that does disqualify it out of hand and glosses over its quality by dismissively calling it a 'nice consumer cam', does it at their own 'risk'. Some have reported that several movie studios have bought a bunch of these. So if that's the case, these studios are not naive enough to have dismissed it due to the 'Handicam' monicker. No, I don't expect they'll shoot a Hollywood blockbuster with them, but they may have some special use for this type of 4K cam. Hollywood is very innovative.

I learned a long time ago not to be brand loyal nor to dismiss any type of camera because of preconceived notions (or price, high or low). Unfortunately it seems that some can't get past the Handicam name. :)

Don't get me wrong, regardless of how stellar the AX100's picture, there are aspects of its flexibility and feature set (or lack thereof) that might disqualify it for the intended purposes of some.

I am so glad I don't fall in that category! :)

"<insert head scratch here>

I realize there are "tricks" and enhancements, but either the sound is better or it's worse, either you can see small, finer details, of they are fuzzy... it's either one or the other.

I do respect that if there is undesirable image or audio degradation due to "enhancement", that is a bad thing, but I'm not seeing or hearing that... and I'm pretty sure my eyes haven't got fairy dust in them! I could use a system upgrade to 4K, but my 1080 is not "bad"... and artifacts shouldn't just magically vanish with downrezzing, right?

If sharp images are "bad" because we aren't used to them, OK, I'll buy that they border on "jarring", which may not be the desired artistic "effect", but can't one just back off to the 1080/60p/60mbps setting if you want it a little softer? Just a thought..."


Better or worse are judgements made by actual experience or looking at measurements. Since folks have different likes and dislikes it should not be a surprise to find different reports in different reviews. Of course, some individuals are hired because there is respect for their opinions. (Your grandmother would not be a good person to ask about, for example, "red-push.")

What is good and bad tend to change over time -- opinion makers in the industry change how people think. Cinema is now in -- in part because companies are releasing lots of cinema products. And, as I posted, publications have a major role to play because they decide what is written about. But, sometimes individuals develop different tastes with experience.


Some artifacts only appear when provoked. That's why negative reports typically aren't worth much. You won't see RS if there is no motion.

Spatial artifacts do indeed disappear when an image downscaled. A filter is used that can removes tiny artifacts. Downscaling can also generate artifacts -- especially aliasing. HD to SD images tend to be full of aliasing unless done very well.

Compression data rate is not the way sharpness/detail is reduced. The circuits controlling the image look often are variable. Slashcom notes the AX100 does not have a Sharpness control. Sony wants the look to be the look. (They know pros often buy a cheaper camera and dial down Sharpness -- so they protect more expensive products.)

Every camera has fairy dust -- but at the high-end most produce universally accepted great images so they differ only in what might be called shooter taste. Moreover, there are dozens of adjustments that let a DP define a set of perfect -- for a project -- look. Lenses are also chosen by shooter taste.

Cinema is now in...

Steve, this is indeed a jaw-dropping statement and judging by your posts in this thread I conclude your complete fabrication is based on this wild assertion. What exactly do you mean? I remember when miniskirts were now in and we all knew they were in because ever female of child-bearing age was suddenly wearing one; it was an in-your-face phenomenon. Is everyone (forget the child-bearing age female cohort) doing cinema?

And to say cinema is 'now' in is to imply that 'just before' it wasn't. In my opinion this is quite misleading. Seems to me that cinema was in since the beginning of cinema with a small percentage of the population of people on the planet, and it continues to be so perhaps. When it comes to moving pictures my gut feel is that TV is more 'in' than cinema and has been for quite a while, but I don't know for sure.

But let me put a word in your mouth - you mean surely that the so-called cinema 'look' is in. (Sorry to be so pedantic but seeking to understand and learn is what I'm on about here and there is a lot of lose talk going on here). Steve, the cinema look craze was taken to new highs by Panasonic with the introduction of the DVX100 and the huge promotion that went with it. I imagine you remember that. But it was only in with a very small number of folks, wanna-be film makers particularly, that chased that rainbow. I will agree that there are one or two camera operator smooth talkers self-promoting on the Internet who push the cinematic look, the 'filmic' if you can bring yourself to utter that non-word, and yes, some magazines make a point of following fashion even if the fashion is limited to a very small segment of the moving pictures creation world. They have to talk about something and the more obscure, ephemeral and impossible to define the better. Poetic help as does pretentious phraseology.

Now, if in fact you have data to support your claim then please share it with us. That would be 'awesome' (which just happens to be a word that is also in...and with a little bit of luck will soon be out, totally).

By the way, in the event you haven't noticed miniskirts are still in, which sometimes is a bad thing, and sometimes a very good thing indeed. I apologize; I have no data supporting that assertion but I do notice these things. Your mileage may differ :-).

Another minor observation, data-free of course, is that the FDR-AX100 look is becoming 'in' so fast it makes heads spin. Did you notice?

If you don't read publications and newsletters or go to NAB -- and are completely unaware of Blackmagic cameras, Digital Bolex, Kinefinity, and every high-end camera from Sony and Panasonic, you might not have noticed what's been going on for the last 5-years. I suspect you aren't aware because I posted the contents of the last issue of DV magazine and all features were on "cinema cameras." If you are still thinking of the DVX100 and film look -- you are way behind.

Cinema cameras shoot at 24fps and record RAW (Digital Negative) -- they don't capture video any more than a DSLR captures video photographs. They don't turn video into something that looks like film -- they capture a series of digital photographs just like DSLRs capture images that look like images captured from SLRs. The photographs are captured at 24fps.

Why is this so important? Because film captures the highest possible image quality. Period. But, film is very expensive -- way too expensive for the prosumer market. But, the new low-end cinema cameras start at $1000. They are now in our price range. Anyone can obtain film quality. That's why cinema -- in the context of video products -- is "in." As long as you think cinema cameras are for those few who want to make movies, you'll miss the point. Cinema cameras are for those who want to capture the highest quality media. That means those who shoot corporate events, weddings, commercials, CEO announcements, and PSAs, etc. Any time you are in bidding for a job. And, why not for your own home movies. My childhood was captured on film. Why is the idea that we can return to that practice so fought against?

Another point, because there's sure to be someone who posts "but I don't like the look from brand X cinema camera." These cameras capture RGB sensor data so they don't really have a specific look until YOU grade the data into an image you want. So when you see samples you are seeing someone's creation -- which I agree is almost always horrible. But really no worse than the look of movies created by Hollywood. The kids are copying the crapy look of what they see. But, that's no reason not too have the freedom to create.

I don't see how anyone who keeps-up with the industry doesn't know this. And, if you don't know, perhaps you should keep-up. In any case -- everyone is free to chose the video look -- even 8 megapixels of video-look.

And, there is another point that is missing. When people talk about 4K production they are not talking about 4K video cameras -- except in the ENG market where they don't yet exist -- they are talking about the 4K digital cinema cameras.

But to lash-out because others want to have their work have the quality of film is being way way defensive. To deny this revolution is happening is exactly what those who owned studios full of Beta SP equipment did when DV arrived. They ranted and raved that BetaSP was better and would be used for years. But, within a short while Beta SP stopped being covered as a news story. No more ads appeared. Beta and then Digital Beta were in a corner at NAB -- and then one year, it all simply went missing and no one noticed or cared.

I suppose at some point someone claimed of HD, "... here are one or two camera operator smooth talkers self-promoting on the Internet who push the cinematic look, the 'filmic' if you can bring yourself to utter that non-word, and yes, some magazines make a point of following fashion even if the fashion is limited to a very small segment of the moving pictures creation world. They have to talk about something and the more obscure, ephemeral and impossible to define the better. Poetic help as does pretentious phraseology."

Yet, today HD is norm. Strange how fast some folks forget history. You really should attend NAB and see for yourself what's going on in the industry. In fact, since the NAB press releases come-out on Monday I'm not going to bother with this topic anymore because anyone who is open minded can learn everything for themselves.

Just a little note about the audio - I did mention this when I had some time to compare the AX100 with the Z100 and a few other cameras (I threw in my EX1 as a 'ringer' too).

The audio from the AX100 seems to have a little EQ and compression applied to it, whereas the Z100 and EX1 sounded very neutral.

This was using the XLR bridge, and my Sanken COS-11 wired up to the talent. Sankens have a reputation for being quite 'flat', and that's what I heard on the EX1 and Z100. Interviews are often given a little EQ and compression to thicken up the sound, and this is exactly what I heard from the AX100's recorded audio.

The video was for Sony's internal training so I'm pretty sure I can't post it here.

Slashcam, is correctly noting the AX100 does not deliver a cinema look

This thread reminds me of those pointless Mac vs Pc discussions, we are talking about a 2k handicam that can do very sharp 4k and has about every functionality build in we where used to having back when normal "video" camera's still existed. All footage I have seen so far from this camera looks very impressive right out of the box, while most videos (sorry, I mean films), from the black magic pocket "cinema" camera I have seen all have that weird looking color that resembles no filmlook whatsoever, at least based on my experience watching a lot of films that actually find their way to the cinemascreen, instead of youtube or vimeo, only a handfull of users seem to know how to deal with raw footage but then again, give a ax100 to these same users and they probably will do some magic with it as well.

But what is a cinematic look anyway, if I have to believe slashcam it is not digitally sharpened footage, period. Back in the dvx100 days it was 25p, period. Actually "cinematic" footage has nothing to do with the camera, it's just a term to try to separate the amateurs from the wannabe pros, it's a term that creates "elite" groups that look down upon the "video" folks, you know the people that shoot their cats and backyards. One who does cinematic masters the real craft of filmmaking and it all starts with using the term cinema, without that word you are just messing around.

I watch a lot of movies, you know the real ones that make it onto the cinemascreen, I also watch a lot of aspiring filmmakers films online, that don't have the budget to push their way to the big screen, the first thing that comes to mind when I feel I have watched cinema is story, the second is story and the third is story, then comes the talent to visualize it in a way you as a viewer become a part of it. Those are just 2 small parts that make a movie feel like cinema but there is so much more to it.

Saying that less digitally sharpened footage is more like cinema is like holding a steeringwheel in your hand claiming you can build a car, I think we need to put things into perspective and remember we are talking about a handicam here, one, if used right and shown on the right (4k) screen and viewed from the right distance can look like nothing we have seen before.

1) Can you tell me if is possible to add to AX100 a Shoulder Strap?

2) I have just read this reviews about AX100:

"Just received the Sony FDRX100b 4K 2014 camcorder and it is HORRIBLE. Compared to Sony's excellent and newest (2012) Balanced Optical Steadyshot (used in my 2012 Sony HRD CX760v), the regular, OLDER Optical Steadyshot which the $2000 FDRX100b uses stinks and is inferior technology that does not work well. Sony's own info says regular Optical Steady shot is 13 times MORE SHAKY than their newer (2012), Balanced Optical Steadyshot. The shake is horrible compared to my Sony HRD CX760v, which utilizes the newer Balanced Optical Steadyshot. The color is also off compared to the 760, the zoom is much slower and less controllable, it has trouble focusing where the 760 does not. I just compared the 2 set on auto and the issues mentioned are clearly obvious. This 1st generation 4k is not ready for prime time. I'm very disappointed and surprised with Sony about this. I also don't understand why Sony changed the hot shoe door from a slide in body to a fold over (also on the 760) which is waiting to snap off or cut your fingers. Back this $2000 brick goes to Amazon. Waste of money".

Is he crazy or you too share his tought?

Is he crazy or you too share his tought?

I do own a cx730 and a rx10 and I too have noticed that Sony has traded in some of the excellent features the cx730 had which might have been a design limitation , we"ll never know I guess. The zoom on my cx730, if handled with care can be as smooth as butter and very controllable in terms of speed, with the rx10 the zoomspeed is exceptionally slow, almost up to the point where it becomes unusable in any run and gun environment and I also have noticed small "jitters" in the image when shooting in the standard ois mode, when you use active mode the camera crops a part of the image and it does a better job then to smooth out shake, but not as good as my magic eyeball cx730.

An interesting read on a Sunday :) (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2QZ5Y1HGDVTLD/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&asin=B00HNJWVIA&cdForum=Fx3MFFOIGYB9VIQ&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx3NO70J0XSLDOF&store=photo#wasThisHelpful) which is the thread with the user review that was refered to, it already shifted to a "Have fun with your 1080 footage" kind of comments, I"m just waiting for "someone" to chime in saying it's not cinematic ;)

I understand you.
Can you tell me if is possible to add a Shoulder Strap to AX100?

Hi

This thread reminds me of those pointless Mac vs Pc discussions, we are talking about a 2k handicam that can do very sharp 4k and has about every functionality build in we where used to having back when normal "video" camera's still existed. All footage I have seen so far from this camera looks very impressive right out of the box, while most videos (sorry, I mean films), from the black magic pocket "cinema" camera I have seen all have that weird looking color that resembles no filmlook whatsoever, at least based on my experience watching a lot of films that actually find their way to the cinemascreen, instead of youtube or vimeo, only a handfull of users seem to know how to deal with raw footage but then again, give a ax100 to these same users and they probably will do some magic with it as well.

But what is a cinematic look anyway, if I have to believe slashcam it is not digitally sharpened footage, period. Back in the dvx100 days it was 25p, period. Actually "cinematic" footage has nothing to do with the camera, it's just a term to try to separate the amateurs from the wannabe pros, it's a term that creates "elite" groups that look down upon the "video" folks, you know the people that shoot their cats and backyards. One who does cinematic masters the real craft of filmmaking and it all starts with using the term cinema, without that word you are just messing around.

I watch a lot of movies, you know the real ones that make it onto the cinemascreen, I also watch a lot of aspiring filmmakers films online, that don't have the budget to push their way to the big screen, the first thing that comes to mind when I feel I have watched cinema is story, the second is story and the third is story, then comes the talent to visualize it in a way you as a viewer become a part of it. Those are just 2 small parts that make a movie feel like cinema but there is so much more to it.

Saying that less digitally sharpened footage is more like cinema is like holding a steeringwheel in your hand claiming you can build a car, I think we need to put things into perspective and remember we are talking about a handicam here, one, if used right and shown on the right (4k) screen and viewed from the right distance can look like nothing we have seen before.

You are right it is about the story, but if that was 100% the case we wouldn't be having a discussion about HD let alone 4K as we would still be watching hand-cranked black and white film, for the story :)

You are also correct about this being a Handicam, it is for consumers and will look stunning, the problem is the discussion has shifted by some people to this particular consumer camcorder being more than the sum of it's parts.

This is more of a professional forum where professional gear is discussed. Yes consumer camcorders often come into play in professional situations, look at how many Go Pro's are used for TV work and look great. Consumer camcorders are smaller, more discrete, cheaper (for multi camera shots) and do produce good enough video in most cases. Do we think Steven Spielberg is going to use all AX100's on his next movie? No. What are most indie productions going to shoot video on? Quite likely the GH4 will be used quite a bit.

I think the cinema/film look is just in reference to the fact that once a camera has made the footage look like video, i.e.sharpness added, you can't undo that, so it always looks like video, so if you wanted to tell a story in the way film does, you couldn't use the AX100. But hey this is okay, this isn't what the AX100 is for.

Regards

Phil

I think the cinema/film look is just in reference to the fact that once a camera has made the footage look like video, i.e.sharpness added, you can't undo that, so it always looks like video, so if you wanted to tell a story in the way film does, you couldn't use the AX100. But hey this is okay, this isn't what the AX100 is for.

Regards

Phil

It is clear to me that Sony intended this camera as a consumer camera to support the sale of 4K to the masses and to allow the people who have bought their 4K TV's to create their own movies. The whole point of 4K is to create the " looking through the window" effect. One that I want too. Not a film look. I think that 30P is a technology /cost/marketing issue and if they could it would have been 60P. The AX100 gives this wonderful image, has good depth of field for a consumer and can produce a shallow depth of field when needed. Winner.

Will it appeal to the small number of people who want to control every aspect of recording ( and can't really afford the camera that will do this !!!) NO. For what it does it is not far off the cost that Sony have used for their top consumer Handycam for years, the CX900 is almost exactly in line with previous pricing with both returning to a lot more manual control and LCD indications than in the past 10 years ( since the Hi8 models) .

Ron Evans

Steve, this is indeed a jaw-dropping statement and judging by your posts in this thread I conclude your complete fabrication is based on this wild assertion. What exactly do you mean? I remember when miniskirts were now in and we all knew they were in because ever female of child-bearing age was suddenly wearing one; it was an in-your-face phenomenon. Is everyone (forget the child-bearing age female cohort) doing cinema?

Precisely. It appears because the latest issue of one publication had all/most of its articles related to cinema and cinema cameras and because a poster can name a handful of cinema cameras, that cinema is now 'in'. Never mind the countless non-cinema cameras that are out there, currently being sold and still very popular. Never mind other publications that are not speaking of only cinema. But ok, let's make the assumption that it's true, so what? Does that mean we are all supposed to join the line, rank & file, and follow the 'masses'? Does that mean that the look of 'non-cinema' is now crude, ugly and something to be avoided at all costs? Nonsense.

There's one thing that I've noted time and time again among the cinema crowd and that's a turning down of the nose to anyone pursuing a look that isn't 'cinema'. Where did this condescending, non-tolerant attitude come from? It's there gentlemen and it's undeniable. How do I know? Because I see these same guys taking over and derailing every thread where cameras like the AX100 are discussed. They shower us with endless proselytizing, almost cult-like in manner. Talk about being threatened!!! Just look here! It's happened again.

Here's another example. One of our posters here who owns a BMPCC (and now an AX100), is one of the 'out crowd' that likes the look of reality. He mentioned to me how he fine tuned his BMPCC grading so as to create a video with the 'look of reality', a doc-style appearence from his footage. When he posted an example in one of the forums, the video was immediately met with disdain. "Ugh, it looks like video" was the common refrain. Yet the constantly posted 'cinema look' videos that had inane colors and gradings from Mars were met with 'WOW, that's beautiful'...and so it goes.

Yes, some of us remember having some of our childhood shot on film. So what? Some of us remember B&W TVs with rabbit ears. So what? Does that mean I want to go back to that look? Does that mean I should ditch my plans for a UHD TV this year and search Ebay for an Admiral B&W TV? Technology moves forward and up until recently the yardstick of video technology was how close we could get to that look of reality, the looking through the window image that most of us were seeking. That was the nirvana. The image that some of the cinema cameras create (and yes, I know, we are told you can get whatever image you like from them...uh huh...excuse me while I spend the rest of the day grading...time is money) look to me, shall I say "Retro". Again, if that's what you like, great, but don't tell us why the equipment we're using is any less good because it wasn't designed to produce that kind of imagery. Nonsense.

So personally, I could care less whether cinema is in or out. If you like that look that's great, but please don't look down on us because we prefer the ultra resolution of the AX100 and its through the window look. Just leave this thread and venture to those that you actually want to be a part of.

As long as you think cinema cameras are for those few who want to make movies, you'll miss the point. Cinema cameras are for those who want to capture the highest quality media. That means those who shoot corporate events, weddings, commercials, CEO announcements, and PSAs, etc. Any time you are in bidding for a job. And, why not for your own home movies. My childhood was captured on film. Why is the idea that we can return to that practice so fought against?



I find the wedding & corporate event allusion particularly interesting. We are constantly told how the 'consumer' (meaning we who prefer a look produced by the AX100) prefers the 'video look'. Yet the brides and many in the corporate world, when it comes to video, are those same consumers! So why would these people, who we were just told prefer the look of video, be sold on the soft cinema-look? Is this a 'heads I win tales you lose' kind of thing?

All footage I have seen so far from this camera looks very impressive right out of the box, while most videos (sorry, I mean films), from the black magic pocket "cinema" camera I have seen all have that weird looking color that resembles no filmlook whatsoever, at least based on my experience watching a lot of films that actually find their way to the cinemascreen, instead of youtube or vimeo, only a handfull of users seem to know how to deal with raw footage but then again, give a ax100 to these same users and they probably will do some magic with it as well.



Precisely! What I find so interesting is that the same guys that preach to us about the difference between sharpness and resolution (as if we didn't already know this) are the same ones that simply can't bring themselves to say that yes, the AX100 is producing the most resolute (NOT over-sharpened) video today. It seems that Slashcam felt that way. You may not like it's 'looking through the window' imagery, but to deny it produces this is just silly. Again, we are seeing resolution, not an overly sharpened picture. The ability to see DETAILS is the result of resolution, not over-sharpening which works exactly the opposite.

One poster couldn't jump on the AX100 fast enough, illustrating the 'definitive proof' of artifacts seen in frame grabs, only to find out later it was an editing error. Oops. We have another guy that's never seen the AX100 output on a large screen UHD TV, yet he is an expert in all of the foibles of this output on 4K and goes from forum to forum saying so. Amazing! I've actually seen the output on a large screen UHD TV as have a few lucky owners and he's wrong. But hey, what does actual experience have to do with anything? Never let the facts get in the way of opinions.

It is clear to me that Sony intended this camera as a consumer camera to support the sale of 4K to the masses and to allow the people who have bought their 4K TV's to create their own movies. The whole point of 4K is to create the " looking through the window" effect. One that I want too. Not a film look. I think that 30P is a technology /cost/marketing issue and if they could it would have been 60P. The AX100 gives this wonderful image, has good depth of field for a consumer and can produce a shallow depth of field when needed. Winner.

Ron Evans

Precisely!

Now, I wonder if we "Neanderthals" can get back to actually discussing the AX100 or will the cinema crowd continue to derail this thread?

Pardon me if this has already been asked. Have anyone been editing their footage in Adobe Premiere Pro CC? I am editing my 4K footage and I am playing around with the best export settings. I created a project 3840X2160 and I am exporting as 1080P (I don't have 4K TV or monitor yet). My export settings are H.264 Level 5.1 and I am using CBR @ 60Mbs. Does that sound about right? I am playing these files through my network to 1080P TV and also playing them on my Samsung Pro tablet (Looks great).

If anyone would like to suggest other settings for export (Youtube, Vimeo) that would be great.

Thanks in advance!
Joe

Hi

It is clear to me that Sony intended this camera as a consumer camera to support the sale of 4K to the masses and to allow the people who have bought their 4K TV's to create their own movies. The whole point of 4K is to create the " looking through the window" effect. One that I want too. Not a film look. I think that 30P is a technology /cost/marketing issue and if they could it would have been 60P. The AX100 gives this wonderful image, has good depth of field for a consumer and can produce a shallow depth of field when needed. Winner.

Will it appeal to the small number of people who want to control every aspect of recording ( and can't really afford the camera that will do this !!!) NO. For what it does it is not far off the cost that Sony have used for their top consumer Handycam for years, the CX900 is almost exactly in line with previous pricing with both returning to a lot more manual control and LCD indications than in the past 10 years ( since the Hi8 models) .

Ron Evans

I couldn't agree more. Technical limitations and getting to market first has given us 24/30fps in 4K, much like 1080P arrived as 60i. I think if H264 Level 5.1 did interlacing these first generation camcorders would be 4K at 60i.

Regards

Phil

Pardon me if this has already been asked. Have anyone been editing their footage in Adobe Premiere Pro CC? I am editing my 4K footage and I am playing around with the best export settings. I created a project 3840X2160 and I am exporting as 1080P (I don't have 4K TV or monitor yet). My export settings are H.264 Level 5.1 and I am using CBR @ 60Mbs. Does that sound about right? I am playing these files through my network to 1080P TV and also playing them on my Samsung Pro tablet (Looks great).

If anyone would like to suggest other settings for export (Youtube, Vimeo) that would be great.

Thanks in advance!
Joe

Joe, I don't use Adobe, but it's safe to say you don't want to encode your video at a bitrate less than that produced by the AX100. The camera's bitrate is actually somewhat variable and during complex scenes can peak in the 70Mbps range.

Joe, I don't use Adobe, but it's safe to say you don't want to encode your video at a bitrate less than that produced by the AX100

Ken, the camera probably does not have a 2 pass encoding option:-) Joe, Adobe Media Encoder, (which is probably what your using through Premiere), does. So bitrate isn't the only factor. There is an Adobe forum here under "Cross Platform Solutions" ( I believe that's its name) towards the bottom of the forums list page and you might get a better answer there. Also, now that NAB is starting up, info about PPro and 4K XAVC and XAVC-S should start showing up a lot more.

And if you look into the Media Encoder settings, it does have presets for Vimeo, You Tube, etc. Although for 4k release, new presets might have to be created.

Have anyone been editing their footage in Adobe Premiere Pro CC?] My export settings are H.264 Level 5.1 and I am using CBR @ 60Mbs.

After years of not using Premiere Pro I've found it is near perfect for XAVC as there is no time wasting conversion to Proxy or Intermediate files. I'm editing right off the SDXC card.

For 4K exports to YouTube for "professional" purposes YouTube recommends 270Mbps. That's 6X the 50Mbps they recommend for HD. (Which I do use.) Seems crazy high to me, but when I'm testing for quality, I'm going to do as they say. (I also use x264 not Apple's h.264 encoder.)

I also export using ProRes 422 HQ (220Mbps) which they accept. Later I'll drop this to ProRes 422.

YouTube will automatically generate different frame sizes for you so there is no reason not to send them UHD.

BE SURE TO CLICK THE "WATCH ON YOUTUBE" BUTTON AND SELCT "4K" AND TRY "720."

You can find a movie edited with Premiere Pro at: AX100 edited using Premiere Pro CS6 under OS X - YouTube

There is a longer movie from FCP X that is a test for RS and other artifacts at:

AX100 Rolling Shutter and Motion Judder Test - YouTube

No attempt was made to avoid RS so the amount shown here is about as bad as it gets under normal shooting.

As far as artifacts -- look for motion judder, stutters, twinkling lights, and "vibrating haze" on bushes and tree leaves.

Everything was shot at 24p with a 1/48th shutter.

There's a sample of the AX100's low-rez mp4 at: Sony AX100's 1280x720p (Dual Record) directly from camera - YouTube

Looks very good, could certainly be uploaded to any internet service.

Are you copying you h.264 back to an SDXC card and playing it your AX100?

2) I have just read this reviews about AX100:

"Just received the Sony FDRX100b 4K 2014 camcorder and it is HORRIBLE. Compared to Sony's excellent and newest (2012) Balanced Optical Steadyshot (used in my 2012 Sony HRD CX760v), the regular, OLDER Optical Steadyshot which the $2000 FDRX100b uses stinks and is inferior technology that does not work well. Sony's own info says regular Optical Steady shot is 13 times MORE SHAKY than their newer (2012), Balanced Optical Steadyshot. The shake is horrible compared to my Sony HRD CX760v, which utilizes the newer Balanced Optical Steadyshot. The color is also off compared to the 760, the zoom is much slower and less controllable, it has trouble focusing where the 760 does not. I just compared the 2 set on auto and the issues mentioned are clearly obvious. This 1st generation 4k is not ready for prime time. I'm very disappointed and surprised with Sony about this. I also don't understand why Sony changed the hot shoe door from a slide in body to a fold over (also on the 760) which is waiting to snap off or cut your fingers. Back this $2000 brick goes to Amazon. Waste of money".

Is he crazy or you too share his tought?

I can answer this as I used an NX30 heavily for 2 years (similar to the 760), and just sold it as I'm using the AX100 now. I've only used the AX100 a little and not on any official video shoot yet, but here's my thoughts so far:

1) There's no question that balanced optical steady shot is awesome, I don't think anyone will deny that. It does have two issues though, one is that as far as I know it can only work with small sensors which is why so far it's only on the 760/NX30. Second is that you can't use wide conversion lenses with balanced steady shot enabled, you have to disable it otherwise you get vignetting. Another more minor thing is that balanced steadyshot reduces your field of view a bit.

2) I disagree on his comments about color, in my side to side comparisons I found color more accurate on the AX100, and I found the AX100's white balance to be quicker and more accurate as well.

3) I can't comment on zoom as I never use zoom.

4) The 760/NX30 will focus quicker on a subject, but so far it seems to be more error prone than the AX100. This was an issue I had with the 760/NX30 on many shoots where it had two focus quirks, one is sometimes it would do a complete refocus in the middle of filming so everything got totally blurry then sharp again (never could figure out why it did that), and second sometimes it would ignore the subject in the middle of the screen and instead focus on some object in the background because it had higher contrast. I haven't noticed these two focus quirks yet with the AX100 but I do need more time with the camera to be sure this has been solved.

5) I believe the reason they changed the hot shoe cover is that the old one could cause noise that would get picked up by the mic.


Regarding the "cinema look" etc that seems to keep coming up, I really will never understand why there is a wrong way or a right way to film. It's like looking at a painting that someone made and saying "yeah that's wrong". It's their painting, how can it be wrong? The same with filming, as far as I know it's an art form and people want whatever look they want. If they want green flesh stones and 7fps then so be it. I remember doing lots of research on what was considered "correct" when I started filming ages ago, then quickly noting how I could find countless movies that totally violated all those "rules". That's because it's not about rules, it's about getting a look you want. I don't see how there can be a right or wrong when dealing with an art form.

[QUOTE=Peter Siamidis;1840239
4) The 760/NX30 will focus quicker on a subject, but so far it seems to be more error prone than the AX100. This was an issue I had with the 760/NX30 on many shoots where it had two focus quirks, one is sometimes it would do a complete refocus in the middle of filming so everything got totally blurry then sharp again (never could figure out why it did that), and second sometimes it would ignore the subject in the middle of the screen and instead focus on some object in the background because it had higher contrast. I haven't noticed these two focus quirks yet with the AX100 but I do need more time with the camera to be sure this has been solved.

[/QUOTE]

I find this with my CX700 and NX30 too . For project shoots I use manual focus and use the spot focus feature that is very good and I wish was on my NX5U and AX1. A nice fast way of setting focus on the thing you want in focus. Not mentioned too much but if the AX100 is like all the other Sony's I have then auto exposure is too high and always needs to be offset with - AE shift a little. At least -0.25EV in most cases and for me in the theatre more like -1.0EV with the dark set backgrounds. Even shooting the family with the NX30U ( yes the stabilizer is incredible ) I have AE set at -0.5 most of the time.

Ron Evans

2) I disagree on his comments about color, in my side to side comparisons I found color more accurate on the AX100, and I found the AX100's white balance to be quicker and more accurate as well.


Pete, I've also been pleasantly surprised by the white balance. I've found it very accurate in a variety of shooting situations. I do think that this is not the typical 'in-your-face' Sony color that appears on many of their cameras. So people looking for that might find the AX100 color just a bit 'tame'.

But I find it saturated where it needs to be and 'tame' where the colors themselves are tame.

As for the OIS, it's better than my RX10, but not as good as the best I've used over the years. I'm finding the autofocus quite good too and better than some of the prior Sonys I've had.

Regarding that review on Amazon, I think most readers would know that's an outlier and does not reflect in any manner, any owner's opinion of the cam on any forum I've visited. There's always someone like that.

Are you copying you h.264 back to an SDXC card and playing it your AX100?

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your settings and examples. I have not tried copying the files back to the card and playing on the AX100 itself. I will have to try this.

Joe

Joe, I don't use Adobe, but it's safe to say you don't want to encode your video at a bitrate less than that produced by the AX100. The camera's bitrate is actually somewhat variable and during complex scenes can peak in the 70Mbps range.

Hi Ken,

I think I will try VBR 60Mbs. The 50 Mbs CBR looked great on my TV.

Joe

Ken, the camera probably does not have a 2 pass encoding option:-) Joe, Adobe Media Encoder, (which is probably what your using through Premiere), does. So bitrate isn't the only factor. There is an Adobe forum here under "Cross Platform Solutions" ( I believe that's its name) towards the bottom of the forums list page and you might get a better answer there. Also, now that NAB is starting up, info about PPro and 4K XAVC and XAVC-S should start showing up a lot more.

And if you look into the Media Encoder settings, it does have presets for Vimeo, You Tube, etc. Although for 4k release, new presets might have to be created.

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the advice. I do use the presets, but the presets have a very low Mbs bit rate and I wanted to see what everyone else is using.

I did find that the clips play well in Premiere and seem to be easy to work with and did not take as long as a I thought to encode.

Joe

Hi Steve,

I have not tried copying the files back to the card and playing on the AX100 itself. I will have to try this.

Joe

Joe, I don't think you'll have success. I've never been able to copy files back to any AVCHD camera due to their unique file structure. I think that's true of the AX100 too.

Lens click....


For all the other AX1100 owners. Does your lens "click"?

Mine seems to adjust itself with a very slight "click" on power up. Then,....exactly 7 seconds after power off there is another "click" sound.

This happens on every single power up and shutdown. (including the exact 7 seconds shut down timing every time)

Does yours do it too? (hoping to find an answer soon...my last possible return day is Wednesday)

CT

Do you think Cam Caddie Scorpion EX is useful with AX100? I never used handycam and I'd like to clear my ideas.
This is the link: Amazon.com: Cam Caddie Scorpion EX: Electronics (http://www.amazon.com/Cam-Caddie-0CC-0100-EX-Scorpion-EX/dp/B005CTN132/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1396784616&sr=1-2&keywords=Cam+Caddie+Scorpion)
Some users tell it is useful as for handling as for balancing and stabilizing a handycam like AX100 because vibrations reverberate on the handle.
I'd like to use it for to make documentaries in my trips.

Lens click....


For all the other AX1100 owners. Does your lens "click"?

Mine seems to adjust itself with a very slight "click" on power up. Then,....exactly 7 seconds after power off there is another "click" sound.

This happens on every single power up and shutdown. (including the exact 7 seconds shut down timing every time)

Does yours do it too? (hoping to find an answer soon...my last possible return day is Wednesday)

CT

Yup, mine does the same thing Cliff. Yours is fine.

Does anyone have any examples of a 1080 clip that was shot in camera from the AX100, not one that was downrezzed from 4k?

Here is one 1080 60p
FDR-AX100 Jumping spiders 1080 60p - YouTube

And 4K
FDR-AX100 Jumping spiders 4K - YouTube

Hi

Thanks for the YouTube clips unfortunately YouTube downgrades everything to 30fps. Also to get a true comparison on YouTube the 1080P clip would need upscaling to 4K then uploaded, this is so we can watch the 4K stream downsized to 1080P which forces the stream to be a much higher bit-rate than at the 1080P setting.

Is it possible to upload these to Vimeo then we can download the originals?

Regards

Phil

Info about Audio-in for an external microphone

When I will get my AX100 I'm thinking I will buy an external microphone. But on the pictures I don't see Audio-in connection (3,5 mm stereo jack). On a picture I see headphone conection only. Where is the connection for an external microphone?

I'd like to buy a Sennheiser MKE 400 microphone but I'm afraid I will waste money because AX100 cuts audio frequency band.
Some info please?

page 16 from the manual ...

http://666kb.com/i/cnbupjn9ywn6i07s6.gif

Hi Everyone,

I've been searching all over for the answer to this question. Right now I'm actually looking more at the CX-900 over the AX-100, mainly because I don't see myself shooting in 4K anytime soon in real world situations, however tempting it may be. In any case, I posted it here because they are pretty much the same camera, with and without 4K.

I have a pair of Sony PJ710's that I use during wedding ceremonies and receptions, where light is usually on the low side. (The PJ710 is basically a CX730/760/790/NX30 in case you didn't know... uses the same 1/2.88" sensor)

My question is how does the low-light image quality of a AX-100/CX-900 compare to the PJ710 line? It would seem as if the 1" sensor on the 100/900 would fair better, but is this necessarily true? I'm taking about shooting in 1080, 24fps, auto shutter.

If anybody has a comparison or some info, please let me know. Thank you!

page 16 from the manual ...
http://666kb.com/i/cnbupjn9ywn6i07s6.gif

I never knew that a microphone jack has to be put into headphone connection. There is a different impedance (ohm). For this reason I have asked if is buying Sennheiser MKE 400 microphone is a waste of money. Does anybody can give me some info please?

I never knew that a microphone jack has to be put into headphone connection. There is a different impedance (ohm). For this reason I have asked if is buying Sennheiser MKE 400 microphone is a waste of money. Does anybody can give me some info please?

It does NOT go in the same place. There are separate connectors for headphone and microphone. They each have their own little door too (and btw, headphone is an output and microphone is an input).

It does NOT go in the same place. There are separate connectors for headphone and microphone. They each have their own little door too (and btw, headphone is an output and microphone is an input).

On the picture of Sony AX100 I don't see the input for the microphone.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/236960998/Sony%20AX100.jpg

Adriano, i understand your communication difficulties, but for pete's sake, he circled and highlighted the microphone port for you, and regardless, it HAS a microphone port, so what exactly is it that you're still asking about?

I never knew that a microphone jack has to be put into headphone connection. There is a different impedance (ohm). For this reason I have asked if is buying Sennheiser MKE 400 microphone is a waste of money. Does anybody can give me some info please?

Using an external microphone is usually a good idea. However, I've been very disappointed with the MKE400 I bought a few years ago. I'd advise you to listen to it very carefully before parting with any cash. Try the Rode equivalents too. At the very least you need very good wind protection for it. The silly little "basket" Senn sell is of little use, and wind noise sounds particularly unpleasant on this little mic.

The normal recommendations (Rode NTG1, Senn K6+ME66, etc.) are awkward choices too, since they are a bit big for this little cam. and require shock-mounts, phantom power and an XLR interface box (e.g. Beechtek). A Rode NTG2 (battery powered), a short XLR-to-mini-jack cable (which won't be "balanced"), Rycote Softie and a medium-size shock-mount might be workable...?

On the picture of Sony AX100 I don't see the input for the microphone.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/236960998/Sony%20AX100.jpg

You know, you can use the internet and search? You look at one picture and one side of the camera only for the mic port? You do not believe three posters, at least one of whom owns the camera, who tell you it has a microphone port? I do not think your problem is language.

Here is link to a Sony web site that has all the views. You will see that the mic port is on the other side, and you can attach the mic without opening the lcd (good).

4K Camcorder with 1" sensor - FDRAX100/B Review - Sony US (http://store.sony.com/4k-camcorder-with-1-sensor-zid27-FDRAX100/B/cat-27-catid-All-Advanced-Camcorders)

Just write again if you need instruction on how to choose the picture on that page, or how to read the spec sheet (if you can't look at the picture), which says the camera has a mic input.

@ Adriano Moroni

go here => Sony : FDR-AX100E : FDR-AX100E : Bedienungsanleitungen (http://www.sony.at/support/de/content/cnt-man/FDR-AX100E/list) and scroll to "Italienisch"
and load down the manual in your native language

on (the same page 16 as in the picture from the english manual, linked in post #941)
you can see the under point 8 the >Presa (microfono) (PLUG IN POWER)<

following the blue lines on ..... http://666kb.com/i/cnc6vknvv4w04cz8m.gif

Beechtek). A Rode NTG2 (battery powered), a short XLR-to-mini-jack cable (which won't be "balanced"), Rycote Softie and a medium-size shock-mount might be workable...?

I don't like to use a short short XLR-to-mini-jack cable. I have noticed there is a Rode VideoMic Pro with 3,5mm jack cable. Do you think it is a good choise?
Amazon.com: Rode VideoMic Pro VMP Shotgun Microphone: Electronics (http://www.amazon.com/Rode-VideoMic-VMP-Shotgun-Microphone/dp/B004K8WPUQ/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1396995816&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=VIDEOMIC+PRO+Microphone+CARDIOIDE)
Thanks