for those shooting with the 70, is the quality difference obvious between these 2 formats in the footage?

I would say it really depends on what you are doing with the video. For my part I have only shot in XAVC because I am doing greenscreen and color correction in post, which I would not attempt with AVCHD.

I haven't actually tried the AVCHD on the X70 because... why. But I used AVCHD a lot with the FS700 (and FS100, NEX 7, ...), and I have to say the XAVC on the X70 looks miles better to me. In fact embarrassingly better, given how much cheaper the camera is. It looks way nicer, more organic, richer... well I can't figure out exactly how to describe it, but I know it when I see it... ;-)

One thing that's clearly different is gradeability. Pushing a clip from the FS700 was something I generally learned not to do; on the X70, it's a different story due to the 10-bit.

So I'd say yes, the XAVC is well worth it. I mean, it makes sense; it's double the bit rate with otherwise the same codec (H.264). So if you have the choice, definitely pick the XAVC. Yes, it's a pain if your NLE doesn't support it, but transcoding is available.

supposed to be obvious but it's not. they look the same, exactly. even grading. and that's suspicious.

My final output is HDV 720p60, and YES, it looks better. The colors "pop" a bit more, even without grading or color alterating.

Paul

Here is my take. Showed two clips to a client. Both the same exact scene.

. One was XAVC while the other was AVCHD at the highest Bit Rate.

.Client choice the AVCHD scene with the word "Wow,"

Go figure.

^If you don't do grading, (AKA baking in a look with a picture profile) that's okay. But as soon as you start shooting flat, you'll need the extra bitrate XAVC provides.

Shooting with an AX100 I tell you that the avchd looks cheap along side xavc

Shooting with an AX100 I tell you that the avchd looks cheap along side xavc


yes definitely, I agree. but that's XAVCS and most likely real on the AX100 . On the X70 the so-called 50mbps 10bit 4:2:2 of the XAVCL gives the same exact output of the AVCHD once transcoded. Even grading. Dunno where others get the idea that holds the color better.

AVCHD also microblocks in fast action scenes. That was my main complaint. Not enough data to hold a fast changing shot.

As I tend to do a lot of available-light shooting indoors at 1080p60, I'll add that the difference is VERY apparent to me. Where grain creeps in, the XAVC keeps up where the AVCHD gets blocky. Outside, or otherwise in good light, I'd have a hard time picking a winner.

As I tend to do a lot of available-light shooting indoors at 1080p60, I'll add that the difference is VERY apparent to me. Where grain creeps in, the XAVC keeps up where the AVCHD gets blocky. Outside, or otherwise in good light, I'd have a hard time picking a winner.

that's with the AX100 , no questions hands down.XAVC-S is much better than AVCHD for many many reasons, and it's obvious looking at the footage with or without glasses.

But the OP asked about the XAVC-L of the X70 , and that's where things get complicated. As you know the footage needs to be "converted", or "tranbscoded" (basically you run a software that will read the files and writes other files 5times bigger for the same XAVC). Right there you already "smell" something funny, no?
In the end the difference between the "manipulated" XAVC-L and the "native and ready to go" AVCHD are none. the output is exactly the same. same definition, same colors, same everything.

So XAVC works beautifully on AX100 and it's some sort of joke on X70.

Sorry if you cannot work with the XAVC files from the X70 natively, but there are programs that can handle it (Adobe Premiere, AfterEffects) and I have had no issues doing so. Regardless, transcoding either format to ProRes will not result in identical output since it is coming from the data in the original codec. It is essentially re-quantifying the data into a less compressed space to make editing easier. The more data you start with the better the output can be. Of course for some types of scenes the extra data might not be practically useful, and you may be better off using AVCHD if that better suits your workflow.

just tried XAVC-S at 60p from a Sony RX10 and it opens and plays in PP on a PC directly from the card. next will shoot some motion at 120p and see how it does slowed down....

Sorry if you cannot work with the XAVC files from the X70 natively, but there are programs that can handle it (Adobe Premiere, AfterEffects) and I have had no issues doing so. Regardless, transcoding either format to ProRes will not result in identical output since it is coming from the data in the original codec. It is essentially re-quantifying the data into a less compressed space to make editing easier. The more data you start with the better the output can be. Of course for some types of scenes the extra data might not be practically useful, and you may be better off using AVCHD if that better suits your workflow.

With Vegas (made by the same Company) you have to "transcode". No other way. and what you say makes sense if it wasn't for the fact that the "more data" are added by the software (Catalyst, also made by the same Company) after the fact. you start with (say) 100MB mxf and end up with 500MB mxf (same XAVC). then it takes forever, it will write the 100MB mxf again into the hard drive somewhere, plus the new 500MB. Result? the same as the AVCHD. Makes sense? no.
and the same is happening to the XAVC-L of the FS7.

Coming from experience with the AX100, RX10, and a little with the RX100M3....

I shot several test scenes with the AX100 when I got it, AVCHD, XAVCS, and also 1920x1080 vs. 4K. I would not shoot AVCHD again, but that's just an opinion.

I also shot a multicam with AX100, 2x RX10's, the fast card I ordered for the second RX10 didn't arrive in time, so that cam had to stay in AVCHD mode - I can use the footage from the camera, and I venture that most viewers wouldn't notice when all is said and done. Looking at it while editing makes me sad. Again, I would not even think about shooting lower bitrate AVCHD ever again if I had the choice.

That said, I've shot plenty of nice looking stuff with AVCHD along the way (usually highest bitrate 60p) and "it'll do", but just as many of my older photos look "dated" now I'm using a 4K screen to view them, and the "little flaws" that weren't big before now jump off the screen, I wouldn't want to shoot in a format that will not look good in a few years, if I can shoot in one that is more likely to still look "current".

Just my take on it, and BTW, Vegas chomps through XAVCS just fine here, eagerly awaiting the new firmware for 100Mbps that is rumored! OK, had to build a hot rod editing platform, but it was not overly expensive to update a machine that was already overdue!

With Vegas (made by the same Company) you have to "transcode". No other way. and what you say makes sense if it wasn't for the fact that the "more data" are added by the software (Catalyst, also made by the same Company) after the fact. you start with (say) 100MB mxf and end up with 500MB mxf (same XAVC). then it takes forever, it will write the 100MB mxf again into the hard drive somewhere, plus the new 500MB. Result? the same as the AVCHD. Makes sense? no.
and the same is happening to the XAVC-L of the FS7.

Well it isn't the same XAVC. XAVC-L is Long GOP, XAVC is iFrame. So yes iFrame XAVC ends up being a file of about 5 times the size of the Long GOP file and about 4 times the data rate so more of a test for your hard drives. On the PXW-Z100 shooting 4K a 64G card lasts about 12mins !!! That is the whole point of Long GOP encoding to take up less space and with a lower data rate so it is easier on the camera and memory requirements. Sony , at the moment, have XAVC ( iFrame ) 10bit 4:2:2, XAVC-L Long GOP 10bit 4:2:2 both mxf wrappers, XAVC-S 8bit 4:2:0 mp4 wrapper and just introduced as UHD on the PXW-Z100 8 bit Long GOP 4:2:0 mxf wrapper. They are all basically H264 anyway but at the highest level but they are not the same !!! Of course as an Edius fan Edius edits them all native. I also believe Premiere CC does as well.

Ron Evans