Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The new Sonys clearly state they support 4K@60p. Just look at the website for the 2014 models. They all support HDMI 2.0. In fact the older models got a firmware upgrade to 2.0.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

The new to be released models from Sony still don't support the full potential of 4K, the specifications note that 4K at 60fps is only supported at 4.2.0 and 8 bit so no option to get more colours with 10bit or 12bit 4K or for better colour sampling like 4.2.2. It also looks like the internal media player is still HD only still, so no play-back of 4K encoded material via the network or USB. You'd struggle with any decent high-bit rate material anyway as the Ethernet is only 100Mbits/sec.

You'll have to wire up your Sony AX100 to the TV and hope you can get finished edits back onto a SD card in a format that will play from the camera.

These early 4K TVs are 4K panels with 2K electronics struggling to keep up. Sony isn't alone in having their 4K sets not feature complete for 4K at this time.

The manufacturers know that early adopters will pay over the odds and be prepared to replace their equipment once the finished products arrive, it is what pays for the R&D I suppose so we shouldn't complain.

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Not quite correct Phil, the new Sonys will play internet 4K content via the onboard apps such as the upcoming Netflix 4K streaming. As far as 4:2:2, have you seen these 4K displays? Color is absolutely gorgeous, regardless of how it's produced. Much nicer than 2K. Beyond that, what content have you seen at 4K/60p/4:2:2?

Lots of reasons to like the new 4K displays, but if you're determined not to buy, you can find those reasons too. Some might not buy a GH4 because it can't do 4K@60p.
Nothing is perfect Phil, nothing.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

The 4K content it will play is low bit-rate streamed content, it will hardly be 4K even if it is 'delivered' as 4K. Will it play any H264 4K media file at 60 or 100Mbits/sec from a flash card or over the network? No, looks like it doesn't. Will it play a 10Mbit/sec stream claiming to be 4K from Netflix, yes it will.

Resolution doesn't make a difference to the colour. If a TV is calibrated correctly and can display the required colour space it will look as good as identical to the next, regardless of resolution. It's like my own computer monitors calibrated using a colorimeter, while they look totally different at default non-calibrated settings and you could argue out of the box one is better than the other, once calibrated they look identical, which of course is the whole point.

If you want to get into a conversation of Red looks redder, Green's look richer, Yellows look brighter, then here is probably not the best place to do that as all we would be discussing is carefully grafted demo's of TVs with "buy me" shop settings. What we know as fact is that 4K as it is currently being offered in these consumer cameras and TVs holds no more colour information than HD.

I've not said anything is perfect, I'm just being realistic, 4K TV's and camcorders/cameras are coming up short. The manufacturers are doing what they always do, they did it with HD as well, and the first products are not the final product. There is nothing wrong with waiting it out, and there is nothing wrong with taking the plunge straight away if you have funds and want to. Let just be honest and not afraid to challenge and question and discuss the limitations of what is currently on offer.

We all know in 12 months time all the 4K kit being sold now will look very dated and limited in their ability to showcase 4K at its best.

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

That's OK Phil, you're obviously not a fan of almost anything 4K as it exists today. I've seen your posts in other threads and that commonality runs through them. I happen to be a fan of the new crop of equipment and I fully realize their limitations. Equipment will always have limitations. However the picture I see on the current crop of 4K TVs (and the new ones coming as seen at CES), with their limitations, greatly surpasses anything you or I now own. The video I've seen from the AX100 also greatly surpasses anything I've shot with in many ways as will, I'm sure, the GH4.

We could argue until the cows come home about what current 4K equipment has or doesn't have and we'll settle nothing. The bottom line is, if it looks much better to my eyes than anything 2K, that's all I'm concerned about.

Remember Phil, there will always be something better, there will always be a next gen with additional features and capabilities. Two years from now, the models released then will make next year's models look dated. Life is short my friend, at some point we stop waiting. If you're waiting for perfection, it will never come, of that I'm sure. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Specs and engineering standards tell part of the story, but we don't see or hear "specs", we see pictures or video, and we hear sound.

In the end, does the final result look or sound noticeably better? Even if the "specs" say it "shouldn't", sometimes it does... there is more to life than numbers... conversely, sometimes the specs say it should be better, and it isn't...

Based on the RX100 and RX10, I'm thinking that the AX100 (and CX900 for that matter) will produce higher bitrate 1080/60p that will be better than any other camera at that price point currently available... even if it's not "perfect". The 4K is a bonus, and even if I'm not a fan of 30p... it may prove usable, despite the "numbers"!

I'm sure the first couple generations of 4K TV's will be "OK", but will be surpassed a couple years down the line. Tech gets better and/or cheaper, you don't like it where it's at, shut up and wait... but you'll probably be complaining when it's "better" and cheaper too.

Me, I'll take it as it comes and shut up and shoot fun cameras like the RX100 and RX10, and whatever comes next... like the AX100

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Dave, I have preached the danger of 'specs only buying' for years in both video and audio forums. It amazes me how many people still use specs as their sole criteria for judging, ruling out otherwise great equipment with what appears to be 'lesser' specs.

How many speakers can have frequency response curves that look essentially the same, yet sound totally different.

I'm 100% convinced you could take some people who previously railed against the AX100 for lack of this or that, and in a blind test tell them the picture they were watching was from a camera that produced RAW video with 4:2:2 color and I'd bet they'd gush over the picture despite the fact it was actually the AX100.

Preconceived notions can distort both perception and reality.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I will stop waiting right after NAB...these next couple of months are going to be long...

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Im sure our grandchildren will be complaining how horrible 8k is at 4:2:0 @ 8bit.

Im sure they will hate the quality of their 8k green screen keys at 4:2:0 and how they need more chroma resolution to pull off what they want to do.

Ok...10 bit and 8bit 4k, yes I get that argument.

But 4k 4:2:0 has a TON of color information. I seriously would not be able to spot 4:2:0 video vs 4:2:2 at 4k resolution in an A/B test at all. It really looks the same to me. And keying 4:2:0 4k, Im sure will give more than great results.

Lets not get lost entirely in "numbers" alone.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The specification of camera has its place if you are planning the type and amount of the postproduction work. I think that only persons with the long professional color grading experiences can tell you how good is the record from the certain camera during this grading process. HDV was really wrong, PDW700 is nice, PMW350 has its limitation, cine F3 (slog) is very good (even XDCAM 35Mbps 420 offline version can be ok), and so on.

It is not about one thing (lens quality, chip quality,...), this is about all small things under specification, from the quality of chip to the quality of DSP processing. The specification can tell you some basic expectations but only real work with camera can tell you more - if you make a big color grading (and clips were shot in extreme light situations). If you work in good weather (sunny days) and only need put pictures to YT than you can't see differences between good and bad cameras (10bit vs. 8bit or 420 vs 422). Sometime can 420 colors be better than 422 from the wrong camera .-) , but there are the others really important parameters.

The result can be in 420 and 8bit on TV screen, but good camera let you make the much better work in postproduction - but quality is not cheap and your choice depend on your needs.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I have to ask what are the "more colours" that 4:2:2 and 10/12 bit sampling are going to give you in 4K that you don't get with 4:2:0 and 8 bit?

Look at it this way, all current HD broadcast and Blu-Ray is 8 bit and 4:2:0 encoding. Can anybody say they've ever watched a Blu-Ray of a feature film at home and been aware of that?

Now move up to 4K and think on this. For 4K 4:2:0, then the chroma information alone is 1920x1080 - same as the luminance in HD! And it's twice the amount of chroma samples in 4:2:2 1080p! Given that the human eye has less resolution to colour than luminance, do you really think you'll notice the difference on any sort of normal viewing, even with a large screen?

As for "more colours", then well, I suppose 10 bit or more theoretically does give a greater range of tones. But again, the human eye won't be able to perceive them. If you disagree, then try the test - Color Test - Online Color Challenge | X-Rite Still think the "extra colours" that 10 bit gives you over 8 bit are worth it?! :-) (Come on, what score did you get.........?)

Now this is not to say that better colour sampling and higher bitdepths than 8 bit don't have relevance - they do - but it's really only when you come to post manipulation that they have real significance, and in the case of bitdepth far more when used with something like s-log or RAW. And they need a first rate camera front end to bring much to the table anyway.

Unfortunately, terms such as 4:2:2 and 10-bit have taken on a life of their own. In the world of SD, 4:2:2 certainly made a big difference, but it's far less in HD, and less still in 4K - even less when you move away from true pro cameras.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Great assessment Dave! It's the old case of people always thinking 'more is better'. As you say, in certain cases yes, but in most cases it's not going to mean much anyway. But if you're looking for an excuse not to buy, this just makes some feel better. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The difference that really matters is 10bit, high dynamic range and wider color gamut. Dolby Vision with localized high dynamic range is part of the equation that requires a higher bit depth, with Rec. 2020 gamut mapping also part of the equation. You can do all of this in 4:2:0 without too many problems, but we will have to move from 8bit to 10bit to truly realize these parts optimally.

I agree on a small screen 4:2:0 shouldn't matter at all. Home theater can remain in 4:2:0 for quite a while, since people are moving more towards convenience rather than quality. Netflix 4K is likely going to be a very popular choice over the Sony server based player.

When you get into theatrical, that's when 4:2:2 and even 4:4:4 matter, with digital intermediates for VFX and etc.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Cat 5e or 6 with appropriate switching and NIC's is 1000 Mbps.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I took the color bar test and got a 28....

More cowbell...