This Sony mic may suit you as there is no cable needed as it plugs into the camera directly. There are other Sony mics that also plug into the multi interface shoe as well. Stereo Microphone - Handycam Accessories Sony Store - Sony CA (http://store.sony.ca/stereo-microphone-zid31-ECMXYST1M/cat-31-catid-All-Advanced-Camcorders?_t=pfm%3Dproduct_cross_sell%26pfmvalue%3D31-ECMXYST1M)


Ron Evans

On the picture of Sony AX100 I don't see the input for the microphone.


Wrong side. It's on the other side, up next to the lens, behind a little door.

The headphone jack is the one in the picture (bottom, rear).

--Darin

This Sony mic may suit you as there is no cable needed as it plugs into the camera directly. There are other Sony mics that also plug into the multi interface shoe as well. Stereo Microphone - Handycam Accessories Sony Store - Sony CA (http://store.sony.ca/stereo-microphone-zid31-ECMXYST1M/cat-31-catid-All-Advanced-Camcorders?_t=pfm%3Dproduct_cross_sell%26pfmvalue%3D31-ECMXYST1M)

Ron, thanks for your suggestion.
Can that Sony microphone also be used in other non Sony Cameras? Otherwise it is not very good to purchase it.

Ron, thanks for your suggestion.
Can that Sony microphone also be used in other non Sony Cameras? Otherwise it is not very good to purchase it.

Hi Adriano

here the link to italian manual of the camcorder http://download.sony-europe.com/pub/manuals/consumer/FDRAX100_CX900_HG_IT.pdf

Ugo

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

OFFICIAL Samsung 4k HU8550 and HU9000 thread - Page 10 (http://www.avsforum.com/t/1522081/official-samsung-4k-hu8550-and-hu9000-thread/270#post_24582985)



Ken,

I saw your post on AVS Forum on the Samsung HU8550. This will prob be the 4K TV I'll be getting if the Vizio's turn out to be subpar. What was your output workflow settings, did you just export to 4K at 60mbps?

Derrick, I actually put my edited project on the 2014 9000 series, the curved 65" UHD Samsung that BB is now showing.

Using Edius 7, I simply exported as .mp4 @60Mbps.

Hello, can you tell me how much is good the audio of AX100? I'm thinking to buy Shure VP83 LensHopper microphone. It is the shortest and lightest among good microphones. But I'm afraid it will be too much big for AX100 and I'm afraid it will lose its balance. I need to record in wild enviroments and create more sound pathos (rainforest sounds and indigenous peoples songs). What is your thoughts?

According to Sony docs -- the manual gain control does NOT work when a mic is plugged-in. I would buy a Sony mic built for the AX100.

Sound quality from the built in is quite good -- other than wind noise.

Derrick, I actually put my edited project on the 2014 9000 series, the curved 65" UHD Samsung that BB is now showing.

Using Edius 7, I simply exported as .mp4 @60Mbps.


Thanks Ken.

Hello, can you tell me how much is good the audio of AX100? I'm thinking to buy Shure VP83 LensHopper microphone. It is the shortest and lightest among good microphones. But I'm afraid it will be too much big for AX100 and I'm afraid it will lose its balance. I need to record in wild enviroments and create more sound pathos (rainforest sounds and indigenous peoples songs). What is your thoughts?
I recommend that you search the All Things Audio (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-things-audio/) section of the forum for post related to the VP83, Rode VideoMic Pro and competing products. There's loads of good background, and good specific information already there. Search is your friend. There's nothing significantly different about the AX100's audio compared to many other high-spec little cameras. Sound advice for existing Sonys, or the Panasonic TM900 (for example) is almost certainly applicable to the AX100.

With all these little mics, beware of wind noise. If you will be working outside, your best choice is more likely to be the one that you can get the most effective wind muffler for, rather than the one with the very best sound quality in completely still air.

Dear Mark, Ok, you are right but how the microphone of Sony AX100 can be effective if it is on the top of the handycam? I think I will need an additional mic. Is it right?

I downloaded one of those AX100 UHD clips from youtube to try it in Sony Vegas Pro 12. Mediainfo says it's an AVC format, but what is the wrapper (and so, filename extension)? When I set it to mp4 Vegas doesn't load it at all; when I rename it to avc (at which point Windows doesn't have a thumbnail for it and displays it as generic file so I cannot use Mediainfo any more) VP12 allows to put it on the TL, but doesn't show picture! What's even more strange when I allow VP12 to set project properties basing on that clip, the framerate is set to 100.000 in the project (Mediainfo says 23.976 fps).

It's possible that I got some edited clip, encoded with some strange settings - so please tell me what the properties of this camera's native 2160p files are? Isn't the X-AVCS in the mxf wrapper?

You never know how someone uploaded a clip. It could have been done as a raw clip from the camera or in some different format from their editing program. The files created from the camera are simple .mp4 files.

XAVC-S is a mp4 wrapper. XAVC is a MXF wrapper. Almost all the files you will see on the internet will have been edited and other than Vegas Pro 12 most NLE's will not export XAVC-S so they will all be transcoded to some other format. Some on Vimeo may be unedited but I have not checked.

So the original files should be XAVC-S in a mp4 wrapper from the FDR-AX1 or FDR-AX100. From the PXW-Z100 they will be XAVC in a mxf wrapper. If they are anything else they will definitely have been edited. Most NLE's would then export an AVC/h264 file in mp4 wrapper as the closest.

Vegas Pro 12 correctly identifies all frame rates from my FDR-AX1 in mp4 wrapper and will render in XAVC-S or XAVC.

Ron Evans

As you know Ron, Edius 7 will also import the XAVC-S and export as .mp4 too.

Edius is my main editor I mainly use Vegas for audio and yes Edius will edit XAVC-S and XAVC and will export mp4 just like Vegas but it will not export XAVC-S or even XAVC. Yet . mp4 is a wrapper so can use all sorts of encoding. There is a whole range of encoders in both Vegas and Edius for mp4 with various image sizes, frame rates and data rates.

Ron Evans

"With all these little mics, beware of wind noise. If you will be working outside, your best choice is more likely to be the one that you can get the most effective wind muffler for, rather than the one with the very best sound quality in completely still air."

Totally, agree. I've had more audio ruined by wind than by bad mic audio quality. Foam doesn't work. You need a "dead cat" as provided with the Sony VG10.

The Sony ECM-XYST1M has the correct muffler. Only $180.

Stereo Microphone - Handycam Accessories Sony Store - Sony CA

Why Sony has has mounted a proprietary shoe? I have to put Sony mic only, no Rode, no Shure, etc. Why did Sony make it? Do some guys usea differet external mic? If you have mounted an external mic on AX100, which mic please?
Thanks

Remember this is a "consumer " camera and is set up for convenience. Not having any cable is better. If you want to use it in a professional manner you will have to allow for some adjustments. There is an XLR adapter you can buy and there is a new one being developed as well as another adapter for wireless product from Sony.

Ron Evans

I downloaded one of those AX100 UHD clips from youtube to try it in Sony Vegas Pro 12. Mediainfo says it's an AVC format, but what is the wrapper (and so, filename extension)? When I set it to mp4 Vegas doesn't load it at all; when I rename it to avc (at which point Windows doesn't have a thumbnail for it and displays it as generic file so I cannot use Mediainfo any more) VP12 allows to put it on the TL, but doesn't show picture! What's even more strange when I allow VP12 to set project properties basing on that clip, the framerate is set to 100.000 in the project (Mediainfo says 23.976 fps).

It's possible that I got some edited clip, encoded with some strange settings - so please tell me what the properties of this camera's native 2160p files are? Isn't the X-AVCS in the mxf wrapper?

This video can be downloaded and it is in the original format from the camera (straight from the camera). You have to be a (free) member of Vimeo.

The camera shoot XAVC S in an MP4 wrapper. It is just a high profile version of H.264. It also uses uncompressed PCM audio, but the Vimeo video has AAC to conform to the MP4 standard.

A Short Trip to NYC using the Sony FDR AX100 - 4K Video on Vimeo

Has anybody out there chroma key'd anything in 4k with their AX100?

I would imagine that the results would be extremely accurate. Especially if it were key'd in 4k with the intention of 1080 delivery.

Any thoughts?

Another nice video, Mark. What frame rate?

finally got to go shoot a little bit with it.

i have to say, i didn't enjoy it much. Yes it's a consumer camera, but it's a bit too consumer if you can make sense of that.

The image it puts out IS very nice, rolling shutter while pretty strong still doesn't affect a good majority of shooting situations.

Both screens are nice... 3 NDs are nice... a proper flip out screen is nice... looks nice and sharp

But i just don't like how it's set up, probably because of the touch screen. and where's the image control? seriously just preset scenes and a general cinematone on or off?

It's odd to me that this seems to be a definitively consumer orientated camera, with just a bare few pro-ish details, and still cost 2 grand. That, and the image stabilization is just peculiar:

For standard stabilizer, it tells you that's for shooting in "stable" conditions. ok... and the active one is of course digital and says it turns on CIZ. But i've had what seems to be a bug: i was using digital zoom turned on (different from CIZ or so it seems?) and then i turned on active stabilizer, ok it modified the digital zoom, but then for some reason it now won't do any digital zoom with active stabilizer turned on. i've tried turning them both on and off and for some reason it won't give back any digital zoom with active stabilizer turned on.

And while the standard stablizer is an improvement over the RX10, at longer focal lenghts it really shows a struggle, and don't even try it with any digital zoom in, for some reason it degrades exponentially. quite odd. and why did they put in an utterly pointless amount of digital zoom? up to 160x, needless to say it looks terrible, and considering that along with the nightshot mode, it seems this thing was designed by peeping toms.

Looking through the footage though is indeed impressive, no doubt about that. sharp and pretty, but really not much way to get a flatter image out of it

Hey guys a semi noob question, because the sensor is 14mp and presumably some of it used for digital image stabilization, does that mean that the minute you start using any zoom you are basically not filming 4k anymore since you are cropping the sensor more and more as you zoom? I ask because I was doing some tests with the camera today trying to extract as much shallow dof as I can with it which meant re-framing at different zoom levels and comparing, and I definitely noticed the image getting softer as I got further out on the zoom range. I wasn't sure if what I was seeing was the result of hitting limits on the camera's optics or if it was because at the longer range I wasn't really filming 4k anymore because of the sensor crop.

Darren, I never ever use any digital zoom on any camera. That's just asking for trouble. Now the clear image zoom that's engaged with Active IS is clearly (pun intended) better than the pure digital zoom.

The image degradation that occurs as you increasingly move into the full reach of the zoom, is very minor. Visible, but minor. Couple that with the fact that less resolution is needed when you're fully zoomed, and the impact of CIZ is not very significant. The nice benefit is that you now have a nicely detailed 18x zoom.

But true digital zoom? Stay away! :)

As for your glitch, did you try removing the battery and then reinserting?

@ Peter -
Part of the challenge of any zoom lens is that not all parts of the range will be equally sharp (sometimes the best parts of the range of zoom and iris adjustments are described as a "sweet spot"), but the optics should always cover the same image circle (sensor surface).

CIZ is supposed to do some fancy math to retain sharpness while "doubling" the zoom range, basically analyzing the optical pixels and intelligently guessing at what they would look like - generally seems to be fairly effective. Past that point (AKA digital zoom), you'll start to see increasing amounts of degradation as the fancy math can only do so much to recreate the pixels, and things start to get soft and fuzzy...

That's not to say that there aren't times when you "might" use that high zoom, but generally the degraded image will be sufficiently bad that you won't want to... better to get the proper distance to the subject...

There ARE cameras that use the approach of using a smaller center portion of a large megapixel sensor as a "zoom" (Panasonic uses this), but AFAIK, Sony is either optical or creative math (digital, post sensor).

Dave, do you get the sense that there is a portion of the zoom range after which digital starts? Some cameras have a marker that shows the dividing point between optical and digital. Or, is Clear Zoom always digital?

I've been watching other folks samples and it seems clear there is a point at which the image magnifies motion -- or your own jitter -- and rolling shutter becomes a problem. I would love to be able to set a zoom limit.

Looking at others work on the AX100 and BMPCC -- it seems the key to avoiding rolling shutter is never pan or zoom, keep it on a tripod, and let the only motion be within the frame. Now this in standard for cinema, but I watched some docs this weekend and panning and zooming need to be used to cover in a run-gun situation. It will require discipline to keep camera movement under control. No fast movements. Welcome to the world of CMOS.

Cars speeding by in the background are a nightmare because judder causes strobing. The key is to shoot at an oblique angle. I'm thinking of using 30p to help. But, there is nothing new about this -- video camcorders used 60i to prevent strobing.

I won't comment on aliasing yet. A friend looked at my footage and commented "Helen Keller could see it." Yet, I see much less with other's videos. So I'm going to go out and shoot some more footage at 30p. I can't believe I got a bad unit.

About SD

Hi, I have to buy some SD for Sony AX100.
I don't know if I will buy SanDisk Extreme SDXS 064G-X46:
SanDisk SDSDXS-064G-X46 Extreme SDXC 64GB 80Mb/sec Classe 10, Nero/Rosso/Bianco: Amazon.it: Informatica (http://www.amazon.it/SanDisk-SDSDXS-064G-X46-Extreme-Classe-Bianco/dp/B00D6XW62I/ref=sr_1_9?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1397485341&sr=1-9&keywords=SDXC+extreme)

Or cheaper SDs

SanDisk Extreme SDXC 64 GB:
SanDisk Extreme SDXC 64 GB 45 MB/s Classe 10: Amazon.it: Informatica (http://www.amazon.it/SanDisk-Extreme-SDXC-64-Classe/dp/B0070WU51U/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1397485506&sr=1-1&keywords=SDXC+extreme)

Are there differences on tranfer datas only from SD to PC or are there differences also in recording with AX100?
Is it worth to spend more money for buying SanDisk Extreme SDXS 064G-X46
Thanks for your suggestions.

I have seen also a black SD Sandisk extreme:
http://www.ebay.it/itm/SANDISK-Scheda-di-memoria-Extreme-HD-Video-SDXC-64-GB-Class-10-45-MB-sec-/191132245544?pt=Memory_Cards&hash=item2c805e9e28

Also this with UHS-I:
http://www.ebay.it/itm/SanDisk-64GB-SDXC-HD-VIDEO-SD-45MB-S-HIGH-CLASS-10-EXTREME-UHS-I-MEMORY-CARD-/321318134138?pt=IT_Accessori_Cellulari_Memory_Card&hash=item4ad00da17a

What is better?

There ARE cameras that use the approach of using a smaller center portion of a large megapixel sensor as a "zoom" (Panasonic uses this), but AFAIK, Sony is either optical or creative math (digital, post sensor).

Ah ok, so I guess it does this even if digital zoom is turned off? I have that set to off hence why I thought it was just doing sensor crop for zoom but perhaps not, maybe it's more complex here. I'd attach some pics to show what I mean as far as softness goes but the forum keeps saying "upload failed" when I try uploading the attachment, even though the jpg falls within forum limits :(

Dave, do you get the sense that there is a portion of the zoom range after which digital starts? Some cameras have a marker that shows the dividing point between optical and digital. Or, is Clear Zoom always digital?

Someone has done an assessment on the clear zoom implementation on the AX100. It varies from 5% magnification vs Standard OIS at full wide to about 55% at full zoom. Even so, the degradation of the image at full zoom is not great since the same resolution at full wide is not necessary at full zoom. So the impact on resolution was very minimal. I can see some degradation at full zoom vs Standard OIS, but it's really not that significant.


I've been watching other folks samples and it seems clear there is a point at which the image magnifies motion -- or your own jitter -- and rolling shutter becomes a problem. I would love to be able to set a zoom limit.

Looking at others work on the AX100 and BMPCC -- it seems the key to avoiding rolling shutter is never pan or zoom, keep it on a tripod, and let the only motion be within the frame. Now this in standard for cinema, but I watched some docs this weekend and panning and zooming need to be used to cover in a run-gun situation. It will require discipline to keep camera movement under control. No fast movements. Welcome to the world of CMOS.

I don't understand this at all. There is no evidence of RS in my videos or virtually any videos I've seen posted by people who know what they're doing. If you're inclined to shoot rapidly moving railroad trains, perpendicular to the action, from 6' away while zooming, yes, you'll see RS. For most reasonable work you simply will not see RS and virtually all owners confirm this. The tests that some of these guys perform by violently shaking the camera right, left, up and down, is truly hilarious. Is that how they shoot?

I won't comment on aliasing yet. A friend looked at my footage and commented "Helen Keller could see it." Yet, I see much less with other's videos. So I'm going to go out and shoot some more footage at 30p. I can't believe I got a bad unit.

Aliasing? Where??? There isn't a trace of it in any of the videos I've shot or seen by other owners. Obviously if someone has edited a video and has incorrect settings for a given NLE, artifacts can creep in easily. But even edited videos from those that know what they're doing, show no evidence of aliasing.

Ah ok, so I guess it does this even if digital zoom is turned off? I have that set to off hence why I thought it was just doing sensor crop for zoom but perhaps not, maybe it's more complex here. I'd attach some pics to show what I mean as far as softness goes but the forum keeps saying "upload failed" when I try uploading the attachment, even though the jpg falls within forum limits :(

Pete, never select 'digital zoom' in the AX100 or any camera for that matter. However using Clear Zoom is a far different animal. Whatever algorithm it is that Sony uses, is very good. You'll probably only catch some degradation at the extreme end of the zoom range. Even then, if you don't perform an A/B with and without it, you might not even be aware of it.

Based on other Sony cameras, there are a couple things going on internally - there's "optical stabilization", which is mechanical. The "clicks" that have been reported are likely internal gyros and servos that provide this stabilization powering up and down when the camera is turned on and off - they are not as advanced as the PJ/CX7xx series BOSS (magic eyeball!), since that sort of system would be quite large comparatively (sensor and lens are significantly larger in the AX100. In theory, there shouldn't be any degradation at all from that, as it's just a system to keep the image relatively stable against some movement - I'm guessing it's about as effective as earlier OIS systems, and a lot less impressive than the BOSS system. This is simply because it would be somewhat restricted to vertical/horizontal moves and perhaps roll (some earlier OS systems didn't adjust for roll, and later ones did). The magic eyeball gimbal moved the whole the lens block, so compensated for more motion, more effectively.

THEN, you have digital image stabilization, which compensates for motion POST sensor, typically by using the "edge" pixels to basically move the image around to compensate for image movements larger than the OIS can deal with. This comes under the "fancy math" title - where the internal SOFTWARE adjusts to try to correct the framing against any movement. Since the software will be using "part" of the image from the sensor to move the image within the framing, you will lose a little resolution (hope that made sense, it operates similarly to image stabilizers used in post/edit - you lose some pixels at the edge to achieve a more stable image digitally "derived and enhanced" from the central portion of the image.



RE Zoom:

The OPTICAL portion of the zoom should be strictly MECHANICAL, meaning lens elements are moving forwards and backwards within the lens to adjust the OPTICAL zoom range - BUT, lenses tend to have portions of the zoom range that perform better than others, and the iris (f/stop) also affects sharpness.

That's a "quick and dirty" description of how lenses "work", and it's why "primes" are popular - a lens designed for a SINGLE focal length can be optimized for that focal length for optimal sharpness, whereas a zoom lens has those internal elements moving around, and has to be "sort of optimized" for a wide range of focal lengths, and thus may be compromised to greater or lesser degrees, typically at the "ends" of the zoom range. It's pretty common to have complaints about a zoom lens at certain apertures and or parts of the zoom range... physics can be fickle.

The way all the "other" Sonys work is that there's a little white bar part way through the zoom range (when CIZ or digital zoom is active) that designates where the OPTICAL zoom ends - then there should be a "C" and the multiplier above the bar when in CIZ range, and if Digital zoom is enabled, it will switch to a "D", again with the multiplier displayed above the zoom bar. I'm guessing the AX100 sticks with this design?


I am seeing some judder or stutter in some samples with faster motion (people running through a frame), and I'm not sure if it's due to shooting in 24p, and if 30p will be THAT much better - it is giving me a bit of "pause"... hoping that it can be worked around, as can RS. Somehow I suspect "camera technique" is going to be more critical than it has been in some recent cameras, sort of have to "step back" a bit to get best results. I guess I'll be keeping a PJ760 around for a while for when I don't want to be as focused on technique!


@Adriano -
I'd suggest double checking the manual for minimum memory specs (IIRC it only calls for "SDXC class 10"? Once you meet the minimum, you "should" be OK, the camera just has to be able to write data fast enough, faster cards "may" mean you can download/read a bit faster. I'm reviewing memory I've already got, hoping to use what I've got initially, but not sure myself what all the differences are... is a class 10 UHS1 SDHC (got some of those!) card the same as a similar spec SDXC card? SO many nuances to memory cards!

Just a quick clarification - OPTICAL is the range from "wide" to "tele" created by the moving glass (or plastic?) internal elements. CIZ "takes over" once you are at the TELE end of the optics, creating the full frame image from the output of the sensor (or a progressive portion thereof, you could say), basically a digital doubler with minimal image degradation.

"Digital" is further digital zooming and interpolation of the data read off smaller and smaller portions of the sensor, and at some point you simply can't create what isn't there, but "may" get some usable footage for SOME purposes (if you think about it, you can zoom in a long way into a 4K image and still have crappy SD level output!). I've actually shot some stuff (stills, no way I can hold the cam steady enough for VIDEO!) at the extreme end of the digital range of the RX10 that was "not bad"!

I mentioned the Panasonic method of sampling the center portion of a larger megapixel still sensor - they do this on interchangeable lens cameras, effectively "doubling" the optical lens range of whatever is mounted while maintaining full pixel resolution. It's a bit different approach from what I describe above... but wanted to clarify that there are different "tricks" to achieving "zoom"...

Pete, never select 'digital zoom' in the AX100 or any camera for that matter. However using Clear Zoom is a far different animal. Whatever algorithm it is that Sony uses, is very good. You'll probably only catch some degradation at the extreme end of the zoom range. Even then, if you don't perform an A/B with and without it, you might not even be aware of it.

I did actually notice it at the long end even without doing an a/b, this was during a quick test I did where I framed a plant to fill the screen roughly the same way each time but at different focal lengths. I attached some pics of it as seems like attachments are working now. At 6 feet the lens is at max width, at 15 feet is roughly halfway zoom and at 30 feet is full zoom. I never use zoom normally and I always leave digital zoom disabled, but I was thinking of trying the AX100 as a replacement briefly for my now sold VG900 (while I wait for a replacement full frame camera) so I was messing with the AX100 to see how much shallow dof I can extract from it and how clear it looks. That's where I noticed how on the long end the image no longer seems like 4k, but I wasn't sure if that was due to just the optics of the situation or because of how the camera handles zoom.

@Peter -

I know it's minor, but there's about 10% difference in framing between the first shot and the last - that could account for the apparently lesser detail? It's not "much", but I suspect it's "just enough". If it's a concern, reshoot and adjust the framing so the basket is as close to identical as possible in size in the frame and see if that does the trick or not...

It is possible that the lens softens a bit at the end of the optical range (as mentioned above), but honestly, all the shots look "pretty good" (I need a 4k system... now!), considering the framing differences.

Just a quick clarification - OPTICAL is the range from "wide" to "tele" created by the moving glass (or plastic?) internal elements. CIZ "takes over" once you are at the TELE end of the optics, creating the full frame image from the output of the sensor (or a progressive portion thereof, you could say), basically a digital doubler with minimal image degradation.



Not sure that's the way it works in the AX100, Dave. This is the first Sony I've had where CIZ doesn't work like others. As soon as you engage Active Stabilization, CIZ is automatically engaged. Doing so, even at full wide, shows a very slightly cropped area. As someone had measured with a resolution chart, there is a 5% cropping at full wide. So I don't think this is taking place in a purely optical environment, but who knows?

I did actually notice it at the long end even without doing an a/b, this was during a quick test I did where I framed a plant to fill the screen roughly the same way each time but at different focal lengths. I attached some pics of it as seems like attachments are working now. At 6 feet the lens is at max width, at 15 feet is roughly halfway zoom and at 30 feet is full zoom. I never use zoom normally and I always leave digital zoom disabled, but I was thinking of trying the AX100 as a replacement briefly for my now sold VG900 (while I wait for a replacement full frame camera) so I was messing with the AX100 to see how much shallow dof I can extract from it and how clear it looks. That's where I noticed how on the long end the image no longer seems like 4k, but I wasn't sure if that was due to just the optics of the situation or because of how the camera handles zoom.

Pete, I think your tests nicely show what I had mentioned. The image degradation at full zoom with Active IS, although there, is not that great.

Most people will never think the fully zoomed, 4K Active IS, is not a 'full' 4K.

For those curious about the low light capability of the AX100 as well as the implementation of Active Stabilization, part of this video might help.

We were invited to a wedding in the AC area. So a quick edit shows some shots from the AC boardwalk area as well as some interior shots of Caesars. The low light shots were taken in the reception hall, which was very dark. For some shots I had to use the camera fully zoomed with Active IS...not recommended in such a low light area, particularly for a lens that's not constant aperture.

Since we were guests, obviously no tripod was used.

You can download the original video if you're a Vimeo member. Obviously this will give you better quality than the online Vimeo version.

AC & Wedding on Vimeo

Thanks for posting Ken. Insanely sharp!

Thanks Andy!

Not sure that's the way it works in the AX100, Dave. This is the first Sony I've had where CIZ doesn't work like others. As soon as you engage Active Stabilization, CIZ is automatically engaged. Doing so, even at full wide, shows a very slightly cropped area. As someone had measured with a resolution chart, there is a 5% cropping at full wide. So I don't think this is taking place in a purely optical environment, but who knows?

The 5% plus or minus "penalty" is what I described earlier for active (digital) stabilization - the camera effectively reserves those pixels at the edges of the image for use in moving the "center" of the image around (stabilizing it). I'm pretty sure that penalty has been reported on other models? Seems like I've noticed that as soon as you go "active", you lose a bit of the frame all around... not anything new.

It means there's still an optical component, as long as you're in the lens range, but the camera doesn't use ALL of the image the lens puts to the sensor when using digital stabilization - edges are "reserved" to allow digital stabilization. It does however indicate (presuming the 5% figure is accurate) that there's not a LOT of room for digitally stabilizing an image.

Not sure why CIZ and AS are linked together, but steadyshot (no active setting) and both zooms are independent settings on the RX100M2, and they appear to be entirely independent on the RX10 (active DOES reduce the image noticeably over standard). Seems odd that they are interlinked with the AX, with similar tech... only thing I can think of is that "active" is needed once you get to the long end of the range, and they didn't want you to have to dig down and engage it every time, or couldn't do it seamlessly on the fly.

One of the fun things about understanding how these things work is that there are many aspects, and interactions, it's not just "grab a sensor, stick a lens on it and go!". I laugh sometimes when a noob/novice tries to say how "something is wrong" or "the company is crippling things deliberately" or "this camera is crap because..." and they know exactly ZIP about the technology, and what they THINK they know is so far off from reality that you just want to fold up a nice little tinfoil hat and hand it to them...

Here at least, we've got a few experts, and a fair number of generally educated enthusiasts who can take a stab at understanding/reverse engineering these complex toys and how to best use them... even if sometimes we do have to "guess" a bit at what causes the things we "see".

I'm still waiting for the first wave of "this is crap" returns so I can catch a deal... some dealers are asking above retail on new, so I guess the camera is popular! Meanwhilst, I'm starting to collect parts for a new computer to handle this 4K stuff...

@Ken -
The video sure looks good overall, I do see where I'm glad I have all my old "stabilizing" shoulder mounts, brackets, etc., hanging around... you can pick up a bit of "roll" in places, something I seem to recall was ironed out somewhere around the transition between the SSR11 and the CX550, if memory serves. Not a "deal breaker", but I guess we have all been spoilt a bit by small sensor stabilization tech!

4K baseball video:

Sony FDR AX100 Video: Baseball in 4K on Vimeo

Thanks Dave. Yeah, the OIS is a small price to pay for the overall PQ. Still, coming from the RX10, this OIS is still better.

Aliasing? Where??? There isn't a trace of it in any of the videos I've shot.... But edited videos from those that know what they're doing, show no evidence of aliasing.

Look at the brick building in your first couple of shots. The moving funny looking pattern is Moiré which, as I posted earlier, is one of the forms of ALIASING. Because we don't have brick buildings in Vegas I haven't been able to test for it. Thank you for doing the test for me.

Let's do a simple test, play the video below in 4K or 2K -- you need to be able to see it at normal speed. Do you see twinkling lights in he second scene? I do. Others do. But, when my camera is totally still, the lights don't twinkle -- because they don't in reality. This is "interline twitter" -- another form of ALIASING.

Rolling shutter -- a form of temporal ALIASING -- is not evident because I follow pan with the motion. When correctly shot, RS is minimal. The stuttering seen with moving cars -- as seen in the video -- is temporal ALIASING.

AX100 UHD project edited in FCP X - YouTube

FROM BARRY GREEN:
* Aliasing, by way of a definition, is when a sampling system fails to accurately reproduce what it's attempting to sample. Instead of an accurate representation of what you're trying to capture, you get an inaccurate “alias” of it. Aliasing happens when inaccurate or “false data” gets through and is captured by the system as if it was actually accurate information.

* One superb example of aliasing and the dangers it can cause, is a “rolling shutter” for example a warped airplane propeller.

* Some cameras that look like they're rendering incredibly sharp, highly detailed images, but they're not. So – is it a good thing, or a bad thing? In the end, it's all about what you find pleasing to the eye. And, truth be told, many people actually LIKE the aliasing artifacts, they think it makes the images look sharper. But like all aliasing, it can cause problems in the image. The most well-known are moire and jaggy lines (stair stepping). Moire happens when a repeating pattern of detail is too fine for the image sensor to handle it, so it creates a fake pattern.

IN FAIRNESS -- I don't claim the AX100's sharpness is due to aliasing. I suspect Sony is filtering the video to get the maximum possible amount of real detail, with little STATIC SPATIAL aliasing. That's what the German review found. No static aliasing -- which was misunderstood as meaning no aliasing.

Look at the brick building in your first couple of shots. The moving funny looking pattern is Moiré which, as I posted earlier, is one of the forms of ALIASING. Because we don't have brick buildings in Vegas I haven't been able to test for it. Thank you for doing the test for me.



Steve, in the original native version, there isn't a trace of moiré on those bricks. There simply isn't. I know moiré very well from my VG20, VG30, NEX7 and NEX6 when shooting video. The AX100 simply doesn't show it.

In fact, I remember when I first played that scene from AC and thought "Wow, not a trace of moiré in those bricks, how nice".

You are making the mistake that many do, judging a video from a non-native file. That's not the proper way to judge the video from any camera. I don't care if it's streaming from Vimeo or YouTube, any streaming service will introduce artifacts. Additionally, many editing programs will introduce artifacts that are unjustly pegged to the camera. Until you see a native file you have no clue what the camera is producing.

I read in a review on Amazon that when recording in 4k you will not get a live HDMI signal. Is this true? I like to monitor my interviews on a large 1080p monitor and this would probably kill it for me.

Thanks, Marc

Marc, the AX100 will only output 4K if you're not recording internally. If you record internally, there is no output.

However, the camera can output a wifi signal that can be useful for monitoring. You can capture the wifi signal with a smartphone or tablet. That may not suit your purposes, but it can be done and for some it might fit their needs.

Thanks Ken. Would I get a HDMI feed while the camera is in pause mode?

Steve, in the original native version, there isn't a trace of moiré on those bricks. There simply isn't. I know moiré very well from my VG20, VG30, NEX7 and NEX6 when shooting video. The AX100 simply doesn't show it.

In fact, I remember when I first played that scene from AC and thought "Wow, not a trace of moiré in those bricks, how nice".

You are making the mistake that many do, judging a video from a non-native file. That's not the proper way to judge the video from any camera. I don't care if it's streaming from Vimeo or YouTube, any streaming service will introduce artifacts. Additionally, many editing programs will introduce artifacts that are unjustly pegged to the camera. Until you see a native file you have no clue what the camera is producing.


well, i'll get around to doing a moire stress test this week, and see what a somewhat controlled environment can produce