Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I'm very impressed with the AX100. Hell,...I'd LOVE to keep it. I had every intention of doing that until today.

I too am wondering how a 12MP full frame sensor will function with FF lenses and APSC cropped lenses.

I cant wait to hear what Sony's plans are for this. I'll be at NAB on Monday so I can't wait to see it.

If worse comes to worse, I can always re buy the AX100 if I'm not impressed with anything else at NAB.

I would CERTAINLY have no problems buying the AX100 again. I feel comfortable with it...but an A7s full frame 4K camera? If it has 100Mbp/s XAVCs with an clean 4K HDMI out? Woah,..I cant turn that down, even if the body was $2,500!

I just hope you can shoot in true 4K with my APSC lenses.

CT

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

My issue with full frame for video is that for some of my filming needs it will blur too much, for some projects I need a very deep dof so the AX100 is perfect for that. Also if the auto focus isn't perfect then things can look really bad with a full frame sensor when used for video. However for my other projects that are full manual focus with extremely shallow dof I've been using the VG900, so that A7s could replace the VG900 there. Although personally I hate camera form factor for video, so I'm hoping they have a replacement VG900 that uses the A7s's sensor, then I'll buy that. Result will be that the AX100 replaced my NX30, and the A7s (video camera version) will replace my VG900. Then my transition to 4k will be complete :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hey David, don't yell at me. Send an email to Slashcam. :)

It does seem like Sony may have chosen 60Mbps because on a 64GB card it nicely gives 2 hours -- just like VHS. Also, Sony has set FHD at 50Mbps. So 90Mbps would have been a "better" data-rate for UHD. Even if only for marketing purposes.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Don't race back to BB quite yet Cliff. According to late breaking reports, you're going to get the same XAVC-S codec along with the same 60Mbps bitrate with the A7S in 4K. Sony hasn't changed a thing. They've just put it in the full frame body of the A7. Of course IMO that's a good thing. ;)

The other thing regarding the 100Mbps video of the GH4. I have yet to see one sample GH4 video that has matched the sharpness & resolution of the XA100. Not one. There was one video on YouTube that really had me laughing. It was perhaps 70% of the resolution of the AX100 and the comments below from prospective GH4 buyers were "OMG, the detail!!!". But I guarantee you if you showed those same folks the far more detailed XA100 footage, the response would be "Ah, too videoish".

Some just can't deal with so much detail and sharpness. I say 'bring it on!'. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ken Ross - "According to late breaking reports, you're going to get the same XAVC-S codec along with the same 60Mbps bitrate with the A7S in 4K. Sony hasn't changed a thing."

Don't tell me that. If that's true, it's a HUGE let down.

Where did you read that?

Damn,.....Sony had Panny down on the ground but couldn't go for the final 100Mbp/s kill shot. If this is true, than the GH4 is a bit injured but still lives OK.

What about Sony's HDMI? Is it still locked? (like the AX100's)

CT

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Cliff, saw it over at AVS. It may have come from eoshd. Not sure about the HDMI. Here's what I read, but remember, this is the internet:

"I’ve just had some information from a source that may be of interest to those awaiting Sony’s NAB announcement.

As we know from previous rumours the Sony A7S will feature a 12MP sensor. This is very good news for video.

My source says this will be 4230 x 2820 for stills. The cinema DCI format of 4K as seen in the GH4 is 4096 x 2160 which would mean only a very small crop of the sensor.

However according to the source the A7S features the same codec as the AX100, XAVC-S, which is Sony’s de facto consumer 4K standard. This consumer codec only supports 4K at Ultra HD resolutions in 16:9, which means a slightly larger crop of 3840 x 2160 (around 8MP).

That amounts to a 1.1x crop over full frame in terms of how wide your lenses are… The same crop as Speed Booster on APS-C (E-mount). Still very little difference so we really are going to get real full frame VistaVision 4K out of this beast.

I also did some research on XAVC-S. It records in MP4 format but perhaps rather disturbingly it has a much lower bitrate than the GH4′s 4K codec. It is just 60Mbit/s vs 100Mbit/s on the GH4 in Ultra HD.

I have not yet graded any footage from the Sony AX100 but it will be interesting to see how XAVC-S stands up at that bitrate. It is a very modern codec and bitrate isn’t everything."

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I agree Dave. Personally I'm not at all tempted by the A7S. I don't have those lenses and if the rumors are true, the camera will offer essentially the same PQ as what I'm getting now, but for a lot more money than what the AX100 cost me. Of course you'll have the versatility of different lenses if that's what you're looking for. If I were going for the GH4, the 14-140 would be my 'go to' lens to avoid frequent lens changing. I don't see anything like that in the Sony FF lineup.

I'm also happy to avoid lens changing entirely. I've had too many instances of sensor dust as the result of lens changing in the field. The problem is that you generally don't spot the dust until you get home and then see your ruined shots. I've had mixed success with removing sensor dust from my VG30 and NEX7 cameras.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

A 12 megapixel full frame sensor...talk about GIANT photosites? That's a photon sucking sponge.

Will it shoot 4K in APSC crop mode? 4K HDMI will also be a big question.

The picture profiles that are "pre compression" help too. Being able to shoot with lower color saturation and lover contrast is another plus too.

Damn Sony....sooo close! Those Panny folks are breathing a sigh of relief tonight!!

CT

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

It's yet another example you can't take slashcam that serious, when you make such a claim you better back it up visually by shooting under those exact conditions and show it is like that, not just say.

It is also clear Sony is aiming this camera at the consumer/prosumer market, the choosen datarate is probably a very good balance between quality, filesizes and easier workflow. By the looks of the videos that appear made with this camera Sony has succeeded in that goal.

Another claim made by them which I question

"Für einen 4K-Ausschnitt ist unser ISO-Testbild erstaunlich scharf. Leider tritt auch eine nicht abstellbare deutliche Nachschärfung zu Tage, ohne die das Sony-Bild deutlich cinematischer ausfallen würde."

Here it more or less says, "for a 4K crop our ISO testimage is remarkably sharp, only there appears to be a apparent and not possible to change after sharpening which would have resulted in a much more cinematic image if that was not the case."

So what are they saying here, cinematic is less sharp?
Here we have a camera capable of delivering very sharp looking through glass images, yet it's not good enough, because it's too sharp and because of that it's not cinematic.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

If a camera being too sharp isn't cinematic than I guess cameras such as the Sony F55 and Red Epic Dragon must be terrible for shooting films. Unless they're trying to imply that their is sharpening going on in the image.

I think we need a German speaking person here to tell us what they really mean.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

That's what they are saying, there is a incamera extra sharpening going on which might explain why people see that the ax100 image appears to be sharper then the one from the gh4.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

And that Noa, as I've stated before, gets to the heart of the 'problem'. Here we have a $2,000 camera whose main fault (as viewed by a few) is that it's too sharp, too resolved, too window like, too real!

Those same people trip over themselves to buy equipment that's less sharp, almost muddy looking by comparison and then grade it so that the end result looks like color from another planet. OK. I exaggerate, but not by that much if you watch the endless YouTube videos from cameras like that. These folks want anything but the look of reality or their grading skills are really bad. Or perhaps they're Indie film makers and just want some artistic expression...sometimes lots of it.

That's precisely the group that turns their nose at the AX100. Two totally different target audiences in search of two totally different looks. Yes indeed, less sharp=more cinematic. ;)

I so remember when HD was launched a number of years ago, how excited I was. Here we had the promise of getting closer to that 'looking out of the window' feel. Everyone was excited over this. So now we have a small camera that gets us ever so much closer to that very look...much closer to even what those huge megabuck pro cameras were capable of. And this is the 4K down sampled look in HD! Now view this on a UHD display and your jaw drops. I plug the AX100 into my 64" plasma after shooting and I sit there, literally shaking my head at what I'm seeing. THIS is the look I love, this is the 'looking out of the window' feel I so appreciate and this is the look the cinema crowd so dislikes.

Don't get me wrong, I love the cinema look, but I love it when Hollywood does it and it's a movie worth watching. But for me? Nah, I'm never going to produce what Hollywood does, I can't write scripts like Hollywood does, I don't have the actors and I don't have the master colorists. It's just not what I shoot. Hell, I even find that the 'stylized' color that Hollywood is so in love with, is getting old, very old. It's almost a pleasure when you see a movie that isn't tinted a strong shade of amber or blue and actually resembles the world we see.

Give me reality!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I think it's more than that, Noa, I really do. In the comparison videos I've seen between the GH4, BMC4K and others, the AX100 is actually resolving more detail than the others...and some of these cameras cost far more than the AX100.

If it was actually aggressive in-camera sharpening, that would destroy detail, not enhance it. No, it's pure resolved detail which is very different and very obvious. In some of these comparison videos you can actually read lettering on the AX100 clip you can't on the other cameras. In one test the irony was that the AX100 shot was actually wider than the BMC4K camera and, despite this, you could read lettering on the AX100 clip you couldn't on the BM. That's not in-camera sharpening doing this, it's the camera resolving more detail.

I also think that's what Slashcam was saying when they said something like 'near perfect 4K'. The camera may be pushing closer to the limits of 4K better than other 4K cams. That's what it looks like to me.

With that said, I wouldn't dismiss the GH4. I think those that have been providing samples from the pre-release models are, again, the Indie types. As such they're using picture profiles I would never use for that 'look of reality'. This may be softening detail and hiding, to some degree, what the camera is capable of.

We shall see. These are fun times!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ken, I'm with you. I love the "looking out the window" clarity you can get with 4K. Some say the AX100 is too sharp? LOL, never. That makes me want it even more. I'll take high resolution any day.
Now, we'll have to wait and see if the rumored Sony A7s 4K camera is a reality. Full frame goodness in 4K? Nice!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Very well spoken Ken. You summed up exactly what my expectations are. I have a canon XF100, 5dIII, 70D, and waiting on UPS to deliver the AX100. I want my videos to look sharp and like reality. I can get some very nice videos from the Canons and If I add a little bit of sharpening they look great. But the DSLRs are a pain to shoot with.

I am following Andrew Reid's blog on his experience with the GH4. The thing that stands out to me is the videos he shot of the crowd of people. The white balance was off in his ungraded shot, looked to me to cold and very blue. However his graded shots looked horrible to me. Way too warm and did not look natural. For him that was the look he wanted.

I saw some videos from Driftwood and at least those videos looked more natural. It all depends on the look you prefer and my preferences are for the videos to look more natural and real world.

Maybe it is a generational thing. I am in my mid 40s. I think the younger generation all prefer that over saturated, unnatural warm look. All the photos I see on my social sites from the younger generation look that way. Maybe since they are using crappy cameras they feel like adding a bunch of preset filters will hide how crappy the original looks.

Anyway, really excited to be getting my AX100 today!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Well it will be interesting to see the 4K line from Sony next week. They may cover their bases with camcorders and still cameras that shoot 4K and likely if one wants to get a package that shoots all frame rates the total cost will be close to any other product in the line. If the marketing have any sense !!! They could introduce a XQD recorder so that the still cameras with clean HDMI 2.0 output will end up with comparable lens costing more than the PXW-Z100 or the FS700 setup !!! If 30P XAVC-S at 60Mbps meets the requirements it will come stock and compete with the GH4 maybe even better value. XAVC-S does have 30P at 100Mbps so does not need to stay at 60Mbps. Only a day and we will find out.

For consumers there is good reason to only shoot to 30P since the early 4K TV's will not show anything more. If you don't want customer complaints limit capability and 30P is what people are used to on Youtube etc anyway.

For the prosumer or professional they will use the 4K for different reasons. Up the price and give them more. When most 4K TV's and internet downloads go to 60P the whole range will be likely have the full frame rate range. A few years from now I expect when technology of processing and memory are on the next cycle.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

With limited testing the XAVC-S seems easy to edit in Vegas. A cheap laptop and 5 year old desktop seem to handle it like HD footage. Less hard drive requirements and need for high data transfer rates.

Starting to see the advantages of native editing.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Very true Dave. It's a pleasure editing XAVC-S 4K and not nearly as demanding as people might think. Even the encoding times in my Edius Pro 7 are great! The 1:48 second 4K video that I posted a page or two back, took only 2:45 to encode. So this really isn't taxing for most computers.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

For a fair amount of applications, 30p seems to be "good enough" - the additional processing and storage for 4K/60p at higher bitrates are going to be an issue for a while.

Sony chose to go with conservative specs so you had a halfway decent chance of using "off the shelf" memory, TV, computers - wise choice for "consumer" products!

I'm still wondering what Panasonic's "answer" is - I remember they were having to use hand picked and tuned memory for their prototypes - that's NOT going to translate into real world (particularly "consumer") use...

I suspect the processing side of the equation is partially offset by newer, more efficient CODECs, but so far at least, I don't think you can beat the file size problem, either in the sense of requiring LARGER storage, and faster write/read times...

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

Panasonic are recommending UHS I class III memory cards, these support in excess of 200Mbps. Bit-rates on memory cards are already fast enough to support 60fps in 4K, the problem is the processing power to encode that in real-time at 4K resolutions with enough quality.

It seems unlikely cameras will come with any new codecs any time soon. This is because H265 is very processor intensive and in a portable device creates too much heat and uses too much power. Much like MPEG2 started off being the main recording format for HD (and still is on more professional gear) then H264 will take up a similar position for 4K, with new codecs such as H265 being reserved for distribution. Also these newer more complex codecs will not be good for editing.

Storage probably isn't so much a problem given the size of hard discs theses days.

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yes I think it is the processing for realtime recording that results in my AX1 having a fan and consuming a NP-F970 battery in about 1 hour compared to my NX5U that will run for over 4 hours on the same battery. ( I really do mean the same battery !!! I have one that came with the AX1 and one for my NX5U and used both shooting for just over 2 hours with the AX1 ) As to space on hard drives I do not think that is the problem it is more the archive that will be the concern. At 60P the AX1 file size is about 6 times the file size of the NX5U for the same time period. An act of a play of just over an hour is 11G for the NX5U 1920x1080 60i 24Mbps and 62G for the AX1 60P at 150Mbps.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

From a "consumer" standpoint, those fast cards will be "expensive", and a SIGNIFICANT investment - 128G cards if you want to shoot very much... and what's the average HDD size... seems like 4Tb drives are at the higher end, though I see 6Tb listed... and SSD's aren't that large yet!

Certainly from a "content creator" standpoint, these are all necessary evils, but the costs of storage media will have to come down, and the sizes go up (like 1/2 the cost and twice the size, or both) in order to come even close to "consumer friendly". Not sure that the "traditional" computing market is operating under those metrics and expectations anymore...

I hate to say it, but with most consumers using phones and tablets, 30p lower bitrate 4k may become a practical "standard" fairly quickly, and the step up may be MUCH harder to sell...

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

For archive I now use LTO3 data tape which is fine for AVCHD and finished projects but I am now thinking of upgrading to maybe LTO5 ( to get some backwards compatibility with the lots of LTO3 tapes I have ). I still have no vision of 4K output it is still for cropping, that is my interest, so will be normal 1920x1080 or DVD !!! . WIll be interested to see what comes in the next few months. Downscaled AX1 is better than any of my current cameras and reminds me completely of the introduction of HDV.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Dave - as far as different framerates go, it can't be said too many times that as far as storage goes the key fact is that it depends whether you're talking about interframe or intraframe codecs.

If it's interframe, then datarates and file sizes do NOT scale up proportionally with framerate. Compared to 30p, the filesize for 60p is not twice as big (as may be supposed) - a more likely figure is somewhere around 10-20% larger. (Keeping quality and all else equal.)

The reason is that it's typical to keep the TIME INTERVAL between I frames constant, which may be typically 1/2 sec. Hence, for 30p, you'll get 14 difference frames between the I frames, for 60p you'll get 29. But the I frames are far larger in file size than difference frames - and you still only get two per second - hence the overall increase in coded data rate is much less than the doubling that may be expected.

(The above is oversimplified, but it illustrates the reasoning.)

That's why, for AVC-HD, 30p gets coded at 24Mbs, 60p gets coded at 28Mbs for equivalent quality - not the 48Mbs that may be thought.

Move into the high end world, such as XAVC with intra-frame compression, and that's when you have to consider a fixed amount of data per frame. So with intra-frame compression, then yes, double the framerate and you will double the file size.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I think that's the thing that's amazing - how much better the AX100 looks, even downsampled compared to other video cameras. The RX10 looked (and still does look) very very good... yet the AX100 bests it. I don't think any of us were quite expecting that much difference...

It's similar to the SD to HDV transition, that was about 4x plus or minus increase in resolution, and we're going 4x over that (scary to think that 4K is 16x more pixels than good ol' SD!). And it DOES look good, which is why I suspect the adoption curve will be faster than HD. The effect of "looking through a window" is more addictive and attractive than one might expect.

I think that's where DVi needs a couple new forum areas, both under the "4K" banner, one for those of us using (or at least trying to) these new toys, and another area for the post "issues" and how to deal with the workflows!


My new "cheap" smartphone has a noticeably sharper and better screen than my "last years model"... consumers are going to expect better and better screens with higher resolutions (yep, even the "tiny" screens are going high rez), I know my old eyes certainly appreciate the improved resolutions!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

That's what they are saying and they are correct. That's because they understand the difference between SHARPNESS and DETAIL.

Pro camcorders often have two controls: Sharpness and Detail. The Sharpness control adds/subtracts to mid-frequency signal strength -- in other words the EDGES of objects. The Detail control adds/subtracts to high-frequency signal strength -- in other words object detail such as hair.

Since ACTUAL 4K resolution will not be visible at typical viewing distances, but your UHD buyer expects to see a significant increase in resolution -- the solution is to boost both Sharpness and Detail in a 4K consumer cameras. The reason to boost detail is a prosumer lens doesn't have enough MTF at the highest frequencies, so an electronic boost is used to compensate. Nothing new here -- this is SOP in the consumer world. (Like boom-boxes with upper bass boosted so buyers will think they offer real low-bass reproduction.)

Film and digital cinema cameras are exactly the opposite. Because of lens quality, sensor, and electronics design -- they deliver a smooth frequency response through the mid-range and into the high-frequencies.

CLARITY is close to what we mean when we talk about RESOLUTION. A picture is CLEAR when it shows reality without artificial enhancement AND WITHOUT ARTIFACTS -- things that should not be in the picture.

Artifacts come from both spatial and temporal aliasing. The latter are called motion judder and the wagon wheel effect. The former includes Moiré and ordinary aliasing. A flickering artifact -- dynamic spatial aliasing -- can occur when very fine detail is in motion as detail moves from one photocite to photocite.

Normally, a well designed OLPF prevents spatial aliasing. However, when a camera also takes photos the OLPF is set very high so photo resolution isn't compromised. But designers often set the OLPF too high because they know that many viewers will see the false detail as real detail. It makes the camera look like it has more resolution than it does. Obviously, this trick is used by consumer cameras. And, just as obviously, they should not be used by digital cinema cameras.

So just as digital cinema cameras don't add enhancements, they also take great pains to avoid introducing spatial artifacts. But, what about 24fps.

Our eyes sense motion judder on the basis of object edge hardness. When a camera applies edge enhancement there is no way to avoid visible motion judder. Thus, the "sharper" the camera the more visible judder. Digital cinema cameras -- and film -- don't have edge enhancement so motion judder is far less visible.

Of course, to some this makes their images seem soft. And, the first generation of DSLRs were to my eyes, painfully soft. Digital cinema cameras, both high-end and low-end, have overcome this problem. (Perhaps so will the new Sony and Panasonic DSLRs.)

Bottom-line you have a choice to make. What is the look you want. Slashcam, is correctly noting the AX100 does not deliver a cinema look. For those who don't want that look -- no problem. But, you should at least understand why you are getting the look you like. And, be aware that -- as I posted much earlier -- the cinema look is becoming the reference look for cameras.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

And here we have another AX100 video, with just loads of real detail and no artifacts. Superb 'clarity'. ;)

As opposed to most AX100 videos, Billy Chiu shot this in a somewhat different setting. Very nice.

Be sure to choose the highest resolution:

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Not entirely true. Actual observed 4K resolution is dependent on BOTH viewing distance and screen size. It's impossible to talk about one without the other. Larger screen sizes require a lesser viewing distance to see ACTUAL 4K detail. We need to state both to be accurate. So an 85" screen, viewed at typical viewing distances, will show actual 4K resolution. Smaller screens will require a closer viewing distance. A 55" UHD screen viewed at a typical viewing distance won't show true 4K resolution. Of course we can throw in the other variable, visual acuity.

What's obvious when you see the comparative videos between the AX100 and more expensive 4K cameras, is you're seeing more real DETAIL with the AX100. The legibility of things such as writing and fine details will not be made more legible by increasing 'apparent sharpness', but only by increasing the actual resolution of the camera. That's quite obvious in the comparison videos I've seen. So I don't really care what anyone calls it, but when one sees more DETAIL, that means the acquisition equipment has more resolution. It's really that simple.

I fully understand the difference between apparent sharpness & resolution and the AX100 is delivering more resolution, no matter what one thinks is happening to apparent sharpness.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

This is what somewhat baffles me... I was reading another "preview" of the AX100, and the mention was made that the audio was somehow enhanced (sort of like the video is somehow "enhanced"...). The immediately following notation was that listeners thought it sounded better than similar samples from a (presumably) un-enhanced camera....

SO, if most viewers are seeing what they only IMAGINE is better detail and hearing what they only imagine is better audio (because apparently the manufacturer found some fairy dust that tricks people into seeing and hearing things), this somehow disqualifies the camera from "serious" use or consideration??

<insert head scratch here>

I realize there are "tricks" and enhancements, but either the sound is better or it's worse, either you can see small, finer details, of they are fuzzy... it's either one or the other.

I do respect that if there is undesirable image or audio degradation due to "enhancement", that is a bad thing, but I'm not seeing or hearing that... and I'm pretty sure my eyes haven't got fairy dust in them! I could use a system upgrade to 4K, but my 1080 is not "bad"... and artifacts shouldn't just magically vanish with downrezzing, right?

If sharp images are "bad" because we aren't used to them, OK, I'll buy that they border on "jarring", which may not be the desired artistic "effect", but can't one just back off to the 1080/60p/60mbps setting if you want it a little softer? Just a thought...

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Exactly. That's why I referenced the comparison videos. The ability to read a word that's legible in an AX100 clip and not being able to read it in a more expensive 4K 'cinema' camera clip (despite the fact that the framing on the cinema camera was tighter) shows the AX100 has greater resolving ability.

I too don't think this is the result of fairy dust, nor does this kind of picture quality disqualify it from serious use. Anyone that does disqualify it out of hand and glosses over its quality by dismissively calling it a 'nice consumer cam', does it at their own 'risk'. Some have reported that several movie studios have bought a bunch of these. So if that's the case, these studios are not naive enough to have dismissed it due to the 'Handicam' monicker. No, I don't expect they'll shoot a Hollywood blockbuster with them, but they may have some special use for this type of 4K cam. Hollywood is very innovative.

I learned a long time ago not to be brand loyal nor to dismiss any type of camera because of preconceived notions (or price, high or low). Unfortunately it seems that some can't get past the Handicam name. :)

Don't get me wrong, regardless of how stellar the AX100's picture, there are aspects of its flexibility and feature set (or lack thereof) that might disqualify it for the intended purposes of some.

I am so glad I don't fall in that category! :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

"<insert head scratch here>

I realize there are "tricks" and enhancements, but either the sound is better or it's worse, either you can see small, finer details, of they are fuzzy... it's either one or the other.

I do respect that if there is undesirable image or audio degradation due to "enhancement", that is a bad thing, but I'm not seeing or hearing that... and I'm pretty sure my eyes haven't got fairy dust in them! I could use a system upgrade to 4K, but my 1080 is not "bad"... and artifacts shouldn't just magically vanish with downrezzing, right?

If sharp images are "bad" because we aren't used to them, OK, I'll buy that they border on "jarring", which may not be the desired artistic "effect", but can't one just back off to the 1080/60p/60mbps setting if you want it a little softer? Just a thought..."


Better or worse are judgements made by actual experience or looking at measurements. Since folks have different likes and dislikes it should not be a surprise to find different reports in different reviews. Of course, some individuals are hired because there is respect for their opinions. (Your grandmother would not be a good person to ask about, for example, "red-push.")

What is good and bad tend to change over time -- opinion makers in the industry change how people think. Cinema is now in -- in part because companies are releasing lots of cinema products. And, as I posted, publications have a major role to play because they decide what is written about. But, sometimes individuals develop different tastes with experience.


Some artifacts only appear when provoked. That's why negative reports typically aren't worth much. You won't see RS if there is no motion.

Spatial artifacts do indeed disappear when an image downscaled. A filter is used that can removes tiny artifacts. Downscaling can also generate artifacts -- especially aliasing. HD to SD images tend to be full of aliasing unless done very well.

Compression data rate is not the way sharpness/detail is reduced. The circuits controlling the image look often are variable. Slashcom notes the AX100 does not have a Sharpness control. Sony wants the look to be the look. (They know pros often buy a cheaper camera and dial down Sharpness -- so they protect more expensive products.)

Every camera has fairy dust -- but at the high-end most produce universally accepted great images so they differ only in what might be called shooter taste. Moreover, there are dozens of adjustments that let a DP define a set of perfect -- for a project -- look. Lenses are also chosen by shooter taste.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Steve, this is indeed a jaw-dropping statement and judging by your posts in this thread I conclude your complete fabrication is based on this wild assertion. What exactly do you mean? I remember when miniskirts were now in and we all knew they were in because ever female of child-bearing age was suddenly wearing one; it was an in-your-face phenomenon. Is everyone (forget the child-bearing age female cohort) doing cinema?

And to say cinema is 'now' in is to imply that 'just before' it wasn't. In my opinion this is quite misleading. Seems to me that cinema was in since the beginning of cinema with a small percentage of the population of people on the planet, and it continues to be so perhaps. When it comes to moving pictures my gut feel is that TV is more 'in' than cinema and has been for quite a while, but I don't know for sure.

But let me put a word in your mouth - you mean surely that the so-called cinema 'look' is in. (Sorry to be so pedantic but seeking to understand and learn is what I'm on about here and there is a lot of lose talk going on here). Steve, the cinema look craze was taken to new highs by Panasonic with the introduction of the DVX100 and the huge promotion that went with it. I imagine you remember that. But it was only in with a very small number of folks, wanna-be film makers particularly, that chased that rainbow. I will agree that there are one or two camera operator smooth talkers self-promoting on the Internet who push the cinematic look, the 'filmic' if you can bring yourself to utter that non-word, and yes, some magazines make a point of following fashion even if the fashion is limited to a very small segment of the moving pictures creation world. They have to talk about something and the more obscure, ephemeral and impossible to define the better. Poetic help as does pretentious phraseology.

Now, if in fact you have data to support your claim then please share it with us. That would be 'awesome' (which just happens to be a word that is also in...and with a little bit of luck will soon be out, totally).

By the way, in the event you haven't noticed miniskirts are still in, which sometimes is a bad thing, and sometimes a very good thing indeed. I apologize; I have no data supporting that assertion but I do notice these things. Your mileage may differ :-).

Another minor observation, data-free of course, is that the FDR-AX100 look is becoming 'in' so fast it makes heads spin. Did you notice?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

If you don't read publications and newsletters or go to NAB -- and are completely unaware of Blackmagic cameras, Digital Bolex, Kinefinity, and every high-end camera from Sony and Panasonic, you might not have noticed what's been going on for the last 5-years. I suspect you aren't aware because I posted the contents of the last issue of DV magazine and all features were on "cinema cameras." If you are still thinking of the DVX100 and film look -- you are way behind.

Cinema cameras shoot at 24fps and record RAW (Digital Negative) -- they don't capture video any more than a DSLR captures video photographs. They don't turn video into something that looks like film -- they capture a series of digital photographs just like DSLRs capture images that look like images captured from SLRs. The photographs are captured at 24fps.

Why is this so important? Because film captures the highest possible image quality. Period. But, film is very expensive -- way too expensive for the prosumer market. But, the new low-end cinema cameras start at $1000. They are now in our price range. Anyone can obtain film quality. That's why cinema -- in the context of video products -- is "in." As long as you think cinema cameras are for those few who want to make movies, you'll miss the point. Cinema cameras are for those who want to capture the highest quality media. That means those who shoot corporate events, weddings, commercials, CEO announcements, and PSAs, etc. Any time you are in bidding for a job. And, why not for your own home movies. My childhood was captured on film. Why is the idea that we can return to that practice so fought against?

Another point, because there's sure to be someone who posts "but I don't like the look from brand X cinema camera." These cameras capture RGB sensor data so they don't really have a specific look until YOU grade the data into an image you want. So when you see samples you are seeing someone's creation -- which I agree is almost always horrible. But really no worse than the look of movies created by Hollywood. The kids are copying the crapy look of what they see. But, that's no reason not too have the freedom to create.

I don't see how anyone who keeps-up with the industry doesn't know this. And, if you don't know, perhaps you should keep-up. In any case -- everyone is free to chose the video look -- even 8 megapixels of video-look.

And, there is another point that is missing. When people talk about 4K production they are not talking about 4K video cameras -- except in the ENG market where they don't yet exist -- they are talking about the 4K digital cinema cameras.

But to lash-out because others want to have their work have the quality of film is being way way defensive. To deny this revolution is happening is exactly what those who owned studios full of Beta SP equipment did when DV arrived. They ranted and raved that BetaSP was better and would be used for years. But, within a short while Beta SP stopped being covered as a news story. No more ads appeared. Beta and then Digital Beta were in a corner at NAB -- and then one year, it all simply went missing and no one noticed or cared.

I suppose at some point someone claimed of HD, "... here are one or two camera operator smooth talkers self-promoting on the Internet who push the cinematic look, the 'filmic' if you can bring yourself to utter that non-word, and yes, some magazines make a point of following fashion even if the fashion is limited to a very small segment of the moving pictures creation world. They have to talk about something and the more obscure, ephemeral and impossible to define the better. Poetic help as does pretentious phraseology."

Yet, today HD is norm. Strange how fast some folks forget history. You really should attend NAB and see for yourself what's going on in the industry. In fact, since the NAB press releases come-out on Monday I'm not going to bother with this topic anymore because anyone who is open minded can learn everything for themselves.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Just a little note about the audio - I did mention this when I had some time to compare the AX100 with the Z100 and a few other cameras (I threw in my EX1 as a 'ringer' too).

The audio from the AX100 seems to have a little EQ and compression applied to it, whereas the Z100 and EX1 sounded very neutral.

This was using the XLR bridge, and my Sanken COS-11 wired up to the talent. Sankens have a reputation for being quite 'flat', and that's what I heard on the EX1 and Z100. Interviews are often given a little EQ and compression to thicken up the sound, and this is exactly what I heard from the AX100's recorded audio.

The video was for Sony's internal training so I'm pretty sure I can't post it here.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

This thread reminds me of those pointless Mac vs Pc discussions, we are talking about a 2k handicam that can do very sharp 4k and has about every functionality build in we where used to having back when normal "video" camera's still existed. All footage I have seen so far from this camera looks very impressive right out of the box, while most videos (sorry, I mean films), from the black magic pocket "cinema" camera I have seen all have that weird looking color that resembles no filmlook whatsoever, at least based on my experience watching a lot of films that actually find their way to the cinemascreen, instead of youtube or vimeo, only a handfull of users seem to know how to deal with raw footage but then again, give a ax100 to these same users and they probably will do some magic with it as well.

But what is a cinematic look anyway, if I have to believe slashcam it is not digitally sharpened footage, period. Back in the dvx100 days it was 25p, period. Actually "cinematic" footage has nothing to do with the camera, it's just a term to try to separate the amateurs from the wannabe pros, it's a term that creates "elite" groups that look down upon the "video" folks, you know the people that shoot their cats and backyards. One who does cinematic masters the real craft of filmmaking and it all starts with using the term cinema, without that word you are just messing around.

I watch a lot of movies, you know the real ones that make it onto the cinemascreen, I also watch a lot of aspiring filmmakers films online, that don't have the budget to push their way to the big screen, the first thing that comes to mind when I feel I have watched cinema is story, the second is story and the third is story, then comes the talent to visualize it in a way you as a viewer become a part of it. Those are just 2 small parts that make a movie feel like cinema but there is so much more to it.

Saying that less digitally sharpened footage is more like cinema is like holding a steeringwheel in your hand claiming you can build a car, I think we need to put things into perspective and remember we are talking about a handicam here, one, if used right and shown on the right (4k) screen and viewed from the right distance can look like nothing we have seen before.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

1) Can you tell me if is possible to add to AX100 a Shoulder Strap?

2) I have just read this reviews about AX100:

"Just received the Sony FDRX100b 4K 2014 camcorder and it is HORRIBLE. Compared to Sony's excellent and newest (2012) Balanced Optical Steadyshot (used in my 2012 Sony HRD CX760v), the regular, OLDER Optical Steadyshot which the $2000 FDRX100b uses stinks and is inferior technology that does not work well. Sony's own info says regular Optical Steady shot is 13 times MORE SHAKY than their newer (2012), Balanced Optical Steadyshot. The shake is horrible compared to my Sony HRD CX760v, which utilizes the newer Balanced Optical Steadyshot. The color is also off compared to the 760, the zoom is much slower and less controllable, it has trouble focusing where the 760 does not. I just compared the 2 set on auto and the issues mentioned are clearly obvious. This 1st generation 4k is not ready for prime time. I'm very disappointed and surprised with Sony about this. I also don't understand why Sony changed the hot shoe door from a slide in body to a fold over (also on the 760) which is waiting to snap off or cut your fingers. Back this $2000 brick goes to Amazon. Waste of money".

Is he crazy or you too share his tought?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I do own a cx730 and a rx10 and I too have noticed that Sony has traded in some of the excellent features the cx730 had which might have been a design limitation , we"ll never know I guess. The zoom on my cx730, if handled with care can be as smooth as butter and very controllable in terms of speed, with the rx10 the zoomspeed is exceptionally slow, almost up to the point where it becomes unusable in any run and gun environment and I also have noticed small "jitters" in the image when shooting in the standard ois mode, when you use active mode the camera crops a part of the image and it does a better job then to smooth out shake, but not as good as my magic eyeball cx730.

An interesting read on a Sunday :) (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2QZ5Y1...wasThisHelpful) which is the thread with the user review that was refered to, it already shifted to a "Have fun with your 1080 footage" kind of comments, I"m just waiting for "someone" to chime in saying it's not cinematic ;)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I understand you.
Can you tell me if is possible to add a Shoulder Strap to AX100?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

You are right it is about the story, but if that was 100% the case we wouldn't be having a discussion about HD let alone 4K as we would still be watching hand-cranked black and white film, for the story :)

You are also correct about this being a Handicam, it is for consumers and will look stunning, the problem is the discussion has shifted by some people to this particular consumer camcorder being more than the sum of it's parts.

This is more of a professional forum where professional gear is discussed. Yes consumer camcorders often come into play in professional situations, look at how many Go Pro's are used for TV work and look great. Consumer camcorders are smaller, more discrete, cheaper (for multi camera shots) and do produce good enough video in most cases. Do we think Steven Spielberg is going to use all AX100's on his next movie? No. What are most indie productions going to shoot video on? Quite likely the GH4 will be used quite a bit.

I think the cinema/film look is just in reference to the fact that once a camera has made the footage look like video, i.e.sharpness added, you can't undo that, so it always looks like video, so if you wanted to tell a story in the way film does, you couldn't use the AX100. But hey this is okay, this isn't what the AX100 is for.

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

It is clear to me that Sony intended this camera as a consumer camera to support the sale of 4K to the masses and to allow the people who have bought their 4K TV's to create their own movies. The whole point of 4K is to create the " looking through the window" effect. One that I want too. Not a film look. I think that 30P is a technology /cost/marketing issue and if they could it would have been 60P. The AX100 gives this wonderful image, has good depth of field for a consumer and can produce a shallow depth of field when needed. Winner.

Will it appeal to the small number of people who want to control every aspect of recording ( and can't really afford the camera that will do this !!!) NO. For what it does it is not far off the cost that Sony have used for their top consumer Handycam for years, the CX900 is almost exactly in line with previous pricing with both returning to a lot more manual control and LCD indications than in the past 10 years ( since the Hi8 models) .

Ron Evans