Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Precisely. It appears because the latest issue of one publication had all/most of its articles related to cinema and cinema cameras and because a poster can name a handful of cinema cameras, that cinema is now 'in'. Never mind the countless non-cinema cameras that are out there, currently being sold and still very popular. Never mind other publications that are not speaking of only cinema. But ok, let's make the assumption that it's true, so what? Does that mean we are all supposed to join the line, rank & file, and follow the 'masses'? Does that mean that the look of 'non-cinema' is now crude, ugly and something to be avoided at all costs? Nonsense.

There's one thing that I've noted time and time again among the cinema crowd and that's a turning down of the nose to anyone pursuing a look that isn't 'cinema'. Where did this condescending, non-tolerant attitude come from? It's there gentlemen and it's undeniable. How do I know? Because I see these same guys taking over and derailing every thread where cameras like the AX100 are discussed. They shower us with endless proselytizing, almost cult-like in manner. Talk about being threatened!!! Just look here! It's happened again.

Here's another example. One of our posters here who owns a BMPCC (and now an AX100), is one of the 'out crowd' that likes the look of reality. He mentioned to me how he fine tuned his BMPCC grading so as to create a video with the 'look of reality', a doc-style appearence from his footage. When he posted an example in one of the forums, the video was immediately met with disdain. "Ugh, it looks like video" was the common refrain. Yet the constantly posted 'cinema look' videos that had inane colors and gradings from Mars were met with 'WOW, that's beautiful'...and so it goes.

Yes, some of us remember having some of our childhood shot on film. So what? Some of us remember B&W TVs with rabbit ears. So what? Does that mean I want to go back to that look? Does that mean I should ditch my plans for a UHD TV this year and search Ebay for an Admiral B&W TV? Technology moves forward and up until recently the yardstick of video technology was how close we could get to that look of reality, the looking through the window image that most of us were seeking. That was the nirvana. The image that some of the cinema cameras create (and yes, I know, we are told you can get whatever image you like from them...uh huh...excuse me while I spend the rest of the day grading...time is money) look to me, shall I say "Retro". Again, if that's what you like, great, but don't tell us why the equipment we're using is any less good because it wasn't designed to produce that kind of imagery. Nonsense.

So personally, I could care less whether cinema is in or out. If you like that look that's great, but please don't look down on us because we prefer the ultra resolution of the AX100 and its through the window look. Just leave this thread and venture to those that you actually want to be a part of.

I find the wedding & corporate event allusion particularly interesting. We are constantly told how the 'consumer' (meaning we who prefer a look produced by the AX100) prefers the 'video look'. Yet the brides and many in the corporate world, when it comes to video, are those same consumers! So why would these people, who we were just told prefer the look of video, be sold on the soft cinema-look? Is this a 'heads I win tales you lose' kind of thing?

Precisely! What I find so interesting is that the same guys that preach to us about the difference between sharpness and resolution (as if we didn't already know this) are the same ones that simply can't bring themselves to say that yes, the AX100 is producing the most resolute (NOT over-sharpened) video today. It seems that Slashcam felt that way. You may not like it's 'looking through the window' imagery, but to deny it produces this is just silly. Again, we are seeing resolution, not an overly sharpened picture. The ability to see DETAILS is the result of resolution, not over-sharpening which works exactly the opposite.

One poster couldn't jump on the AX100 fast enough, illustrating the 'definitive proof' of artifacts seen in frame grabs, only to find out later it was an editing error. Oops. We have another guy that's never seen the AX100 output on a large screen UHD TV, yet he is an expert in all of the foibles of this output on 4K and goes from forum to forum saying so. Amazing! I've actually seen the output on a large screen UHD TV as have a few lucky owners and he's wrong. But hey, what does actual experience have to do with anything? Never let the facts get in the way of opinions.

Precisely!

Now, I wonder if we "Neanderthals" can get back to actually discussing the AX100 or will the cinema crowd continue to derail this thread?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Pardon me if this has already been asked. Have anyone been editing their footage in Adobe Premiere Pro CC? I am editing my 4K footage and I am playing around with the best export settings. I created a project 3840X2160 and I am exporting as 1080P (I don't have 4K TV or monitor yet). My export settings are H.264 Level 5.1 and I am using CBR @ 60Mbs. Does that sound about right? I am playing these files through my network to 1080P TV and also playing them on my Samsung Pro tablet (Looks great).

If anyone would like to suggest other settings for export (Youtube, Vimeo) that would be great.

Thanks in advance!
Joe

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

I couldn't agree more. Technical limitations and getting to market first has given us 24/30fps in 4K, much like 1080P arrived as 60i. I think if H264 Level 5.1 did interlacing these first generation camcorders would be 4K at 60i.

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Joe, I don't use Adobe, but it's safe to say you don't want to encode your video at a bitrate less than that produced by the AX100. The camera's bitrate is actually somewhat variable and during complex scenes can peak in the 70Mbps range.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ken, the camera probably does not have a 2 pass encoding option:-) Joe, Adobe Media Encoder, (which is probably what your using through Premiere), does. So bitrate isn't the only factor. There is an Adobe forum here under "Cross Platform Solutions" ( I believe that's its name) towards the bottom of the forums list page and you might get a better answer there. Also, now that NAB is starting up, info about PPro and 4K XAVC and XAVC-S should start showing up a lot more.

And if you look into the Media Encoder settings, it does have presets for Vimeo, You Tube, etc. Although for 4k release, new presets might have to be created.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

After years of not using Premiere Pro I've found it is near perfect for XAVC as there is no time wasting conversion to Proxy or Intermediate files. I'm editing right off the SDXC card.

For 4K exports to YouTube for "professional" purposes YouTube recommends 270Mbps. That's 6X the 50Mbps they recommend for HD. (Which I do use.) Seems crazy high to me, but when I'm testing for quality, I'm going to do as they say. (I also use x264 not Apple's h.264 encoder.)

I also export using ProRes 422 HQ (220Mbps) which they accept. Later I'll drop this to ProRes 422.

YouTube will automatically generate different frame sizes for you so there is no reason not to send them UHD.

BE SURE TO CLICK THE "WATCH ON YOUTUBE" BUTTON AND SELCT "4K" AND TRY "720."

You can find a movie edited with Premiere Pro at:
There is a longer movie from FCP X that is a test for RS and other artifacts at:


No attempt was made to avoid RS so the amount shown here is about as bad as it gets under normal shooting.

As far as artifacts -- look for motion judder, stutters, twinkling lights, and "vibrating haze" on bushes and tree leaves.

Everything was shot at 24p with a 1/48th shutter.

There's a sample of the AX100's low-rez mp4 at:
Looks very good, could certainly be uploaded to any internet service.

Are you copying you h.264 back to an SDXC card and playing it your AX100?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I can answer this as I used an NX30 heavily for 2 years (similar to the 760), and just sold it as I'm using the AX100 now. I've only used the AX100 a little and not on any official video shoot yet, but here's my thoughts so far:

1) There's no question that balanced optical steady shot is awesome, I don't think anyone will deny that. It does have two issues though, one is that as far as I know it can only work with small sensors which is why so far it's only on the 760/NX30. Second is that you can't use wide conversion lenses with balanced steady shot enabled, you have to disable it otherwise you get vignetting. Another more minor thing is that balanced steadyshot reduces your field of view a bit.

2) I disagree on his comments about color, in my side to side comparisons I found color more accurate on the AX100, and I found the AX100's white balance to be quicker and more accurate as well.

3) I can't comment on zoom as I never use zoom.

4) The 760/NX30 will focus quicker on a subject, but so far it seems to be more error prone than the AX100. This was an issue I had with the 760/NX30 on many shoots where it had two focus quirks, one is sometimes it would do a complete refocus in the middle of filming so everything got totally blurry then sharp again (never could figure out why it did that), and second sometimes it would ignore the subject in the middle of the screen and instead focus on some object in the background because it had higher contrast. I haven't noticed these two focus quirks yet with the AX100 but I do need more time with the camera to be sure this has been solved.

5) I believe the reason they changed the hot shoe cover is that the old one could cause noise that would get picked up by the mic.


Regarding the "cinema look" etc that seems to keep coming up, I really will never understand why there is a wrong way or a right way to film. It's like looking at a painting that someone made and saying "yeah that's wrong". It's their painting, how can it be wrong? The same with filming, as far as I know it's an art form and people want whatever look they want. If they want green flesh stones and 7fps then so be it. I remember doing lots of research on what was considered "correct" when I started filming ages ago, then quickly noting how I could find countless movies that totally violated all those "rules". That's because it's not about rules, it's about getting a look you want. I don't see how there can be a right or wrong when dealing with an art form.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

[QUOTE=Peter Siamidis;1840239
4) The 760/NX30 will focus quicker on a subject, but so far it seems to be more error prone than the AX100. This was an issue I had with the 760/NX30 on many shoots where it had two focus quirks, one is sometimes it would do a complete refocus in the middle of filming so everything got totally blurry then sharp again (never could figure out why it did that), and second sometimes it would ignore the subject in the middle of the screen and instead focus on some object in the background because it had higher contrast. I haven't noticed these two focus quirks yet with the AX100 but I do need more time with the camera to be sure this has been solved.

[/QUOTE]

I find this with my CX700 and NX30 too . For project shoots I use manual focus and use the spot focus feature that is very good and I wish was on my NX5U and AX1. A nice fast way of setting focus on the thing you want in focus. Not mentioned too much but if the AX100 is like all the other Sony's I have then auto exposure is too high and always needs to be offset with - AE shift a little. At least -0.25EV in most cases and for me in the theatre more like -1.0EV with the dark set backgrounds. Even shooting the family with the NX30U ( yes the stabilizer is incredible ) I have AE set at -0.5 most of the time.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Pete, I've also been pleasantly surprised by the white balance. I've found it very accurate in a variety of shooting situations. I do think that this is not the typical 'in-your-face' Sony color that appears on many of their cameras. So people looking for that might find the AX100 color just a bit 'tame'.

But I find it saturated where it needs to be and 'tame' where the colors themselves are tame.

As for the OIS, it's better than my RX10, but not as good as the best I've used over the years. I'm finding the autofocus quite good too and better than some of the prior Sonys I've had.

Regarding that review on Amazon, I think most readers would know that's an outlier and does not reflect in any manner, any owner's opinion of the cam on any forum I've visited. There's always someone like that.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your settings and examples. I have not tried copying the files back to the card and playing on the AX100 itself. I will have to try this.

Joe

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi Ken,

I think I will try VBR 60Mbs. The 50 Mbs CBR looked great on my TV.

Joe

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the advice. I do use the presets, but the presets have a very low Mbs bit rate and I wanted to see what everyone else is using.

I did find that the clips play well in Premiere and seem to be easy to work with and did not take as long as a I thought to encode.

Joe

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Joe, I don't think you'll have success. I've never been able to copy files back to any AVCHD camera due to their unique file structure. I think that's true of the AX100 too.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Lens click....


For all the other AX1100 owners. Does your lens "click"?

Mine seems to adjust itself with a very slight "click" on power up. Then,....exactly 7 seconds after power off there is another "click" sound.

This happens on every single power up and shutdown. (including the exact 7 seconds shut down timing every time)

Does yours do it too? (hoping to find an answer soon...my last possible return day is Wednesday)

CT

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Do you think Cam Caddie Scorpion EX is useful with AX100? I never used handycam and I'd like to clear my ideas.
This is the link: Amazon.com: Cam Caddie Scorpion EX: Electronics
Some users tell it is useful as for handling as for balancing and stabilizing a handycam like AX100 because vibrations reverberate on the handle.
I'd like to use it for to make documentaries in my trips.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yup, mine does the same thing Cliff. Yours is fine.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Does anyone have any examples of a 1080 clip that was shot in camera from the AX100, not one that was downrezzed from 4k?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Here is one 1080 60p

And 4K

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

Thanks for the YouTube clips unfortunately YouTube downgrades everything to 30fps. Also to get a true comparison on YouTube the 1080P clip would need upscaling to 4K then uploaded, this is so we can watch the 4K stream downsized to 1080P which forces the stream to be a much higher bit-rate than at the 1080P setting.

Is it possible to upload these to Vimeo then we can download the originals?

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Info about Audio-in for an external microphone

When I will get my AX100 I'm thinking I will buy an external microphone. But on the pictures I don't see Audio-in connection (3,5 mm stereo jack). On a picture I see headphone conection only. Where is the connection for an external microphone?

I'd like to buy a Sennheiser MKE 400 microphone but I'm afraid I will waste money because AX100 cuts audio frequency band.
Some info please?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

page 16 from the manual ...

http://666kb.com/i/cnbupjn9ywn6i07s6.gif

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi Everyone,

I've been searching all over for the answer to this question. Right now I'm actually looking more at the CX-900 over the AX-100, mainly because I don't see myself shooting in 4K anytime soon in real world situations, however tempting it may be. In any case, I posted it here because they are pretty much the same camera, with and without 4K.

I have a pair of Sony PJ710's that I use during wedding ceremonies and receptions, where light is usually on the low side. (The PJ710 is basically a CX730/760/790/NX30 in case you didn't know... uses the same 1/2.88" sensor)

My question is how does the low-light image quality of a AX-100/CX-900 compare to the PJ710 line? It would seem as if the 1" sensor on the 100/900 would fair better, but is this necessarily true? I'm taking about shooting in 1080, 24fps, auto shutter.

If anybody has a comparison or some info, please let me know. Thank you!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I never knew that a microphone jack has to be put into headphone connection. There is a different impedance (ohm). For this reason I have asked if is buying Sennheiser MKE 400 microphone is a waste of money. Does anybody can give me some info please?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

It does NOT go in the same place. There are separate connectors for headphone and microphone. They each have their own little door too (and btw, headphone is an output and microphone is an input).

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

On the picture of Sony AX100 I don't see the input for the microphone.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ny%20AX100.jpg

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Adriano, i understand your communication difficulties, but for pete's sake, he circled and highlighted the microphone port for you, and regardless, it HAS a microphone port, so what exactly is it that you're still asking about?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Using an external microphone is usually a good idea. However, I've been very disappointed with the MKE400 I bought a few years ago. I'd advise you to listen to it very carefully before parting with any cash. Try the Rode equivalents too. At the very least you need very good wind protection for it. The silly little "basket" Senn sell is of little use, and wind noise sounds particularly unpleasant on this little mic.

The normal recommendations (Rode NTG1, Senn K6+ME66, etc.) are awkward choices too, since they are a bit big for this little cam. and require shock-mounts, phantom power and an XLR interface box (e.g. Beechtek). A Rode NTG2 (battery powered), a short XLR-to-mini-jack cable (which won't be "balanced"), Rycote Softie and a medium-size shock-mount might be workable...?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

You know, you can use the internet and search? You look at one picture and one side of the camera only for the mic port? You do not believe three posters, at least one of whom owns the camera, who tell you it has a microphone port? I do not think your problem is language.

Here is link to a Sony web site that has all the views. You will see that the mic port is on the other side, and you can attach the mic without opening the lcd (good).

4K Camcorder with 1" sensor - FDRAX100/B Review - Sony US

Just write again if you need instruction on how to choose the picture on that page, or how to read the spec sheet (if you can't look at the picture), which says the camera has a mic input.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

@ Adriano Moroni

go here => Sony : FDR-AX100E : FDR-AX100E : Bedienungsanleitungen and scroll to "Italienisch"
and load down the manual in your native language

on (the same page 16 as in the picture from the english manual, linked in post #941)
you can see the under point 8 the >Presa (microfono) (PLUG IN POWER)<

following the blue lines on ..... http://666kb.com/i/cnc6vknvv4w04cz8m.gif

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I don't like to use a short short XLR-to-mini-jack cable. I have noticed there is a Rode VideoMic Pro with 3,5mm jack cable. Do you think it is a good choise?
Amazon.com: Rode VideoMic Pro VMP Shotgun Microphone: Electronics
Thanks

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

This Sony mic may suit you as there is no cable needed as it plugs into the camera directly. There are other Sony mics that also plug into the multi interface shoe as well. Stereo Microphone - Handycam Accessories Sony Store - Sony CA


Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Wrong side. It's on the other side, up next to the lens, behind a little door.

The headphone jack is the one in the picture (bottom, rear).

--Darin

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ron, thanks for your suggestion.
Can that Sony microphone also be used in other non Sony Cameras? Otherwise it is not very good to purchase it.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi Adriano

here the link to italian manual of the camcorder http://download.sony-europe.com/pub/...X900_HG_IT.pdf

Ugo

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ken,

I saw your post on AVS Forum on the Samsung HU8550. This will prob be the 4K TV I'll be getting if the Vizio's turn out to be subpar. What was your output workflow settings, did you just export to 4K at 60mbps?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Derrick, I actually put my edited project on the 2014 9000 series, the curved 65" UHD Samsung that BB is now showing.

Using Edius 7, I simply exported as .mp4 @60Mbps.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hello, can you tell me how much is good the audio of AX100? I'm thinking to buy Shure VP83 LensHopper microphone. It is the shortest and lightest among good microphones. But I'm afraid it will be too much big for AX100 and I'm afraid it will lose its balance. I need to record in wild enviroments and create more sound pathos (rainforest sounds and indigenous peoples songs). What is your thoughts?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

According to Sony docs -- the manual gain control does NOT work when a mic is plugged-in. I would buy a Sony mic built for the AX100.

Sound quality from the built in is quite good -- other than wind noise.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Thanks Ken.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I recommend that you search the All Things Audio section of the forum for post related to the VP83, Rode VideoMic Pro and competing products. There's loads of good background, and good specific information already there. Search is your friend. There's nothing significantly different about the AX100's audio compared to many other high-spec little cameras. Sound advice for existing Sonys, or the Panasonic TM900 (for example) is almost certainly applicable to the AX100.

With all these little mics, beware of wind noise. If you will be working outside, your best choice is more likely to be the one that you can get the most effective wind muffler for, rather than the one with the very best sound quality in completely still air.