good news :

@ Dave and Ken

following the goal of "making it work" I did a test on a real soccer practice session at night, tonight. Lights were poor but I had to check the whole 4K system at the shutter speed of 1/125 (because that's what I'm going to use for the real coverage)
the setting therefore was the actual setting that I'll use on a real soccer game
tripod on fluid head, camera 0on macro-rail , plus ikan 15mm rail system to hold the monitor on articulated arm and a temporary mount for shotgun and lights, two handle bars , lanc remote, 7inch monitor via micro hdmi (that's surprisingly tight, better than the mini of other cameras)
camera in 4K 30p , shutter 1/125 manual, iris auto , gain auto. Custom white balance based on the monitor by "eye" -my eye LOL
no stabilization (off)

3 surprises:
1. the panning was a lot smoother than my previous landholding tests (so the stabilization contributes to make it that bad)
2. the AF was easily fooled and out of control (this is bad news for me, but the lighting was really poor. I'll have to test more on that, but it's not going to be such a big deal, used to shoot in manual focus many soccer games with the XL1 -back then-)
3. Outstanding noise reduction, cinematone (cool, really cool. I'll keep it as a standard setting). The exposure may need a minus as compensation (the camera like to shoot a little bright, but I didn't pay particular attention to that, tonight to be honest)

the most important aspect was that the panning and zooming at the same time went well. I kept my usual shooting style that I do with 1080-60p. On 4K I'll pay more attention to the pannings of course but I didn't tonight for this test, in purpose.

the footage in 4K is nothing less than amazing


info on the lanc remote :
it's a vivitar 8-button 20 bucks remote that will activate 8 zoom speeds plus 1 variable, selectable right on the remote and while shooting. Plus gives start-standby , focus, on/off of the camera, on-screen info on/off (only LCD). That's the only lanc remote that works on the multiport with the 10pin adapter (for the records a libec 3dv and varizoom didnt work at all)
info on the hdmi:
it's clean, no icons and no info.

as always shooting for real can make a huge difference, in this case I didn't expect such a good outcome. I really didn't
life is wonderful, sometimes.

Having played with the camera for a week, test shooting only in 4K/25p mode all I can say is I wish I could get a usable panning shot at a shutter speed above 1/50th. Unless I do a very slow creeping pan for a cooking show I really can't see myself using a shutter speed that high (1/120, 1/125....etc.) and get a usable footage.

That may be great for pulling stills frames but how would you make it look even OK on the computer monitor? There's no doubt the single wish list that would make this camera truly great is 4K/50p, 60p. That's why the AX1 has its place.

Having played with the camera for a week, test shooting only in 4K/25p mode all I can say is I wish I could get a usable panning shot at a shutter speed above 1/50th. Unless I do a very slow creeping pan for a cooking show I really can't see myself using a shutter speed that high (1/120, 1/125....etc.) and get a usable footage.

That may be great for pulling stills frames but how would you make it look even OK on the computer monitor? There's no doubt the single wish list that would make this camera truly great is 4K/50p, 60p. That's why the AX1 has its place.

the shutter speed keeps targets in motion under control, but has very little to do with the bad panning of the AX100 when stabilized, which is most likely due to an intentional bad processing or to a faulty software of the stabilization which is extremely complicated on the AX100 (involving croppings, even zoom focal adjustments). Also the framerate gives a very little relief. The stabilization turned off on the other end makes a big difference for shooting on a tripod actually. Please get the camera again and use it before spreading info on the wind about something that you don't know squat about it.
now try 30p and 60p on the camera that you actually have and tell me if you see any difference panning. 60p helps but very little, mostly for slow motion but panning is pretty much the same.

I've tried everything including mounting the camera on a tripod so I could turn off the stabilization when panning or tilting. Actually this camera's stabilization in the standard/optical-only mode is nowhere near impressive and the active/digital+optical mode though more effective, reduces the resolution by cropping and rescaling and as you say may interfere with the motion when panning the camera.

I guess if you can get acceptable results with that combination of shooting techniques of yours then fine, I have no problem with that. But the 180 degree shutter rule for slow frame rate cinematography has been there for a reason. It's certainly not some stupid number invented by people who didn't know what they were doing.

There is no drop in resolution when you use the active steadyshot. The sensor is super-sampled so you can crop in to the image at the sensor level without loosing any image quality. However I prefer to turn this off as it can make pans stutter a little more as the electronic stabiliser tries to hold on to motion within the frame.

Pan judder and high resolution are not good friends. As you increase image resolution the edges in a scene become more obvious and your eye's will latch on to these, so when they move you will notice judder more. Try simply defocussing a shot and comparing that to a well focussed shot, the judder will appear to be lower in the defocussed shot.

If shooting sports, moving vehicles etc it's likely that the viewers focus of attention, the players, the cars etc, will be fairly static within the frame and this is what the viewer will be looking at, so they won't notice the background (which may well also be out of focus) judder.

Another thing that makes a difference is noise. As image noise is largely random, a noisy picture will mask some of the judder as the motion of the noise is random from frame to frame. The less noise there is in a shot the more obvious judder becomes.

None of these are unique to the AX100. The AX100 "suffers" from having a very clean, very sharp image often with very deep DoF. Reduce the DoF (use ND not faster shutter), maybe add a little gain (or a touch of noise/grain in post) and you might be surprised by how well your pans work.

Alister,

There 's an interesting test of the active steadyshot on the Sony CX900 which also engages the Clear Image Zoom. Though the test was done at 1080p resolution as the the CX900 doesn't shoot 4K I feel this is quite similar to what I got when zooming in near the tele end when in active steadyshot mode in 4K. At the wide end or close to it the difference in resolution is not really noticeable in practice. Over at the dpreview.com site they also found something similar when testing the Sony RX100 Mk3 with the test chart when active steadyshot was used in the video mode as well.

- Stabiliser test: Sony HDR-CX900 stabilizer - YouTube

I haven't yet shot anything at 1080p with my AX100 but given the two cameras have more or less the same hardware the results should be the same at that resolution.

Anthony, I have a FDR-AX1 which can shoot 30P at 60 or 100 Mbps and 60P at 150Mbps so I am able to shoot at exactly the same frame rate with the same codec with and without image stabilizer just like the AX100. There is a big, big difference between 30p and 60P. For your information there is also a noticeable difference between 30P at 60Mbps and 100Mbps. An advantage of 4k is the ability to crop and pan the image in post to 1920x1080. However you may find that 30P at 60Mbps with image judder may not give you this capability without a lot of artifacts. Scaling will give you the advantage of getting close to a 422 image though.

You have clearly been happy with 30P in the past, your choice. I find the judder of 30P unacceptable to me for anything other than fixed camera shots. That includes everything on Youtube !!! Information content is most important which covers all the cell phone videos we see but if the intent is a quality image then minimum judder is a must and why the professional broadcasters use 60i or 60P for sports .

If you want 4k think more than 4 times the storage and processing power for edits. If that is unacceptable to you then 4k is not for you now.

Ron Evans

Sure there will be a difference in image quality when you shoot at longer focal lengths.

Have you never noticed how with most optical zoom lenses the longer the focal length the softer the image becomes for all kinds of reasons. To expect a 12x shot to be just as sharp as an 18x or 24x shot, whether optically or digitally done is crazy, especially at this price point.

In practice the AX100's clear image zoom is virtually transparent at 4K and compares very well to most purely optical zooms. I've just never been a fan of electronic stabilisation as it tends to un-naturally grab and release the image as it tries to hold it steady.

Anthony, I have a FDR-AX1 which can shoot 30P at 50 or 100 Mbps and 60P at 150Mbps so I am able to shoot at exactly the same frame rate with the same codec with and without image stabilizer just like the AX100. There is a big, big difference between 30p and 60P. For your information there is also a noticeable difference between 30P at 50Mbps and 100Mbps. An advantage of 4k is the ability to crop and pan the image in post to 1920x1080. However you may find that 30P at 50Mbps with image judder may not give you this capability without a lot of artifacts. Scaling will give you the advantage of getting close to a 422 image though.

You have clearly been happy with 30P in the past, your choice. I find the judder of 30P unacceptable to me for anything other than fixed camera shots. That includes everything on Youtube !!! Information content is most important which covers all the cell phone videos we see but if the intent is a quality image then minimum judder is a must and why the professional broadcasters use 60i or 60P for sports .

If you want 4k think more than 4 times the storage and processing power for edits. If that is unacceptable to you then 4k is not for you now.

Ron Evans

Ron, I'm talking about panning the AX100 that gives countless problems in 4K
Panning and panning only. the framerate doesn't have much to do with it. It's the processing of the AX100, not the lens, not the shutter: the processing, how can I say it better? .. recording the frames into the solid state memory card or whatever it will be.
the stabilization produces more problems , again PANNING. that's the only thing under discussion here.
cinealta ex1/r never had any problem panning, and they shoot 30p . care to explain that?

Anthony, I have a FDR-AX1 which can shoot 30P at 50 or 100 Mbps and 60P at 150Mbps so I am able to shoot at exactly the same frame rate with the same codec with and without image stabilizer just like the AX100. There is a big, big difference between 30p and 60P. For your information there is also a noticeable difference between 30P at 50Mbps and 100Mbps. An advantage of 4k is the ability to crop and pan the image in post to 1920x1080. However you may find that 30P at 50Mbps with image judder may not give you this capability without a lot of artifacts. Scaling will give you the advantage of getting close to a 422 image though.

You have clearly been happy with 30P in the past, your choice. I find the judder of 30P unacceptable to me for anything other than fixed camera shots. That includes everything on Youtube !!! Information content is most important which covers all the cell phone videos we see but if the intent is a quality image then minimum judder is a must and why the professional broadcasters use 60i or 60P for sports .

If you want 4k think more than 4 times the storage and processing power for edits. If that is unacceptable to you then 4k is not for you now.

Ron Evans
the AX1 sports a small sensor, things are easier moving data from a smaller sensor, no doubts. I believe that the recording process (on any camera) involves guessing coded in the software. To make things moving faster. That I believe. And the guessing in the AX100 got confused of was written to move too much guessed data within the actual data captured.

Resolution and sharpness. HUGE difference between an HD EX1 and the 4K AX100.

Sensor size makes no difference when it come to moving data. Pixel count makes a difference, more pixels = more data, but size is largely irrelevant.

Frame rate makes a massive difference to motion and pan judder. Of course you also have to have a display that can cope with higher frame rates to be able to take advantage of them or see the benefits. Do you think Peter Jackson shoots at 48fps just for the hell of it, do you think James Cameron is shooting much of his Avatar sequel at 48fps just for kicks?

Resolution and sharpness. HUGE difference between an HD EX1 and the 4K AX100.
my friend, I had to sell the ex1r because of the money but still today I miss it. That camera did everything right. Now 4K is here to stay and life goes on.

Sensor size makes no difference when it come to moving data. Pixel count makes a difference, more pixels = more date, but size is largely irrelevant.

Frame rate makes a massive difference to motion and pan judder. Of course you also have to have a display that can cope with higher frame rates to be able to take advantage of them or see the benefits. Do you think Peter Jackson shoots at 48fps just for the hell of it, do you think James Cameron is shooting much of his Avatar sequel at 48fps just for kicks?

yes your right, it didn't come out right. Now about the "guessing" part ? am I the only one believing that there may be a considerable amount of "guessing" in the processing?

Alister, are you planning to do a ax100 review?

Owning a great camera doesn't make you a great camera operator. A poor camera in the right hands will always result in better images than a brilliant camera used incorrectly.

Sadly Anthony thinks he knows it all and is not prepared to accept that frame rate, resolution and sharpness play a massive part in image judder. He is determined to find fault with the camera rather than perhaps his technique. His comments make it plain to everyone that he does not understand how cameras and human vision works. Does he think that Peter Jackson and James Cameron shoot at 48fps just for kicks?



look , of course twice the frames are better , but that doesn't explain why a building becomes curved for a while when panning. Guessing may be an explanation for that. since it's not optical, must be something else that more frames can't explain.
more frames per second are mostly for slow motion. Don't get smart on me now. Let's try to explain the building curved on pans. regardless of the number of the frames involved.

Curved objects = rolling shutter.

EX1 sensor = fewer pixels + designed for video = faster read out = less rolling shutter.
AX100 sensor, designed for photos + more pixels = slower read out = more rolling shutter.

EX1 $8K
AX100 $2K

You get what you pay for.

My AX100 review is here: Sony AX100 4K camcorder review. - YouTube

Sony, can you PLEASE add a firmware update that allows us to assign the top handle button (the "photo" button) for focus expansion?

The button you have today for that is in the absolute WORST place on the camera. It's absolutely impossible to reach with your finger. And, I'm absolutely certain that no Sony engineer, designer and camera tester can reach it with their fingers either. I'm quite surprised that an important function like this was allowed to exist in such and knowingly inaccessible place.

You did this for the NX70, please for it for the AX100. It's a bit of a embarrassing joke right now that Sony can easily fix today.

I was hoping Alister would mention this out loud in his review. (They might actually listen to him if he shined the light on it...and I'm sure he must agree with me on this.)

CT

I would be surprised if Sony would make a change true a firmware update, on the nex-ea50 there where many features asked by users to improve upon or to add of which the possibility to change the iso with the dial on the side (like you can with the shutter) instead of having 3 fixed selectable iso values with a switch which was my top one on the list. Sony did release one firmwareupdate but that included options nobody asked for.

Improvements are usually made with new models, like when people ask for the possibility to have 4K on the rx10 which I understand the sensor is capable off yet I"m sure that won't happen, unless they bring out a rx10 4K model.


I was hoping Alister would mention this out loud in his review. (They might actually listen to him if he shined the light on it...and I'm sure he must agree with me on this.)


As much as Alister is a respected filmmaker, I don't think Sony would listen to his reviews and make changes based on his findings, at least not on existing products, by the time Alister has a review ready Sony already has another camera in the pipeline with all focus on that one :)

Your 'curved' building problem is called rolling shutter. When a sensor reads the lines of pixels from top to bottom instead of all at once. That's what causes your curved buildings and by far the main factors of its severity are resolution and read speed.

BTW Alister, great job on your three AX100 videos. (Focus, overview and exposure)

I would love to see you do a "technical evaluation" too. Maybe dynamic range and resolution chart tests? (Sony AX100 vs Sony AX1 or Z100?)

What is your opinion on the 60mbps codec limit? I have noticed with a bitrate analyser that the codec will actually do up to 72Mbp/s spikes at certain times.

I find myself always expecting much worse results than I actually get with this codec. It's surprisingly "OK" (but I still have a hard time accepting it) I have noticed however, that this codec breaks quickly when trying to grade something. If you shoot perfectly in the field than you will be OK but making any significant adjustments in post makes compression artifacts "pop" out quickly.

What do you think Alister?

CT

Cliff, your assessment of the codec is pretty good. As you say it works very well considering it's only 60Mbps. There are a lot of artefacts in the recorded image but these don't tend to be too noticeable unless you grade the image. I don't think I would like to pass the 4K though a broadcast chain, although it does hold up really well when going to YouTube etc. What really surprises me is that even very rapid major changes to a frame are handled very well, for example fast pans or lightning bolts won't break the codec. It does soften (as expected) but does not break down as many other H264 based codecs can.

I would eyeball the dynamic range at about 10 stops. Onset of over exposure is a little sudden, I'd like to see a bit more roll-off, but for a camera in this price bracket it's pretty good. I don't have any 4K resolution charts, I really need to get some and my Imatest licence has expired. It's very obviously significantly higher resolution than HD.

I do need to do some tests on the image sharpness. It is very sharp and I would like to ascertain how much of that is just pure resolution and over-sampling and how much is in camera sharpening. I also want to look at what happens when you add a touch of diffusion to take the edge off the image. It's just this stuff takes time to do right and I've been really busy lately.

For me this camera is very much like the HC1 that came out in the early days of HD. The HC1 (and A1) was never quite as good as the Z1 etc, but for the money it produced a very useful image and the AX100 is similar. I prefer the AX100 over the Z100, but it's not an F5 or FS700 with raw recorder.

MODERATOR NOTE:
As those posting to this thread over the past couple of days will notice, it has been heavily pruned to remove the worst of the rudeness and flaming. Be nice.

Your 'curved' building problem is called rolling shutter. When a sensor reads the lines of pixels from top to bottom instead of all at once. That's what causes your curved buildings and by far the main factors of its severity are resolution and read speed.It's the readout of the sensor, correct?
too slow?

So how about the framerate now? nuthing to do with THAT, correct? And now the fact that with the stabilization off it gets better may be due to the other fact that the stabilization takes processing power away from the readout. It all makes sense now.

So it wasn't the 30p thingy. Well put Darren!

I do need to do some tests on the image sharpness. It is very sharp and I would like to ascertain how much of that is just pure resolution and over-sampling and how much is in camera sharpening. I also want to look at what happens when you add a touch of diffusion to take the edge off the image. It's just this stuff takes time to do right and I've been really busy lately.

Where do you post these test or review clips Alister? When I went to your blog I couldn't find the ax100 review clip back and it appears you have published some more videos about the camera? I"m probably looking in the wrong place but would be interested in following your findings if I know where to look.

Judder and rolling shutter are two different things and neither has anything to do with processing.

Judder is related to frame rate, resolution and shutter speed. Bending verticals is rolling shutter caused by the slow scan rate of the sensor. More pixels take longer to read so unless you have a very fast sensor the readout rate slows down. This is very typical of sensors designed for stills rather than video.

Faster shutter speeds will make rolling shutter more obvious as there is less motion blur to disguise the artifact.

The videos are only on my YouTube channel at the moment. A written review will go online some time next week along with links to those videos. More in depth tests will follow when I have time between shoots.

Alister,

There 's an interesting test of the active steadyshot on the Sony CX900 which also engages the Clear Image Zoom. Though the test was done at 1080p resolution as the the CX900 doesn't shoot 4K I feel this is quite similar to what I got when zooming in near the tele end when in active steadyshot mode in 4K. At the wide end or close to it the difference in resolution is not really noticeable in practice. Over at the dpreview.com site they also found something similar when testing the Sony RX100 Mk3 with the test chart when active steadyshot was used in the video mode as well.

- Stabiliser test: Sony HDR-CX900 stabilizer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uJ3PrwQRo)

I haven't yet shot anything at 1080p with my AX100 but given the two cameras have more or less the same hardware the results should be the same at that resolution.


This sort of "test" is exactly the sort that drives one nuts - OF COURSE, when you FULL ZOOM with CIZ on, it's a digital doubler, but if you compared 12x and 12x and took note of the line in the zoom indicator, the two will be comparable... maybe it's the "Queens' English" vs. US English, but I'd give that "test" a big thumbs down as the narration is misleading and inaccurate... indicating to me the "tester" does not know how these things work....

Most likely the CX900 and AX100 1080 modes will be identical... but of course at 4K, detail is an entirely different ballgame.

Yes, a small crop is required for "active" stabilization. Pretty much like saying you need eggs to make an omelet... and if you use egg whites it'll be a different color...

The videos are only on my YouTube channel at the moment.

Thx Alister, will check them out.

Judder and rolling shutter are two different things and neither has anything to do with processing.

Judder is related to frame rate, resolution and shutter speed. Bending verticals is rolling shutter caused by the slow scan rate of the sensor. More pixels take longer to read so unless you have a very fast sensor the readout rate slows down. This is very typical of sensors designed for stills rather than video.

Faster shutter speeds will make rolling shutter more obvious as there is less motion blur to disguise the artifact.

The videos are only on my YouTube channel at the moment. A written review will go online some time next week along with links to those videos. More in depth tests will follow when I have time between shoots.
The bad panning of the AX100 has everything to do with the processing. The shutter speed of my choice for players rtunning at night is 1/125. I'd rather have more distractions in the back than a blurred player in front of the viewer. I know.. I tried yesterday. The framerate in that regard makes a little or no difference regardless of the internet myth. Like I said. Then a cameramen must make choices considering what's the best at the moment and I did.

As Alister (who does have access to, and reviews MANY cameras, with a pretty good accuracy record as reviewers go) explained it, there are several different things going on here...

FIRST, skew when panning is a function of trying to read out roughly 4 TIMES the pixels from the SENSOR as if you were dealing with a 1080 sensor - the physics dictate this will take LONGER. It takes longer to count to 16 than it does to count to 4...even for a computer...

Due to horsepower and physics, they are scanned (progressive) line by line, not all at once. This happens "fast", but (as I'll illustrate shortly), MOTION can happen FASTER... so what you see is that by the time the lower portion of the sensor is READ, if there's been fast motion/panning, the position of a vertical object is not the same as it was when the upper portion was READ, so it now appears to lean (or curve with variable pan rate). THUS, why you want to avoid whip pans, PERIOD, and why slower pan technique is required at the current level of technology. I see equivalent levels of RS (at 1080) if I whip my PJ7xx series cameras back and forth - it's easier to see using the VF, but it's ALWAYS been a factor with CMOS sensors! The idea would be a "global" read, but that's not yet an available "option"!

Nothing you, or I or Panasonic (or Sony) will do will change the laws of physics, don't expect the FZ1000 to be magically "better"... In fact, some of the macroblocking and artifacting in shadow areas I've looked at in the sample videos indicates that the FZ1000 is tossing out far more data than the AX100... I guess that's ONE way to deal with data overload!

The PROCESSOR is another factor, it takes the data read, and munches and crunches and rearranges it into the final file format, and that takes TIME. Todays processing is faster than "yesterdays", that's how it works in electronics... a 4770K i7 is faster and more capable than the older 920... Even with "better" compression, you're still dealing with roughly 4x the data at points in the process...

As I've already explained, the time required to read the ENTIRE sensor for 4K is by definition LONGER than reading a sensor for 1080p. Even longer if you consider reading every other line for "i" (anyone remember "mouse teeth", AKA temporal motion artifacts). We are talking "miliseconds" (tiny fractions of a second), but the possible motion during that time can be SIGNIFICANT.

We don't perceive it with our eyes, because our brain processes it in the way we "think" is normal. Reproducing vision with a mechanical or electronic means (AKA a camera) can result in "odd" results...

Sony no doubt is working on ways to speed up the capture/processing, just like Intel is always working on faster chips... there's no evil conspiracy involved, just engineers continuing to push the envelope, and getting farther and farther over time. That's why "the perfect camera" is and will ALWAYS be "under development", because with each "newer, better", we will find SOMETHING which could be still "better".


NOW, back to how to practically deal with the cameras we have available...

OR, "how the physics define use parameters".

If you want to avoid skew, PAN SLOWLY - the more motion, the more the required time for sensor readout will be apparent. ALSO, the more pixels that change from frame to frame, the more load on the processor, and the more "artifacting" and blurring you'll get, which becomes more apparent with 4K.

I've mentioned high shutter speeds freezing the action - this results in the eye seeing "stutter" from 30 sharp frames, which our brain begins to process as a "flip book" of stills. This is worsened by the greater sharpness of 4k over 1080 over SD...

AS mentioned, shutter speed then comes into play - how far can a given object move in 1/30 of a second... 1/60th... 1/125th... YES, it DOES matter, and fairly significantly!! Think about it, and in the first, the moving object will move FOUR TIMES more distance than the last... yes, SIGNIFICANT!!! The corollary is "how far can the camera move" in each of those time frames... do you see where understanding the physics of movement in fractions of a second now becomes PARAMOUNT in camera operation??

SO, the goal of the camera operator is to find a balance between shutter speed, camera motion, and "talent" motion blur that "looks" acceptable. With 4K, you must deal with the added number of pixels and resulting sharpness that makes "older" cameras look fuzzy and soft.


As Ken and I have both posted, taking shutter speed down gives a degree of motion blur as "talent" or background go through the frame (or the frame pans across the scene) that reduces the jarring effect. BUT you lose some of that "super sharpness" (which is perhaps not a terrible thing for fast action scenes!).

You MUST pan like a motion picture camera would (slow and deliberate). I suggest framing wider than "normal", and you can crop/pan in post and STILL have better than typical 1080 resolution. Steadiness matters FAR more, as any movement becomes more noticeable with 4K.

OK, perhaps those "limitations" are better suited to a cooking show than a soccer match or auto race, but you can STILL adjust the camera to get decent results for the latter, OR switch to the 1080/60p XAVCS mode for better quality HD. As you begin to take into consideration how much movement you'll be dealing with, the advantages of 2x the frame "samples" becomes apparent/desirable...

I felt the 30p would be a "major" issue, and in some ways it contributes a few extra hurdles, but it CAN be dealt with and still get EXCELLENT resulting footage. If you can keep the majority of the frame stable, and get a nice touch of motion blur to things moving within the frame, it looks insanely great. Wiggle the camera about and let the shutter speed run amok... not quite so much...

Bottom line, 4K is "new", it's "developing", it's going to have teething pains.... There's a reason that the AX100, the Seiki 4K TV/monitor, and the Intel integrated graphics chipset are ALL 30p "solutions"... #1, I'm cheap, and these were all "affordable", and #2, they will all likely be mostly OBSOLETE in 3-5 years, they will look "dated" as 4K/60p becomes feasible and the norm. BUT, if it opens the door to 4K to mere mortals on budgets... it ain't so bad! And I can't argue with what I can shoot and process RIGHT NOW.

THIS is the state of technology, learn to embrace, use, and enjoy it... or stick with "tried and true" HD "solutions"... or be prepared to spend A LOT more for "professional" solutions. I'll take the "bang for the buck" of my current system over what it replaces any day of the week, even with a few limitations. The "old stuff" had limitations TOO...

Once again, hopefully you will take the practical experience of others (some of us who DO own way too many cameras and can speak to how they perform...). Railing about technology that simply is not practical or economical or perhaps not even available because of some evil conspiracy is a waste of time.

I can almost guarantee that if you're disappointed with the AX100, the FZ1000 might well make you completely apoplectic, even though the price is a lot less... it's all there in the sample videos... and plenty of "gotchas" in the 4k implementation "on paper". You already see the potential in 4K, just accept that the technology has limits, and you'll be far happier enjoying what IS!

The problem is that the shutter rolling or rolling shutter (depending on how the internet enthusiasts like to call it) is more visible on certain cameras and less in others. The GH4 for example should be better because of a faster readout (not because must be bad by default and there in nuthing they can do about it). We know that the AX100 is a consumer camera for consumers and I must admit that Sony is pretty clear about it. no special cards needed, limited mbps and so on. So be it. It doesn't get the best technology. What I'm here to state is that (like I said several times already) it doesn't have much to do with the framerate. So let's take the myth out of this plate.

Ordered the bracket by the way, but I'm not going to get the XLR thing. Took a look at the AX1 and looks great if it wasn't for the cards (and no face detection that means a lot to me) : I need to produce 2hrs up to 4 times a week so I'd need 5 64GB cards and changing them like a DJ , plus 5 cards will cost me a thousand (just the cards). No can't do. In any case B&H have several returns at a good price, I was sertiously thinking about it. But then the cards and other stuff. Sure I'll probably able to use the varizoom (that has a dream touch for zooming) but the cards... not now at least.
The AX100 must do the work, and it will. My tests on the field yesterday (with the stabilization OFF) went very well. I'm ok with the AX100.

And thanks for taking the time to write that book over there :)

I suppose you "could" say it's the inability of the processor to "digest" the output from a progressively scanned sensor... but it's more accurately in how a sensor is read... only the engineers know exactly where the bottleneck is... is it the chicken or the egg, metaphorically speaking... can the sensor be read faster? Can the processor ingest that data faster?

We don't KNOW, we can only deal with the reality. Still photogs shoot FAST shutter for a reason. Video dudes have different considerations.

Frame rate is NOT an "internet myth" when dealing with MOTION, the sample rate of moving objects is REALITY, period. As is the reality of how much data a camera can practically deal with (4x as much with 4K). The math isn't exactly 4x as has been pointed out, but from a practical standpoint, it's easier to "keep it simple" to make it easier to grasp where the challenges lie.

4K is more data points than HD, 60p is more data points than 30p. Each increase requires at least SOME increase in sensor read speed, processor speed, memory speed and capacity... you can't get something for nothing!

More data points over time give you a more "accurate" representation or "capture" of reality. At a price. Calling it a myth simply denies the physics and reality...

The AX100, at $2k broke ground, the FZ1000 at $900 breaks more... but these cameras WILL have limitations with the 4K implementations. At least I was able to stick an SDHC card in my AX and have it work perfectly fine even though the specs are adamant about SDXC! I was expecting a good degree of fun trying to find "fast enough" memory!

Well, some have reported some possible RS related issues with the GH4, which I'd expect... again, got to learn to work with the camera.

Panasonic doesn't get to violate the laws of physics... all the things in my "long post" apply to one degree or another to them, same as Sony...

You have discovered the "price" to be paid for higher framerates, higher bitrates, and "better" 4K, and yep, it ain't pretty, not one bit! Those fast memory cards that fly away like candy at the circus are needed to deal with the same larger numbers of bits that originate at the sensor, if not reduced via compression along the way... I think the FZ1000 memory specs are also higher (and likely more expensive, offsetting the initial "savings")?

No free lunch.

For the incoming Lumix fz1000, I Just bought 2 x Transcend SDXC 64GB U3 95MB/sec Read 60MB/sec Write Ultimate UHS-1 Memory Card cost 79.00 for the pair shipped

I found using the viewfinder helped a LOT with handheld stability, my technique went south fast with the LCD, and I too would concur that proper support is far more critical with 4K... digging out old rigs, picked up a new monopod I'd been looking at for a long time, and planning to take SOMETHING for additional support if at all possible! The results justify the extra gear.

Dave,
I use the cowboy studio 20bucks shoulder mount and it's fine. It was fine with the EX1 so can definitely hold the AX100 ... it's a necessary thing, in my opinion. The part that pushes on the chest mu be replaced with something softer and thicker or you'll get the camera moving on each and every breath you take. With more layers of something soft it will be fine.

Do you know of any eyecup for the AX100?

I Just bought 2 x Transcend SDXC 64GB U3 95MB/sec Read 60MB/sec Write Ultimate UHS-1 Memory Card cost 79.00 for the pair shipped

Hi Bruce,
if you are referring to the cards for the AX1 then they are not the same: the AX1 needs XQD , that cost 200 bucks each and can take 25 minutes of 4K on 64 GB

Hey Anthony
no no those ones I mentioned are for the fz1000 which is now 3 wks away. Got the 4k seiki tv today all set up ready for my cam
regards
Bruce

Well, some have reported some possible RS related issues with the GH4, which I'd expect... again, got to learn to work with the camera.

hmm but many report otherwise, literally laughing at us (AX100people)

"price" to be paid for higher framerates, higher bitrates, and "better" 4K,

the shutter rolls on the AX1 too, Dave. Ok not as much as our shutter, but still. Now please don't mention the framerate again as the cure for the AX100 because it's not. The cure for the AX100 would be a faster processing and maybe a higher bitrate, but mainly a faster processing.

I think the FZ1000 memory specs are also higher (and likely more expensive, offsetting the initial "savings")?


the FZ1000 is not the camera for me: I need it for 2hrs at the time, it stops at 30 minutes.. so... even if it's a great camera as I think it will be then that marketing decision cost them a sale, mine. LOL They don't care about my sale? fine. Neither do I.

What's the big deal about 30 min? Dont you stop tape at all? Play interrupted for whatever reason, you just keep rolling?

Hey Anthony
no no those ones I mentioned are for the fz1000 which is now 3 wks away. Got the 4k seiki tv today all set up ready for my cam
regards
Bruce

Oh, sorry . I misunderstood. You got the monitor? Really? how is it? I want it too!

about the 30 minutes thing.. Bruce, it will be a disaster. When you shoot a game you have literally no time to think about anything else than the game. You can't lose the ball because if you do then it will take 3-4 seconds to get it back and everybody can see it. It's a tough business, believe me, no time for anything (even to go to the bathroom LOL, no, seriously the day of the game I don't drink at all, even water, just because of that) . 50 minutes straight per period. I can't possibly deal with that kind of stress of having the camera stop. Next season we'll go live, imagine that ... no, the FZ1000 can't do it (for me I mean)

really fine once I figure out how to get my nvidia 440 card set up manually for 4k.
All I've got to play back so far are some of the promotional 4k videos but even those are much more relaxing to watch Certainly easier on the eyeballs to watch

How's the storm going must be over your head bout now It will be here up the coast tomorrow mornign and I'm right on the water so its always a bit of a worrry

Sony's professional solution proposed for 4K is two fixed cameras with electronic panning and zooming. The advantage of 4K is this pan and scan capability if one is going to follow the action then a straight HD camera would be better. Anthony I shoot theatre and stand up for each act usually about 60 mins or so at a time the last dance show ran 2 hours and 15 mins straight. No bathroom breaks !!!

XQD cards for the AX1 are $200 for 64G and run about 55mins with auto switch over to second card slot then the first can be changed etc . The PMW-Z100 of course uses these cards up in 12mins for XAVC 422 10bit recording.

Ron Evans

Sony's professional solution proposed for 4K is two fixed cameras with electronic panning and zooming. The advantage of 4K is this pan and scan capability if one is going to follow the action then a straight HD camera would be better. Anthony I shoot theatre and stand up for each act usually about 60 mins or so at a time the last dance show ran 2 hours and 15 mins straight. No bathroom breaks !!!

XQD cards for the AX1 are $200 for 64G and run about 55mins with auto switch over to second card slot then the first can be changed etc . The PMW-Z100 of course uses these cards up in 12mins for XAVC 422 10bit recording.

Ron Evans


LOL when I was joking (and sort of complaining but still joking) about the bathroom thing with a still photographer he said "wait few more years and THEN you'll really understand what's like ..."
Yeah, the AX1 hold about 26 minutes per card, that with the auto switch to the next would give me 52minutes . Still it would be risky because it depends on the referee , I mean how many extra minutes he'll set. Changing the first card and put another one would do, but still it's something that I don't want to deal with now. I'd rather wait for larger cards, it shouldn't take long, Sony and Lexar are in the market already. But since I'm stubborn in nature I wanna make the AX100 work (LOL , and I will, in 4K). Well, if possible, if not then .. oh well. But I think that I can make it work (frm what I saw yesterday on a field test at least)

Anthony I could help you with the Live streaming .Been doing it now for 2 1/2 yrs

The AX1 runs 55Mins for each card. Its the Z100 that runs for 12 mins.which is why I got the AX1 not the Z100. I have 3 64G cards and the 32G that came with the camera so can run for almost 3 hours and 25 mins before I run out !! Recording time at 30P of course would be the same as on the AX100, 125mins on a 64G card at 60Mbps , at 100Mbps 75 mins.

Ron Evans

Anthony I could help you with the Live streaming .Been doing it now for 2 1/2 yrs

thanks , that's nice of you!
here's what I know, but it will be handled by others (again I can't possibly deal with the live thing while shooting). Anyway they'll work out of my hdmi (or sdi that I don't have on my cameras now). Connect to blackmagic shuttle (I think) over a thinkpad laptop (with the proper USB3 they said, not all the USB3 are made equal). streaming over youtube live using a paid service that now I can't remember. My 7inch monitor gives hdmi in and out, so I can give the signal as long as it's clean. No need of sdi for now.

sounds right ?

but again that wouldn't be my problem, I'll just give the signal and a beautiful coverage ehehe, (not tgrue, I am Italian and I know the game but I am some average cameraman, honestly) . and for some more money I hope.

The AX1 runs 55Mins for each card. Its the Z100 that runs for 12 mins.which is why I got the AX1 not the Z100. I have 3 64G cards and the 32G that came with the camera so can run for almost 3 hours and 25 mins before I run out !! Recording time at 30P of course would be the same as on the AX100, 125mins on a 64G card at 60Mbps , at 100Mbps 75 mins.

Ron Evans


Damn!

Dave is an angel compared to you! LOL
You really want me to spend that money and get the AX1, don't ya?

I called and most likely they gave me the minutes for a 32GB card when I asked about the 64.
it did look a little short actually...
so no problem then, I'd need just 3 cards to be safe. 600 bucks instead of 1K

:)

Dang, I see a "best extended shooting undergarments" thread developing...


@Anthony -

I know my post was long, but it gives the keys - careful pans, frame a bit wide/crop/pan in post if needed, and find the "right" shutter speed to allow just the right amount of motion blur, without hitting that "stutter" point. If 1/125 is working for you, that's fine, but experimenting in either direction may be worth the effort.

The AX100 is NOT an "auto" camera, and since it's right on that "consumer/professional" border, it's not surprising that there are a few users who will not be "happy", but for now, it's the most economical current solution. Hard to match the bang for the buck. Destined to become a classic.


@Bruce -
Which OS? IIRC there's an "advanced" settings in the Screen resolution (rt clik on desktop), and that allowed successful entry of custom settings on one NVIDIA laptop. FWIW, the OS and drivers seem to be a little twitchy/particular. I'm on W8.1, I think W8 was a tad better... Had to fiddle with getting the "right" Intel driver for the integrated graphics too... life on the bleeding edge!

A couple "tricks" on setup that seemed to help my Seiki look better - the backlight on mine was CRANKED at 100%, I pulled it back to 35... Sharpness was also set high, and I zeroed it - 4k IS sharp already...that helped with "shimmer". Not sure if you'll be calibrating, but I have found that "color" also is typically "hot" (couldn't calibrate at the stock "50", 35 works OK) and still fiddling with contrast and brightness - trying to balance what looks good for video (brighter) and what looks good for general computer use (darker, unless you need to work on that "monitor tan"). Still, good bang/buck, and it's certainly a joy to have such a big desktop to work on (except for when you can't find your mouse pointer!).

(FWIW, that ebay seller that was at $360 for the Seiki 39, is now at $340... tempting to buy another at that price!)

thanks , (again I can't possibly deal with the live thing while shooting).e.

I handle 3 cameras (one main follow the action cam and 2 locked off from the rear of the nets fisheye cams all live switched + handle every aspect of the streaming solo . One man band + record the mix
Looking for gigs at the moment