I agree, and if I was on the design team for the camera, I'd be hitting my head against the wall.

I'd feel like I'd designed a superb small, budget car, which everybody agreed was far better than anything in it's class or price range had ever been before - and I started to read comments along the lines of "it doesn't have the performance of a sports car though?" and "you can't even put a sports car engine in it!?"

All design - be it cars, cameras, washing machines or whatever - has to be a series of compromises. Do you (in the case of a car) design for off road ability? Capital cost? Fuel economy? Comfort or performance? Two seater and sporty, or can take the family - or big load carrying?

There's no right or wrong (from a designers point of view) but different products will appeal to different buyers. FWIW, I think this seems well designed *for the market it's aimed for*. Worrying about lack of features you may expect on a far more pro camera (10 bit, 4:2:2 etc) seem a bit like a farmer buying a 2 seater sports car, and complaining about it's lack of load carrying ability and off road performance......... :-)

I think of feature crippling this way instead. It's like these companies design a superb small budget car with a standard 5 speed transmission...but at the last minute they remove the 3rd gear from the transmission. This is done because somebody in the company saw the performance numbers in testing and decided that this budget car was a bit "too good" and could negatively affect the sales of their next highest model.

HDMI output crippling was an old trick that Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panny have used that I think peaked about 4 years ago. Lately, many manufacturers have left that trick behind. I hope Sony does not bring that old one back. I think most buyers find it to be an ugly wart on their camera.

If Sony feels they must do it, I hope it's not the old "80% crop/zoom" trick. I hope it's not the "force all data on the screen" trick. If they "must" do it to protect the "PRO-NXCAM" sister to be announced next month, let's hope it's just the "leave run time on the corner" or the "Force the red record icon on the screen" trick.

Something that won't interfere with my Atomos HDMI waveform monitor or RGB parade too badly.

Better yet, lets hope this is all a big fat lie. Sony successfully fought the urge and temptation to cripple it's wonderful little $1300 RX10.

I don't know about 60Mbp/s for 4K (or UHD) It's a bit low and concerns me in quality. (we'll see though...I'll give it a chance.)

I'm wondering if Atomos will have a 4K recorder/scopes in the works?

I agree, and if I was on the design team for the camera, I'd be hitting my head against the wall.


Dave, after reading some of the comments here it's clear that no matter what Sony does with the design of the AX100, no matter how good the picture quality, no matter how clear the target audience is, it will never be good enough.

If it turns out to have a clean HDMI out, you'll hear some then say 'what, no XLR inputs?'. If it had XLR, the comments would be 'what, no interchangeable lenses?', and then if it had interchangeable lenses the comments would be 'what, no racing stripes??'.

One thing that never changes with any new camera, no matter how good it is, no matter how well designed, there will always be those who will never be satisfied. In this case, given how much the AX100 offers, with an unprecedented amount of manual control at an unprecedented price, I applaud Sony for what appears at this point, a great effort.

And to the naysayers, I would say you really need to be cognizant of the reality of marketing, audience targeting and the dangers of cannibilizing your much higher priced products. If you were in charge of the decision making at Sony, honestly, would you really do things so differently? In fact the biggest danger Sony may face with this camera is not what they omitted, but rather what they included.

I have owned 14 Sony cameras in the past 17 years. Sony is the only brand I buy. And yes, the AX100 will be my next camera. (If I don't pick the "pro" model instead.)

XLR or not, I understand. Codec differences I understand. All the stuff that divides cameras from one another for market protection....I get.

However, I only beg the industry to do one simple thing: If your camera costs $1,500 or more, please make sure it has 4 of the most basic functions:

1. Independent IRIS control
2. Independent GAIN control
3. Independent SHUTTER SPEED control
4. Clean HDMI out.

All the other features can be sliced and diced all day long. Size, sensor, image quality, lens, hard buttons, soft buttons, touch screen, XLR, battery,....all that stuff can be played with to their hearts content.

Just give me these 4 basic things on every camera out there and I will be happy with all the rest of the feature differences. Those things are what makes cameras so interesting anyway.

Yeah,...It's true that even if the AX100 had no HDMI at all, I wouldn't be happy about it but I'm still buying it anyway....no doubt.

At least it has the other big three basics!! ;-)

Cliff, what surprises me with your list, is that image quality is almost an afterthought ('all that stuff can be played with to their hearts content'). For me if the image quality isn't there, it's irrelevant how many features are included or not included.

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but your post does make it sound that way.

FWIW, I can't remember a 'handicam' with this level of manual control, so I'm happy about that. Personally, at this level of equipment, I'd much rather have the first 3 on your list than the clean HDMI.

way.

FWIW, I can't remember a 'handicam' with this level of manual control, so I'm happy about that. Personally, at this level of equipment, I'd much rather have the first 3 on your list than the clean HDMI.

Hi8 days had full manual which then disappeared with DV. I had VX3 3chip same range as the current AX2000 etc and V801's, top of the Handycam line at the time, that had full control.

Ron Evans

Cliff, what surprises me with your list, is that image quality is almost an afterthought ('all that stuff can be played with to their hearts content'). For me if the image quality isn't there, it's irrelevant how many features are included or not included.

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but your post does make it sound that way.

FWIW, I can't remember a 'handicam' with this level of manual control, so I'm happy about that. Personally, at this level of equipment, I'd much rather have the first 3 on your list than the clean HDMI.

There are several "Handycams" with full control. VG20/30 and 900. FX1 and all the "Top Handycams" after it.

As far a "image quality" goes. That is what it is. If a camera looks bad, I'm obviously not going to buy it no matter how much manual control it has.

I'm only trying to say this. If you are a camera company and you sell a $1,500+ camera, crippling BASIC manual control of shutter, gain and iris is not a very "respectable" attribute.

Example: You would think that an "NXCAM" NX30 would allow simple manual control of these BASIC exposure functions. It's an OK camera otherwise, but if you set the shutter at 1/30 you are thrown into auto on the other two. You can then only control exposure using EV +/- I tried to use that and I thought it would be a fun little "C" camera. However, over time that silly limitation drove me nuts. lol

There are 1000 different camera features ans functions to think about everyday. IQ is certainly a giant one. But of all things to worry about, please don't play games with basic shutter speed, gain and Iris. And yes,..just give me clean HDMI too.

I'll have plenty to be concerned about the with the 996 other features. For $1,500+ I shouldn't need to think about the first BASIC 4.


CT

However, I only beg the industry to do one simple thing: If your camera costs $1,500 or more, please make sure it has 4 of the most basic functions:

1. Independent IRIS control
2. Independent GAIN control
3. Independent SHUTTER SPEED control
4. Clean HDMI out.

All the other features can be sliced and diced all day long. Size, sensor, image quality, lens, hard buttons, soft buttons, touch screen, XLR, battery,....all that stuff can be played with to their hearts content.

Just give me these 4 basic things on every camera out there and I will be happy with all the rest of the feature differences. Those things are what makes cameras so interesting anyway.

The tricky part here is to determine what "basic" features users want most. I've pre-ordered the AX100 and I have to say I have no need for any of the 4 "basic" features you mention. Short of locking white balance, I'll be leaving the camera in full auto, that's what works for my particular business need for this camera. In fact my top 4 "basic" requirements would be:

1) 4K resolution as many of my customers view my content on retina type displays, so I'm currently lagging behind by sticking with 1080p.
2) Small manageable codec because I archive all my own footage so it all has to be manageable, going with Raw or Prores would kill me.
3) Camera must be very small because I need to he able to hold the camera with one hand in odd positions and sometimes the subjects will be filming themselves, hence large cameras are of no use to me.
4) Not too large of a sensor because I don't want extremely shallow depth of field. I tried using my vg900 for this but while that camera is excellent for one of my websites, the large sensor is actually a hindrance for the others.

Extending my list a bit I would add:
5) Good auto focus and face recognition. Because my stuff is mostly run and gun and very unpredictable, I need very good auto focus. I would argue that a small handheld camera like the AX100 would be better at this than larger cameras because it has to. It will be purchased by people filming their families, kids and what have you so it's auto focus must work very well otherwise everyone will be returning the camera. When you go to larger cameras it's often expected that people will forgo auto focus and go full manual or use follow focus setups so people there tend to tolerate poor auto focus more.
6) Good low light performance. Because I'm an army of one I don't have a lighting crew, so even when I do setup my lighting the fluid nature of what I film can still sometimes lead to unpredictable lighting situations.

Personally I'm so glad Sony and others ignore what some people demand on various forums and websites here and there. For example many call for the death of avchd and demand to always have prores. Goodness if that happened I don't know what I'd do, my archiving would become a nightmare! Same with those demanding xlr on everything, I'd never have the small camera I need if Sony listened to those cries. Everyone's needs are different, so to make a definitive "basic" list isn't really possible as my list will quite likely be orthogonal to yours.

If most of what you do is handheld then 30P may not be as good as a wish for 60P. Which is what I would like from such a camera.

Ron Evans

If most of what you do is handheld then 30P may not be as good as a wish for 60P. Which is what I would like from such a camera.

Ron Evans

Yeah I would have liked 60fps for sure as that's what I film now with my NX30. But I see this camera more as a transition camera that I'll use for a year, and that hopefully they will have future 60fps cameras using h265 instead of h264 so that I can get my 4k 60fps and still have manageable file sizes in a small camera that doesn't need a noisy fan. Right now I'm not really willing to go to 4k 60fps if it means I have to deal with a 150mbps h264 based codec, or if it means using a large camera.

I'd much prefer H.264 for now. HEVC throws away a lot of data during it's compression and it would certainly not pass generational testing. (re-encoding over and over again) It doesn't even have a High Profile yet.

HEVC will be for final delivery while acquisition will remain in the RAW domain or H.264 one for quite some time. Consumers may see HEVC camcorders, but I guarantee it will not hold up as good as H.264 if you're planning to do lots of post-production on the footage (Grading, VFX, etc.)

For example many call for the death of avchd and demand to always have prores.
Personally I'd call for the death of AVC-HD - but in this market to go with XDCAM 35Mbs

The file sizes aren't that much bigger, the quality is somewhat better (how much depends on the individual AVC-HD coder) - but XDCAM is far more easily managed processing wise.

I'd argue that was a better compromise. AVC-HD came about as a way of getting decent quality video onto cheap (read SDHC) cards. But the latter could easily manage XDCAM datarates almost before AVC-HD product became available, which rather destroyed the whole point of AVC-HD.

XDCAM is more of a pro level version while regular AVC-HD is still more tailored to the consumers.

I think Sony will now push XAVC-S for most all their camcorders even the POV AS100. I have the AX1 and Edius will edit just fine by itself. I backup to LTO3 data tape anyway which may make me move to LTO5 a little sooner which I was considering anyway. Nothing comes free if you suddenly increase the data by 4 times. If you want 4K it is going to cost.

Ron Evans

Your score: 11
0 ( Perfect Color Acuity ) 99 ( Low Color Acuity )
Color Test - Online Color Challenge | X-Rite (http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge)


My first post here on DVINfo... I got a 4 :)
I am a photo retoucher, so experienced with color.

I joined this thread, because I am very interested in getting a new 4K cam, and the FDR-AX100 seems like the right choice.

I am looking specifically how this camera handles skin tones in studio lighting.

I am looking to see how much color grading will be required for a high-end fashion/beauty type shoot, compared to how the color looks straight out of the camera. Of course I know it depends on the studio lighting, but less assume pro set-up with correct CRI and color balance. I have not seen any studio sample footage with critical skin tones, just outdoor footage with natural light.

There are several "Handycams" with full control. VG20/30 and 900. FX1 and all the "Top Handycams" after it.

CT

Cliff, what I should have said is one of the typically small handicams. IOW, the form factor of the AX100. I owned both the NEX VG20 & 30 and neither was particularly small. I still feel the pain of that moire that would so often rear its ugly head. ;)

I'd much prefer H.264 for now. HEVC throws away a lot of data during it's compression and it would certainly not pass generational testing. (re-encoding over and over again) It doesn't even have a High Profile yet.

HEVC will be for final delivery while acquisition will remain in the RAW domain or H.264 one for quite some time. Consumers may see HEVC camcorders, but I guarantee it will not hold up as good as H.264 if you're planning to do lots of post-production on the footage (Grading, VFX, etc.)

Interesting I didn't know that, I was actually expecting h265 to creep into the camera world next year. Well I guess that means at some point I'll have to accept 100mbps or so for 4k 60fps as I presume 60mbps wouldn't be acceptable for 60fps 4k video. Although I guess the first realistic step is to see how the AX100 handles 4k 30fps to begin with.

Everyone's needs are different, so to make a definitive "basic" list isn't really possible as my list will quite likely be orthogonal to yours.

So very true Pete. This is why I would not want to be a camera designer. One guy will say you were totally ignoring the pleas for most of what was on Cliff's list and the next guy will say as you did, I don't need that, give me the things that I want. I'm kind of amused when people are totally dumbfounded because something was left off of their list as if 'their list' should have been the only consideration of Sony.

Obviously Sony was not listening to ME, because I wanted 4K@60p. What the hell were they thinking!!! :)

You'll never please everyone.

Interesting I didn't know that, I was actually expecting h265 to creep into the camera world next year. Well I guess that means at some point I'll have to accept 100mbps or so for 4k 60fps as I presume 60mbps wouldn't be acceptable for 60fps 4k video. Although I guess the first realistic step is to see how the AX100 handles 4k 30fps to begin with.

For the HDR-AX1 , 4K@60P ( 59.94) is 150Mbps. At 24P ( 23.98) or 30P (29.97) you have a choice of 100Mbps or 60Mbps. The data rate on the PXW-Z100 10bit 4:2:2 is 4 times as much with the XAVC codec.

Ron Evans

For the HDR-AX1 , 4K@60P ( 59.94) is 150Mbps. At 24P ( 23.98) or 30P (29.97) you have a choice of 100Mbps or 60Mbps. The data rate on the PXW-Z100 10bit 4:2:2 is 4 times as much with the XAVC codec.

Oh yeah, it is 150mbps for 4k 60fps with h264 isn't it. Hmm, if it's true that h265 isn't coming to cameras any time soon then I may have to deal with mass amounts of data archiving if I want 60fps. Ugh :( Or I guess I can stick with the AX100's 30fps longer than anticipated assuming it looks ok.

For my FDR-AX1 a 64G QXD card last about 50 mins at 60P so a 2 hours show takes about 150G. For my NX5U at 60i that would be about 25G!!! So backup for a 2 hour show with AX1, NX5U, NX30U and CX700 ( all but NX5U shooting 60P ) almost 200G. About half a LTO3 tape at $25. I used to be able to backup all source and finished projects 4 to a tape now it will be more like 2 to a tape. Still way cheaper than keeping DV tapes and faster to transfer to PC and backup to tape too.

I do not like the judder of slow frame rates so its 60P or nothing for me. I tried 30P on the AX1 as it was for YouTube anyway but could still see the judder even though almost no one moved !!

Ron Evans

Ron, if you have a display that is capable of doubling or tripling frame rate, this almost becomes a non-issue.

I've tried it with cellphone videos as a test. Played at the normal 30fps on my plasma, it was tough to watch with any rapid movement or panning. However as soon as I implemented the frame doubler (as most modern displays have...especially LED/LCDs), the motion was hard to distinguish from 60fps.I did this same test on my 60" Sharp Elite, local dimming LED display, and the results were the same.

These are the same circuits that result in the dreaded 'SOE', Soap Opera Effect, if used while watching movies. So I would only use that circuit for video.

Modern Internet video delivery has never went beyond 30p, and we are growing up in a generation that only sees 60p/60i from broadcast. 60p also doesn't render well on computers, requiring perfect vertical sync to deliver it properly.

Unless there is actual effort to optimize 60p display on computers, (which none of the video card manufacturers are doing) everyone of the computer-tied generation is going to be watching 30p.

Stage6 back in the day was a DivX codec driven website that allowed you to upload raw DivX encodes without it being re-encoded. Back then, you could actually upload 60p and it would render it relatively well. That no longer exists, and so is the notion of 60p on the internet. Netflix even converts 60i content to 30p, and worse yet, if it's a PAL source but the conversion is sourced from a NTSC DVD that has already had a frame rate conversion, it tries to render 30p for internet delivery, resulting in extreme amounts of strobing and motion artifacting.

Even worse, people would have used the "original file download" feature of certain websites to deliver 60p, but that notion died as well, since that would take massive amounts of bandwidth. Only Vimeo Plus allows you to give away the original file download, and that's $60 a year.

For my FDR-AX1 a 64G QXD card last about 50 mins at 60P so a 2 hours show takes about 150G. For my NX5U at 60i that would be about 25G!!! So backup for a 2 hour show with AX1, NX5U, NX30U and CX700 ( all but NX5U shooting 60P ) almost 200G. About half a LTO3 tape at $25. I used to be able to backup all source and finished projects 4 to a tape now it will be more like 2 to a tape. Still way cheaper than keeping DV tapes and faster to transfer to PC and backup to tape too.

Yeah that's what worries me. To put it in perspective with a real world example, I did a few shoots last week and ended up with about 228gb of data. I archive everything on 3 magnetic hard drives and on optical blurays spread out at two different banks. Yeah I'm paranoid about losing my data :) So that 228gb of video data becomes 912gb of archive data in total for a few days of shoots last week. That's with my Sony NX30 that records at 28mbps. So switching to the AX100's 60mbps means that 912gb of archive will now become 1954gb in size. If I switch to the AX1's 150mbps then that 912gb of archive becomes 4885gb of data. I think I can manage the jump to the AX100, but going to the AX1 would be quite painful. Hence why I was hopeful of h265 becoming a reality in the camera space.


Modern Internet video delivery has never went beyond 30p, and we are growing up in a generation that only sees 60p/60i from broadcast. 60p also doesn't render well on computers, requiring perfect vertical sync to deliver it properly.

Unless there is actual effort to optimize 60p display on computers, (which none of the video card manufacturers are doing) everyone of the computer-tied generation is going to be watching 30p.

Fortunately that doesn't apply to me :) I have my own websites that people sign up to and watch or download the videos, so it's been all 60fps for me for years now along with lower quality 30fps versions as well. That's also why I'm chomping at the bit to go 4k since many of my customers already have displays > 1920x1080 resolution. Most every computer has been able to play back my high bitrate 1920x1080 60fps videos for years now without issue, but 4k 60fps might challenge some at first. Things move fast though in the computer space, and 4k 30fps shouldn't be an issue for most anyways.

Ron, if you have a display that is capable of doubling or tripling frame rate, this almost becomes a non-issue.

I've tried it with cellphone videos as a test. Played at the normal 30fps on my plasma, it was tough to watch with any rapid movement or panning. However as soon as I implemented the frame doubler (as most modern displays have...especially LED/LCDs), the motion was hard to distinguish from 60fps.I did this same test on my 60" Sharp Elite, local dimming LED display, and the results were the same.

These are the same circuits that result in the dreaded 'SOE', Soap Opera Effect, if used while watching movies. So I would only use that circuit for video.

My issue isn't playback as I have a Sony 240Hz interpolating display. But my Panasonic plasma shows the issue immediately. I want to edit and produce a nice clean smooth 60i SD DVD from the source so need those missing frames/fields that 60i or 60p provide. Yes I feel we are degrading most things in video and audio. We end up listening to mp3 and watching poor 30p video .... Sad.

Ron Evans

Ron, your Panny doesn't have a frame doubler? My Samsung plasma does as well as my Sharp LED/LCD. Is this an older Panasonic model?

For me this isn't an issue and I'm really just using the AX100 for my personal use. If your Panasonic doesn't have it, at least for playback you could use your Sony for smooth motion. Of course that won't help in producing 60i SD DVDs.

But that's painful, taking 4K and turning it in to 60i SD. Makes me want to cry. I go through such gyrations to ensure the most lossless end-product just for my own use.

In doing customized training videos for clients, they all want SD since the product winds up, more often than not, on either their intranet or a DVD. So for that I used my trusty Sony VX2100. SD in, SD out.

As for 'degrading', that's surely not what I feel is happening with 4K. Even with the AX100, if the video looks anything like the demo, I'll take that kind of 'degrading' every day of the week. ;)

...that won't help in producing 60i SD DVDs.

But that's painful, taking 4K and turning it in to 60i SD. Makes me want to cry. I go through such gyrations to ensure the most lossless end-product just for my own use.

In doing customized training videos for clients, they all want SD since the product winds up, more often than not, on either their intranet or a DVD. So for that I used my trusty Sony VX2100. SD in, SD out.

I tried to use my NanoFlash on some of my EX1R gigs, but knowing the output was DVD, I know there's no difference between internal 1080p 4:2:0 and external 4:2:2 if it is going to DVD.

My only interest in 4K is to crop/pan /zoom to 1920x1080 so that I can produce a Bluray and SD output fro the one source both at 60i. And there is a difference between downscaling the AX1 and source from my NX30U or CX700 or even the NX5U. The AX1 is sharper and cleaner with enough light. I would like to get the to point where I can shoot a show wide and edit multicam from the one source or at least have just one other camera for really closeups. So I would like good low light but with large depth of field. The AX1 does not do low light that well so will keep a look out for what comes next but a really large sensor will not really fit the requirements for large depth of field in most cases.

Ron Evans

My only interest in 4K is to crop/pan /zoom to 1920x1080 so that I can produce a Bluray and SD output fro the one source both at 60i.

The AX1 is sharper and cleaner with enough light. I would like to get the to point where I can shoot a show wide and edit multicam from the one source or at least have just one other camera for really closeups.
Ron Evans

Hey Ron, from your experience, How close can you get zoom wise when cropping AX1 4k fooage down to 1080? Also, typically how far is the camera from your subject when shooting wide with this intention?

I'm wondering how well I could "zoom" on say a Jack Russel Terror from 50 feet away across an Agility field at at dog show, before the picture begins to lose enough quality to render this method unacceptable?

UHD is 4 times 1920x1080 so you can zoom in 4:1 without loosing any pixels for 1920x1080. After that you will be interpolating and will loose sharpness. Of course for SD you can go in even more, close to 16:1. I shoot theatre so want to frame actors sensibly in the frame so do not need to go in very much. More like center/crop the frame on the actors so 4:1 is just fine. I did this when HDV first came out using my FX1 to edit to DV and it worked just great and so hope to do the same thing with 4K. It was almost 4 years before I actually used the FX1 in a HD project when I eventually got a couple of AVCHD cams to use with it for multicam.

So far I have shot with the AX1 and backup with CX700 to make sure things actually work but it has worked just fine in this unattended semi auto mode. Fixed focus/white balance/shutter speed and exposure in AE shift just like the CX700.

Ron Evans

There are two issues, one is the resolution of individual frames, which should be fairly good for the pan/crop part of the equation, but the second is the temporal motion of 30 vs. 60 of these sharp frames per second is the part that we'll have to see about when the camera comes out.

Once seeing 60p vs. 60i, you see the advantages of "more frames", but we're talking about a new compression scheme... will 30 be "enough" is the question that remains? The reasoning behind it is obvious, it's effectively the same reason that film went with 24 frames per second many many years ago - the limitations of the medium, vs. the "minimum acceptable" display when it's all said and done.

It'll be interesting once the AX100 releases to see if the compromise is "acceptable" when compared to say the 60p output from this camera (or other 60p cameras). I'm not worried much about "sharp" in general, just motion handling... I'm in the pan/crop "crowd" for general uses of such a camera, but also thinking of "future proofing" some footage.

60P and 60i have exactly the same temporal motion they both record 60 ( 59.94) exposures a second. 60i records fields, half the vertical resolution, and 60p records the whole frame. Confusion arises over the timecode as 60i is 29.97 fps , since the timecode increments every 2 fields.

As mentioned in a previous post and modern interpolating display like my 240Hz Sony can make 24P, 30P, 60i and 60P all look much the same by filling in the missing information to display progressive frames at the refresh rate of the display. In my case an early true 240hz Sony

For my use 30P will not do it.

Ron Evans

I'm perfectly fine with 29.97p. It's my favorite frame rate with my EX1r and FS100 anyway.

I think 29.97 handles motion perfectly fine. (significantly better than 24p)

29.97p video also creates a perfect progressive "look" when it's rendered out to 60i for Blu-ray too. Because both top and bottom fields are sliced from the exact same frame, you get no "comb" effect in 60i. It's a basically 29.97 PSF.

So no 60p on the AX100? No problem for me. I'm more curious to see how assigning only 15Mbp/s for each 1080 quadrant will look. 4 x 1080 = 4K or almost UHD anyway.

XAVC-S at 60Mbp/s? Hmmm.....big question!

To my eye, 60I and 60p look very different in practice, and 24p "stutters" for want of a better word - looks jerky to me, vs. "smoother" 60p. Philosophically, I want "more data" at the time of capture if possible, with the theory that it gives more to work with later... so the idea of 30 vs. 60 is not appetizing.

BUT for some time I've rendered out to 24p from 60p with good results... there seems to be some secret sauce involved in the processes that is not necessarily expressed in the specifications... as we've discussed a bit here, there are "specs", and there are results.


We all saw the early RX10 "test shots" from STILL CAMERA reviewers that were a little scary at best... now that people who understand that swinging the camera wildly is NOT "technique" are using it, the RX10 is turning out to be a pretty good VIDEO camera, as designed. I guess this is why I'm holding out some hope that 30p 4K may actually turn out to be "useful" or usable... despite the initial reaction that it won't cut it, based on "prior experience".

We will see soon enough, and it'll likely still be pretty impressive for 1080/60p no matter what (OK, so save $500 and buy the CX900?). In that respect, the question is whether if's a step "up" from the CX/PJ7xx series that so many of us know, and use for what they do so well.

I'm fine with 29.97p too. I shoot at 59.97p with my RX10 and when I render off at 29.97 I can't see any difference (vs 60p). Maybe it's my subject matter (or my eyes).

The conversation about different needs is interesting. For what it's worth here is my list.

1 A decent EVF
2. Noise-free sharp colourful 29.97 or 59.97p
3. Long (optical) reach
4. Light weight, compact, highly portable (not necessarily pocketable).
5. High quality image stabilization
6. RX10 quality stills
7. Built in ND filters
8. Perfect auto-focus and auto WB.

I don't need raw, hdmi out, 24p, shallow DOF, low-light capability, XLR audio inputs, touch screen.

Along with my RX10, I think if I get an AX100 and an HX400v I might be set, for now!

Until something better comes along, and it will.

Thanks Ron & Dave for reminding me to look at the numbers. I completely didnt even think about the fact of resolution being 4x bigger than HD. After a while all the numbers start to hurt my short attention span prone brain. hahaha on a more serious note, like many others have mentioned, I'll have to get my hands on a camera and play around to see what will fit my needs and work style.

I'm also following discussions on the AX1 and am keen to find out just how "compatable" the AX1 and AX100 will be with each other as I'm sure others are as well.

Not sure, if this video is shot with a Sony 4K cam, but i don't like the image at 1:20 (the higher speed images).
Or it maybe a crappy conversion.
4 k camcorder best Full HD video - YouTube

Another video showing it must have been a long FL lens on it for many of the shots.
4 k camcorder best results for Full HD video - YouTube

I have had my FDR-AX1 since just before Christmas and have mainly shot 60P but a few shoots at 30P 100Mbps for a YouTube video that had no real movement anyway. Most Sony's match each other very well so I expect the FDR-AX1 and FDR-AX100 both at 30P same data rate to match well. I think low light will depend on zoom position for both cameras as the FDR-AX1 full wide is F1.6 but with both zoomed tele they are both F3.4 ( I think ) so in this case the FDR-AX100 will have the advantage.

Set wide for full stage view next to my CX700 the FDR-AX1 performed very similar both going to 21db of gain at times. The difference is when the FDR-AX1 is downconverted to 1920x1080 it seems to have more depth to the image likely because the colour resolution is now closer to 4:2:2 than 4:2:0 of the AVCHD from the CX700. For highlights this seems to add some detail lost in the CX700 image. Big advantage when shooting dance with flashing lights of all colours. For a dance show I left it full wide then cropped in to the stage area as needed and this worked great. Would love it to have better low light but it works for now.

Ron Evans

Dave, watching 60i and 60P is totally dependent on the playback chain. 60i deinterlacing is different on different TV's so will look different between manufacturers etc. 60P is native for most flat panel displays in North America so will be more consistent across manufacturers. If from a DVD or Bluray player one has another option involved. Hence 60P is the best choice but of course no spec for discs just as there is no spec for 30P either !! So we are at the point where discs do not playback the two likely choices for people to shoot in !!!! Both have to be converted to 60i or 1280x720P60. I think we will see a new disc spec for 4K that includes both 60P and 30P !!!

Ron Evans

I'm more curious to see how assigning only 15Mbp/s for each 1080 quadrant will look. 4 x 1080 = 4K or almost UHD anyway.

XAVC-S at 60Mbp/s? Hmmm.....big question!
Dangerous to read too much into headline numbers, and that can apply very much to bitrate as well as subsampling, bitdepth etc.

Firstly, is the 60Mbs an average or peak value? I believe the numbers quoted for AVC-HD are peak - the average bitrate is much less than 24Mbs. And a lot depends on the individual coder - all AVC-HD coders don't give anything like the same performance, even at the same bitrate. And here we're talking about X-AVC which *should* give better performance than AVC-HD.

But most of all, it's incorrect to directly scale compressed bitrates up as resolution increases, assuming equivalent quality. As a rule of thumb, the higher the resolution, the higher the compression ratio for equivalent quality (assuming all else - codec etc equal)

So - the question you put is "is 60Mbs good enough"? That can only be really answered when we see real results - but even then, what is "good enough"? That may seem a silly question, but as with HD codecs, it depends on factors such as how much post processing the signal is likely to have. Which is why AVC-HD for HD may be fine for many uses - but is not broadcast approved. The original pictures may be fine - but can't be guaranteed to stand up to the compression/recompression of the broadcast chain.

My gut feeling is that it probably will be OK - bearing in mind we are talking about a consumer camera. (Albeit a quite expensive one, aimed at the top end of "consumer".) Look at it this way. I believe top end cameras (such as the F55) code 4K with XAVC at a rate of 10Mb/frame - so 24fps is 240Mbs, as it's an I-frame only codec.

Here we're talking about a codec a quarter the bitrate - but with the efficiencies that long-GOP brings. The latter may not fully compensate for the extra 4x compression - but we are talking about a consumer codec versus a true pro one.

It may be tempting to think "but 100Mbs could only be better, surely?" Maybe true in terms of quality, but think of the designers job of reconciling design compromises. One of those is GUARANTEEING reliable performance as much as possible with consumer media - which argues in favour of keeping bitrates down. I'm sure Sony could have implemented 100Mbs - but it would have caused problems with guaranteed media etc to a far greater extent than 60Mbs recording. We must never forget it is a consumer camera.

So - the question you put is "is 60Mbs good enough"? That can only be really answered when we see real results - but even then, what is "good enough"?

I think so much will depend on what a particular user films and how its used. I'm reminded of the Sony VG900 camera which has been deemed garbage on the internet because one website said it was crap when they tested it filming wide landscapes at f11 and said it lacked detail. Now everyone quotes that review and just repeats the "its garbage" mantra without even really knowing why. Meanwhile I use the VG900 for a website to film narrow portraits clips wide open at T1.5 85mm to get soft dreamy looking shots with extreme subject separation, which the VG900 excels at. So for me the VG900 is a brilliant camera as I'm not looking for sharpness and extreme detail, but I'm looking for a unique soft and dreamy look that lets me film in tight quarters with good low light performance and extremely shallow dof all viewed through its amazing oled viewfinder, and as a bonus not having to deal with dslr issues like overheating, limited clip length, poor ergonomics, crappy viewfinders, etc. So for me the VG900 is brilliant and I make money with it, for others its garbage even though they never even used it.

I think the above will also happen with the AX100. You can bet your bottom dollar someone will use it filming landscapes outdoors with undulating water in the background, changing light, trees swaying in the wind, smoke in the scene with fast camera pans and deem the camera garbage because it's 60mbps couldn't cope with that stressful codec situation. Others will latch onto that and repeat it over and over again on various forums even though they have never even used the camera, but it was garbage for that one user therefore just like the VG900 it must be garbage for everything. Meanwhile my needs to the AX100 are 99% indoor filming with controlled light that doesn't change like outdoor lighting can, no visible smoke or water that tends to stress codecs, mostly static scenes that don't have all sorts of organic matter swaying in the wind, with normal speed pans. In my case 60mbps may do just fine. So for one user 60mbps is garbage, for me 60mbps may work ok.

In the end it really does depend on how people intend to use the camera, for some the 60mbps code may not work but for others it may be just fine. It's not really something looking at pure numbers will tell you, it will depend on how the camera will be used.

@Peter -

As you point out, a camera that works for one person/job may not be "right" for someone else or a different job!
It's important to remember that there isn't a "one camera fits all" - thus why we all might have a (ahem) "few" cameras...

I have found the RX10 and RX100M2 have put many of my "favorite" cameras up for review for possible sale! I sort of expect the AX100 will complete the "sweep", and cover much of what I will "need" a camera/cameras to do... I'm sure there will still be a couple cameras that will be sticking around, but get used less... it's hard to compete with small, light, "fun" cameras that shoot really good stills/clips...


As far as bitrates - if we rough calculate that 30p would require about "half" the bits of 60p, and current Sony "high end" bitrate for 60p is 28Mbps... at least in theory, I would think that 15Mbps per 1/4 screen in 4K should be able to "match" current 1080/60p in terms of individual frame quality... it'll come down to whether motion looks "right" or not - general opinion is that 28Mbps holds up "OK", but not "great" with higher motion... we'd all like "more" (thus the new higher bitrate 1080/60p in the CX900/AX100 may turn out to be a hidden gem), but there are limits...


As the other David alludes to...
In the end, digital is just 1's and 0's, artfully arranged, with varying degrees of success. Processing capacity and speed, as well as storage capacity and speed govern how much can be done at economical prices - those 1's and 0's have to be juggled and stored somehow, and over time we get more proficient/efficient ways to deal with more of them!

At a $2k price point, you're still talking about HALF of other possible 4K "solutions" announced (presuming you'll have to buy into lenses, etc for a GH4...) or available (AX1)... with the pedigree the sensor and processor are already bringing to the table, this should be a breakout camera in many ways. High price always "feels expensive", but when you break down the features and capabilities, sometimes the price starts to look a lot more "reasonable" (OK, it's still a lot of money... but sometimes you actually do "get what you pay for").

As far as bitrates - if we rough calculate that 30p would require about "half" the bits of 60p, and current Sony "high end" bitrate for 60p is 28Mbps... .
Sorry Dave, not true, not for interframe codecs anyway, which is what we're talking about here.

It's one thing that a doubling of resolution does not mean a doubling of bitrate for equivalent quality, but doubling framerate most certainly does not mean doubling bitrate.

It takes advantage of there being more redundancy in the higher framerate signal, and normally involves keeping the time interval between I-frames constant - typically every 1/2 second. Hence, for 30p there will be 15 frames in a GOP, for 60p there will be 30 frames. But in terms of size, the I frames are far larger than difference frames - and there is still only one per GOP, or two per second. Yes, about twice as many difference frames - but they are small in comparison, so overall the effect is far less than a doubling of bitrate.
I'm reminded of the Sony VG900 camera which has been deemed garbage on the internet because one website said it was crap when they tested it filming wide landscapes at f11 and said it lacked detail. Now everyone quotes that review .........
At f11, it's quite likely the lens was beginning to suffer diffraction issues and I don't find it surprising that the images "lacked detail"! The only conclusions that can really be drawn are that you should never film wide landscapes at f11 - and it says more about deficiencies in the testing procedure than anything about the camera.

And that's the problem with most "real world" tests. Unless they are done under controlled conditions, they are frequently meaningless - and often judgements get made on the quality of the photography, the lighting, the editing, and the subject matter! Not the quality of the camera - which is what is supposed to be under test!

Dangerous to read too much into headline numbers, and that can apply very much to bitrate as well as subsampling, bitdepth etc.

Firstly, is the 60Mbs an average or peak value? I believe the numbers quoted for AVC-HD are peak - the average bitrate is much less than 24Mbs. And a lot depends on the individual coder - all AVC-HD coders don't give anything like the same performance, even at the same bitrate. And here we're talking about X-AVC which *should* give better performance than AVC-HD.

But most of all, it's incorrect to directly scale compressed bitrates up as resolution increases, assuming equivalent quality. As a rule of thumb, the higher the resolution, the higher the compression ratio for equivalent quality (assuming all else - codec etc equal)

So - the question you put is "is 60Mbs good enough"? That can only be really answered when we see real results - but even then, what is "good enough"? That may seem a silly question, but as with HD codecs, it depends on factors such as how much post processing the signal is likely to have. Which is why AVC-HD for HD may be fine for many uses - but is not broadcast approved. The original pictures may be fine - but can't be guaranteed to stand up to the compression/recompression of the broadcast chain.

My gut feeling is that it probably will be OK - bearing in mind we are talking about a consumer camera. (Albeit a quite expensive one, aimed at the top end of "consumer".) Look at it this way. I believe top end cameras (such as the F55) code 4K with XAVC at a rate of 10Mb/frame - so 24fps is 240Mbs, as it's an I-frame only codec.

Here we're talking about a codec a quarter the bitrate - but with the efficiencies that long-GOP brings. The latter may not fully compensate for the extra 4x compression - but we are talking about a consumer codec versus a true pro one.

It may be tempting to think "but 100Mbs could only be better, surely?" Maybe true in terms of quality, but think of the designers job of reconciling design compromises. One of those is GUARANTEEING reliable performance as much as possible with consumer media - which argues in favour of keeping bitrates down. I'm sure Sony could have implemented 100Mbs - but it would have caused problems with guaranteed media etc to a far greater extent than 60Mbs recording. We must never forget it is a consumer camera.


I agree with you on all of this. With a long GOP codec, it's very very tough to estimate and translate bitrates and quality between HD and 4K. It's not as simple as just dividing UHD video by a factor of 4 and comparing it to 1080.

To make things even more complex, AVCHD runs on H.264 at a "4.0" level. This means that is does NOT contain all the H.264 tool sets that the h.264 spec has to offer.

On the other hand, XAVC-S runs at "5.2" level. This means that XAVC-S has ALL the possible math and tools that h.264 allows. (5.2 is the most complex specification)

So,...we can assume that bit rate for bit rate and pixel for pixel, XAVC-S will be better looking.

I'm still skeptical but the only way to know for sure is shoot and test. lol

I'm willing to give it a fair chance. I'm hoping it's fairly durable in fast motion, complex scenes and hopefully has fairly clean blacks. If the bitrate is too low, it will show up as heavy quantizing in the shadows first .

Anybody shoot 4k at 60Mbp/s XAVC-S with their AX1?

CT

Cliff I will try and shoot something this week. I have not shot anything at 60Mbps 30P. It is -10C outside at the moment and just snow etc so not ideal for shooting. You will need some movement to test so indoor static is not of much use but could do a slow pan I suppose.

Ron Evans

All,

Remember we don't know what the proposed final recording bitrate of the camera is yet, it's never been published from Sony.

It's been postulated what it may be based on the codec, current SDXC capabilities and a comparison to the Z100. It's quite possible that it could be higher than 60Mbs but until either the camera comes out or Sony publishes the final specs, we're just guessing.

Thanks.

Remember we don't know what the proposed final recording bitrate of the camera is yet, it's never been published from Sony.

........It's quite possible that it could be higher than 60Mbs but until either the camera comes out or Sony publishes the final specs, we're just guessing.
Not true, no guessing - from the Sony website - Specifications | FDR-AX100E | Handycam Camcorder | Sony (http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/handycam-camcorders/fdr-ax100e/specifications) and scroll down to the section "Recording"
Video Recording Rate (ABR / VBR)

XAVC S 4K Approx.60Mbps, "XAVC S HD Approx.50Mbps", HD PS:Approx.28Mbps/FX:Approx.24Mbps/FH:Approx.17Mbps/HQ:Approx.9Mbps/LP:Approx.5Mbps, MP4: Approx.3Mbps

So 60Mbs long-GOP XAVC for 4K, 50Mbs XAVC for high frame rate HD, plus AVC-HD modes.

Touche.

I was going off of Sony's Press Release blog site and the American store.sony.com which still shows:

Recording
Video Resolution : XAVC-S 4K : 3840×2160/30P, 24P; XAVC-S HD : 1920x1080/60P, 30P, 24P;AVCHD:1920x1080/60p(PS),24p(FX,FH),60i(FX,FH), 1440x1080/60i(HQ,LP); MP4: 1280x720 30p

Thanks for the correction, I wonder if they've updated that recently. Interestingly I've seen specs quoted wrong between the two sites before, not that I doubt it but it seems odd all things given.

On another note, that's a really funky format/layout they're using on the UK site, almost like someone was afraid of spaces!

I think both sites are probably right. Time will tell.

English specs are for the FDR AX100E, American specs FDR AX100.

Cheers,

Vaughan.

The video interviews on Youtube also mention about an hour record time for a 32G card which is about correct for 60Mbps taken from my AX1 user manual.

Ron Evans