Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ken, i'll admit i was skeptical of your claims as to it's moire/aliasing performance, but while there is some present, it is indeed damn good.

Of course, download the full clip to judge, though the online playable clip already shows very very little artifacting as is. (if played at 1080 unscaled)



And here for reference are the bmc4k, c100, rx10, and 5d2

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yes Darren, very very tough to pick up. I don't think most would even notice it and certainly nobody would be bothered by it as minor as it is in these 'worst case scenarios'.

That's why it's like knocking your head against the wall when someone makes a claim that there's significant this or that when you know damn well it's just not the case. We've got guys who do edits and re-edits and then claim there's this or that artifact. I just sit here and shake my head.

If you're familiar with video as almost everyone here is or should be, you know the only way to tell if a camera has artifacts and to what extent, is to view native files. Not online videos, not edited videos or re-edited videos. It's just common sense.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Just got ours here today. Lucky break as the first ones arrived today and we are leaving for Kamchatka, Russia in 2 days. We were looking into re buying a NX-30 after ours was stolen on our last trip there a year ago, when 2 ex of this camera arrived in Norway today.
Only been playing around with it with out cards, so no shooting. A little bigger than I thought it would be, but certainly a nice feel to it. The IQ seem to be quite good. I did notice quite a bit of rolling shutter when panning at full tele, it got a bit better when I set the stabilizer to active.

This was the last camera in our 4K puzzle, as we now start a new production with all 4K (or better) cameras.
I think it will be a great little B-cam, a camera that we can hand out to our participants in places where we sometimes can´t be with them (top of mountains etc).
I think most people would be able to operate this quite easily, but it can still be quite advanced when needed.

Any thing we should watch out for?
We don´t have much time to test this camera before we go

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

@Steve -

I'm not seeing objectionable "artifacts" for the most part, maybe tiny, minor ones here or there in a "worst case" scenario, but certainly not something to condemn a $2K camera... the bricks look FINE, minor "twinkling" in some of those lights, but not in all scenes, and a little temporal stutter in moving vehicles (expected w/ lower frame rate)

There are so many places in the chain (INCLUDING my computer/graphics card/monitor!) where "things" can be introduced, I don't think we doubt that YOU are seeing things, but as a practical matter, others ARE NOT, at least not to the degree that you seem to be. The video looks eye popping-ly GOOD overall, even YOURS is not bad!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

AS100 "4K" HDMI out?

I was talking to Atomos at NAB last week. They mentioned that the new "Shogun" WILL record 4k from the AS100's HDMI IF you don't press the cameras record button.

Wait....I know the AX100 will output 4K on playback...but will it output clean 4K when shooting? (while holding in pause mode)

I was under the impression that the AX100 only does HDMI 4K on playback and 1080 output in every other way.

Can somebody confirm this with a 4K monitor? If Atomos is correct, then how long will the camera output 4K while waiting to record? Will it force shut down after a while or will it hold in pause indefinitely?

If true, this is good news!

CT

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Dave,

I own quite a few Sony handycams with the Active Stabilization but none of the new models that have the advertised Clear image Zoom and here is what I've observed:

- As soon as the Active OIS mode is engaged, the cropping and zooming in of the image to fill the 1920x1080 pixel frame is activated right from the wide end. For instance, on my HDR-PJ760VE (a model with the BOSS tech) and HDR-CX700E (non-BOSS), the 26mm (35mm AoV equivalent) at the widest end becomes close to 29mm or narrower. Once I zoom in to the tele end of the range, the cropping and zooming degree increases progressively until I reach the end of the zoom. The AoV of the image at the tele end of the zoom corresponds to that of the focal length of roughly about 442mm, or 17x (17 x 26mm) as claimed by Sony, and not 10x (260mm) as indicated by the mechanical zoom ratio alone.

- In the old days Sony didn't call this Clear Image Zoom but mentioned this behavior in the manual which was true.

- The numbers aside, what I've seen from the max zooming and engaging the Active OIS is that the sharpness DISTINCTLY deteriorates on my calibrated monitors. There was no doubt by anyone who saw the image. It was plainly softer at the tele end apart from the very noticeable CAs in contrasty scenes but that's another issue.

- Looking at the specs, the above two models share more or less the same 1/2.88" sensor, the design of which dates back to Sony's first back-illuminated CMOS sensor used in the XR500/520 hard disk series. Sony specs claim the sensor's pixel count is 6M+ gross and 4M+ effective for video. This may seem more than enough to be de-bayered and reserved for the purpose of digital stabilization etc. as you suggest but the truth I and everyone else saw on the monitors suggested things may not have worked as we thought they should.

- There is no question the Active OIS in the Sony's small sensor Handycam models is very effective in terms of stabilizing the image and that the system is superior to most of the IS systems of the competition out there. However I believe this (Active and NOT Standard or optical-only IS) is achieved at the cost of effective video resolution. Though I don't have a solid proof for it I think the baseline pixel count of the image pre-digital stabilization processing in the 1080p modes starts somewhere around the theoretical 1920x1080 or about 2M pixels and then decreases, progressively, from there once you engage the Active OIS.

- Looking at it another way, all these marketing names of digital zooming may be mostly just the by-product of the working of the Active OIS system while in the Standard OIS mode it is just a similar cropping and zooming process but maybe with some different interpolation algorithm.

This could be a reason why some members on this forum such as Peter Siamidis etc. have noticed the softening of the image at full zoom also on the AX100.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I don't remember saying the amount was "objectionable" or "significant." I only needed to establish the existence of aliasing in the face of the claim there was "no aliasing." I do not want report something that didn't exist. Now, I now there are multiples types of aliasing. They are visible on a computer's screen, on a 63" HDTV connected via HDMI, and totally independently via an Apple TV streaming from YouTube. And, of course, they are also visible when the original file right from the camera is viewed.

I'm pretty sure one could keep them to a minimum by simply shooting with care.

I have just run additional tests to see if 24p verses 30p makes a difference. It doesn't. Also tests to see if manual verses auto exposure makes a difference. It doesn't. These tests look at line-twitter.

When a camera sensor's frame moves vertically, very thin horizontal lines or details in the scene will be captured by a row—then fall between this row and the next, and then be captured again. Fine detail will appear and disappear as long as there is any motion. The fine lines/details will be seen to "twitter" if there is the slightest vertical camera shake -- or a vertical pan or a zoom. A progressive camera can reduce twitter by passing the video signal through a low-pass filter. While this cleans the signal, it also slightly reduces vertical resolution. Some cameras have a Sharpness control that enables you to adjust the amount of filtering employed.

We have seen these "line twitter" artifacts before.

REVIEW OF SONY V1E:
"Playing back 1080p (Progressive) footage on the Sony looked a little different. The colour saturation and contrast were about the same and it handles highlights superbly, only there is some 'line-twitter' evident in the images, especially on horizontal edges. I filmed some books stacked horizontally and there was slight line-twitter along the book edges in places. However, I was able to fix this by changing the Sharpness setting in the menu. By default the sharpness is set to +7, by dropping it to a more realistic +3 the line-twitter vanishes.

Nobody in their right mind would really want the sharpness set so high; +7 is a bit overkill. I can only assume that Sony set it so high from the factory because they assume most purchasers of the camera will be hobbyists who think this look is really great. Personally, whenever I look at an image that has sharpness and detail levels cranked up, I don't see a sharp stunning picture, I see a picture full of junk and garbage that should not be there so I always lower these settings; usually quite drastically. Now if you lower the sharpness settings you could be forgiven for thinking that the image looks soft, it doesn't, it simply looks natural. Try it for a few weeks, then crank the sharpness up again and you'll see just how horrible too much sharpness actually is." ©2006 Nigel Cooper

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

"The numbers aside, what I've seen from the max zooming and engaging the Active OIS is that the sharpness DISTINCTLY deteriorrates on my calibrated monitors. There was no doubt by anyone who saw the image. It was plainly softer at the tele apart from the very noticeable CAs in contrasty scenes but that's another issue."

To minimize rolling shutter I've found it best keep from zooming-in too far. The question is that when it is engaged at wide -- does resolution degreed. And, how far one can zoom before resolution degrades?

It seems Sony first downscales the sensor image to UHD. When Active is engages a smaller window within this image is used -- with the buffer areas being used for EIS. Then, since UHD is recorded, the smaller image is up-scaled back to UHD. This two stage process can't help image quality.

But, why is this system part of a digital zoom system? Why isn't the optical zoom good enough? Or, did Sony simply decide that the logic that downscales and then upscales could be used to provide a 50% extra zoom range. I can't see any need for a 15X zoom, but maybe marketing did.

Anyway, how do the optical and digital zoom work together? Is the optical zoom used until it reaches its maximum and then the digital zoom begins and adds to the range?

I'm going back to Optical to limit the zoom range and see if jitter increases too much. In fact, what led folks to use Active?

Here's the Blood Moon using the 160X digital zoom. So bright I used ND.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I've seen PLENTY of artifacts on broadcast TV, and some in movies, all most likely shot with cameras FAR more expensive than the AX100...

Thus my qualifier of "objectionable" - of course some of this comes under the "once seen you can't un-see" category. But if you're going around looking for flaws, you'll find some, pretty much guaranteed. I'll admit that the stutter that sometimes shows up in some videos gives me a bit of pause, but most videos don't seem to have it on a level that's worth quibbling over, especially at this price point.



And about the active stabilization and digital zoom... shot the bloodmoon last night with the trusty old PJ760, and the active stabilization and digital zoom were interlinked - setting active meant that digital zoom was also engaged... so I guess this is a "feature"... and it was a real pain having to have stabilization on when on tripod and needing SOME digital zoom on top of a 2X tele lens!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

"I've seen PLENTY of artifacts on broadcast TV, and some in movies, all most likely shot with cameras FAR more expensive than the AX100..."

I'll admit that the stutter that sometimes shows up in some videos gives me a bit of pause, but most videos don't seem to have it on a level that's worth quibbling over, especially at this price point."

I mostly see aliasing on SD to HD and interlace converted to progressive -- fox, espn, etc. I don't see any issues with film or CineAlta shot programs.

I really wonder what these very rare pauses are. I have assumed it is not the AX100 codec and just the load of data with UHD bogging the computer down.

I know morie can appear on the BMPCC, but I see it very rarely and I've watched a lot of samples. The brick building is the only time I've seen it from the AX100 -- although a bit occurs on the bird cage at the very end. So it seems not a real problem on either camera. Likewise, both can show RS, but if folks are careful with movement it shouldn't be a problem with either. Neither show aliasing on diagonals -- so also not a problem with either.

Bottom-line, noting a camera's artifacts -- doesn't make the artifacts automatically a "problem" for an owner. It's called getting to know your camera.

The AX100, however, has two artifacts that are serious problems for me: motion judder and line-twitter. Motion judder at 24/30 afflicts almost all "video" camcorders. I never see it on "cinema" cameras. Line-twitter never slows-up on "cinema" cameras either. The reason for the difference is that makers design for two different demands: a very clean image or a very sharp image. If one is in the "once seen you can't un-see" category -- then clean is an absolute must have.

There in lies a question. The GH4 with lens is a bit more than the AX100 and -- if you like DSLRs -- is clearly a pro level camera. And, then there is the question of 4K. It is very slow to work with -- and a problem for streamed videos (which is the way most folks share media in 2014) and there are no optical discs -- so I've come to question my need for 4K at this time. That opens a huge choice of cameras. The Sony 7s, the Sony RX100 -- that has the same sensor as the AX100 and who's video looks amazing like that from the AX100, and the BMPCC. Both of the later are cheaper. Waiting may pay rewards.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I believe this is what actually happens in my Active OIS-capable Sonys when the Active Mode is engaged. Just replace the word UHD with 1080p, of course.

On newer models with the separate Clear Image Zoom function such as the AX100, I have no idea if there is a distinct threshold at the tele end that indicates the extra digital zooming begins or if, in case of the Standard OIS mode, it means only digital zooming effect is applied after the tele end of the optical zoom range without any digital stabilization.

You ask why some use the Active mode and the answer is simple, they need to lessen the shake as much as they could either knowing or not knowing the mode degrades the resolution.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

That's true, but the big difference between the AX100 and the models you mentioned, is the AX100 has so many more pixels to deal play with. As a result, the softening will be far less than regular HD camcorders.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I'm sorry Gentlemen, this is just getting more than a bit silly, it really is. This frenzied attempt to find artifacts (and in one case that's precisely what it is), ANY artifacts in a $2,000 Handicam camera is utterly absurd. If this kind of scrutiny were applied to megabuck cameras, you could find something.

Then to go on say that you could keep artifacts to a minimum by 'shooting with care' is again just a silly comment and more hyperbole to make readers think the artifacts are worse than they are. The video that I shot and posted was not shot with 'care' to avoid artifacts. If the camera had these artifacts that I was trying to avoid, why would I have shot a large expanse of a brick wall?? Most people that have viewed this video do not see artifacts. In fact, had I shot that same scene with far more expensive cameras, it probably would have been crawling with artifacts. No scrutiny required.

For the life of me, I don't know why one guy is on, for lack of a better description, an 'AX100 witch hunt'.

Again, hold up any camera to this kind of scrutiny and you WILL find something. In fact, with most cameras costing multiple times that of the AX100, you'll find FAR more artifacts than what exists in the AX100.

I'm sorry, it certainly appears that Steve is on some kind of a mission motivated by who knows what? To prove that under intense scrutiny he can find something? Big whoop!

Excuse me while I get back to shooting some amazing video with this little thing.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

And therein lies the problem. If one is predisposed in feeling you have no need for 4K at this time, it puts some serious question into the objectivity of the person performing 'reviews' of 4K equipment. It's human nature, it just is. But this goes a long way in explaining some of the things I've read.

Secondly, some of us have actually done some editing with 4K footage and know it's not as onerous as some make it out to be. I'm editing on a Toshiba all-in-one computer, hardly a powerhouse, and a 2 minute video can take about 3 minutes 10 seconds to encode. Hardly any different than AVCHD. So let's be fair about that one too.
So now an HD camera looks 'amazingly like' that of a 4K camera?!?!?! I've seen lots of footage from these cameras and in terms of clarity of detail and resolving power, there is no comparison. None. Zero. I'm sorry, I'm nearly speechless. There is no objectivity here.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Steve Mullen said: "the Sony RX100 -- that has the same sensor as the AX100 and who's video looks amazing like that from the AX100."

This statement reveals either bias or ignorance. The RX100 is well-known to be one of the most artifact-laden cameras of all cameras. See Slashcam.de for the details. The AX100 uses a completely different method of taking video from the same sensor, which precisely avoids the problems of the RX100. The RX100 videos are visibly moire-contaminated. It can be seen in test charts (unlike that from the AX100) and in almost all videos.

After seeing post after post about the made-up artifacts of the AX100, it is now abundantly clear that Mullen is not a source of information or views that should be taken seriously.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I have a question for AX100 owners. How shallow of a DOF can you get? I realize this is not a big DSLR type chip but can you get more shallow DOF than an EX1?

Thanks, Marc

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

@Ken -
EXACTLY, you can probably find "artifacts" (or color shifts, or...) if you have a trained eye, no matter WHAT camera is used! A $2K camera that produces video that is pretty much like looking out a window (one that isn't dirty and doesn't have optical distortions in the glass!) is a pretty slick thing - two years from now, it'll probably be "less" slick, surpassed by other cameras, that's tech for ya! For now, it's the only game in town if one wants a 4K "handycam" without breaking the bank...

Sure, if you've got m4/3 investments, a GH4 makes pretty good sense, and it's in the same price range (but w/o lenses, and those things COST $$).


@Steve

Let's sort out a couple things, there is an RX100... decent camera, got plenty of decent results (video was trickier in the first release) out of mine, and an RX100M2 that we believe shares the sensor (but does NOT share the processor) of the AX100. Honestly, if someone doesn't need a lot of zoom, and wants a "pocket" camera, these ARE decent choices, I have one for what it does - shoot "pretty good" images in a pocket cam... better than a P&S, and still discreet and easy to carry.

Then there is the RX10 - we believe it's the same sensor and processor, and frankly is a pretty amazing camera (if it had enabled 4K, I wouldn't even be thinking about the AX100, to be honest). If I had to recommend an "all around" camera for someone who wants great results and doesn't mind a slightly bigger package, again, it's hard to beat. I am happily using mine while waiting for an AX100 to pop up at the right price (after someone reads one too many internet criticisms and sends theirs back <wink>). I got my RX10 at around 30% off list, open box... and not in a "hurry" to replace it whatsoever. It is a beast among cameras!

EACH of the above cameras serve a purpose, has plusses and minuses, and will no doubt be "dated" in a few years. BOTH have been good cameras for my uses. Note the word "uses", not technical nitpicking - images from both are good enough, especially on a $/quality basis - could I get "better" results from a bigger, heavier, more expensive camera?? Maybe... but would I use this (theoretical) bigger, heavier camera or spend the additional money for "incremental" increases in performance? Nope... and I have bigger heavier more expensive cameras (and some less expensive ones too) that are sitting around more than being used since I got the RX100 - now the RX10 is what I grab... and that likely won't change should an AX100 be added!


Where the AX100 "fits" (and I see it as a complement to the RX's) is where one needs a dedicated video camera, and where the additional resolution will provide options in post, or "better" quality than that available from a 1080/60p camera. I want to test the higher bitrate 1080/60p, as I suspect I will use that mode at least a bit, though the 4K will probably be the first choice. The high framerate video is also of interest for certain things.

I'm very aware of the challenges of dealing with 4K, it's a "system" upgrade for me, meaning not just a camera... so budget and workflow are both big "issues"! But the results others are getting are more than enough to be convincing.

In another part of the DVi forum universe, a video was posted by someone giving an address "against" 4K... I just turned it off after he made a statement that "you can't see the difference"... when such a ridiculous blanket statement is made, all credibility is GONE, sorry. If you can't see the difference, get thee to the optometrist!!

Some are comparing 4K to "3D"... 3D gives me and many others headaches... 4K makes me feel more "there" than 3D could ever do, and no headaches. To me and my tired old eyes, the reasons to move in this direction are obvious, and I fully expect it will be far quicker to adoption than HD was.

That said, going to a 4K camera may NOT be for everyone, at least with this first to market device (or any of the other "first to market" devices, soon to be followed by a FLOOD of 4K cameras). Steve, you might be perfectly happy with an RX100M2 (if pocketability is important) or the RX10 (if you want a better lens and more features that can be packed into a pocket device). I see the differences the AX100 provides, but I CAN live with what the RX10 can output, it's not like it horrifies me with lack of quality or anything!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Fanboys will always defend what they just bought to the bitter end. They are so motivated they will simply not see anything that might cause them to re-think their purchase. And, they will setup straw-men by claiming falsely someone has said X and Y -- which they will then argue against. They will call anybody who doesn't agree with them every name in the book. Google Cognitive Dissonance.

But, outside a forum they have no voice. And, they never will precisely because no one will hire a fanboy as they can't be trusted to be objective.

No matter how loud they scream -- in the world outside of where they post -- no one will ever hear them.

Can't say it has been fun, but it has been useful to read what folks have posted. So here is an image and if you don't see the moiré pattern on the brick -- what can I say. Time to start writing so "over and out."

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Name calling is the last resort of someone trapped in a corner and who is stubborn.

1. You can see the test charts on Slashcam.de. They show that the Ax100 has less moire than the GH4, the AX1 and the Canon 1 D C. It in fact has none, while the others clearly do. Slashcam.de is not a fanboy. Those tests confirm what us fanboys see. They clearly contradict what you think you see, which is based on not understanding what you are doing. Do you have a critique of the Slashcam.de tests? or do you want to call them names?

2. Your picture is what the clip looks like on your computer; it is not a full-resolution frame grab from the original video but is a picture of your computer screen showing a video! LOL. You still do not get that what your computer is showing you is not what comes out of the camera in 4K. And you have clearly demonstrated with this picture and your fumbling with an editor a biased and stubborn quest to show something that patently is not there. And you do not know how to test camera video.

For your edification:

"As you can see , the Panasonic in this league is not the worst and not the sharpest 4K camera but takes a healthy midfield. The Sony FDR AX100 shows the rings in the far cleanest imaging behavior , while light moire / aliasing structures occur at the Panasonic GH4 , the Sony AX1 and also the Canon EOS 1D C in the rings. Obviously Sony uses the full sensor readout more pixels reserves before down scaling. Canon , Panasonic, and Sony's AX -1 , however, put on a similar debayering algorithm that just can not get more out of 4K Bayer pixels. However, what Sony dissolution victory verhagelt again , is the strong sharpening and the high contrast that is not moving back at the Sony AX100 . The possible dynamics of the Panasonic because we like much better.


The original German:

"Die Sony FDR-AX100 zeigt in den Ringen das bislang sauberste Abbildungsverhalten, während bei der Panasonic GH4, der Sony AX1 und auch der Canon EOS 1D C leichte Moires/Aliasing-Strukturen in den Ringen auftreten. Offensichtlich nutzt Sony beim kompletten Sensor-Readout noch mehr Pixelreserven vor der Downskalierung. Canon, Panasonic und die Sonys AX-1 setzen dagegen auf einen ähnlichen Debayering-Algorithmus, der aus 4K Bayerpixeln eben nicht mehr herausholen kann. Was Sony Auflösungs-Sieg jedoch schon wieder verhagelt, ist die starke Nachschärfung und der hohe Kontrast, der sich bei der Sony AX100 nicht zurückfahren lässt. Die mögliche Dynamik der Panasonic gefällt uns da deutlich besser.

I read this as: the AX100 has the highest,cleanest resolution, but there is artificial sharpening and too high contrast.

The link: http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/...-Schaerfe.html

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

@Steve -

I don't really know what is going on with your system... but the still you posted is SIGNIFICANTLY degraded over my pulling up Ken's Vimeo post, and zooming in up to almost 500% (yeah, who watches video that way?). More than anything, your still looked like mush... where the video viewed on a 1080 screen looks very sharp, even zoomed in a realistic amount...

I did notice that when the video was not full frame, there was a lot of moire... which disappeared almost completely when I hit the full frame button/view (OK, so there was a tiny bit of mosquito noise... not sure it can be avoided at this bitrate) - again, this is an indication not of the camera quality, but of the quality of the interpolation between the two window sizes!

Darrin's tests also exhibit minimal problems in patterned areas that will fall apart with most cameras, as his testing shows...

I don't doubt YOU are seeing something, but I think the rest of us are questioning the methodology to arrive at the conclusion...

Just remember one thing... the internet provides a platform where someone can provide evidence quickly and efficiently of what they claim. So far the footage posted does not support your conclusions, OR you allegations of "fanboy-ism"... I don't have a purchase to "defend", heck, I'm waiting for the first few of these to pop up as "return/open box" at a significant discount, from people like the guy who said it's a worthless brick! SOMEONE "hated" my RX10, thank goodness! I continue to be happy and impressed with it, horrible imperfect thing that it is...

I am reviewing AX100 footage others are posting (yours included), I do see temporal issues that arise from "low" 24/30p frame rates, but no way it's a deal killer, nor am I seeing terrible aliasing/moire that would disqualify the camera from practical use.

I have yet to download my blood moon footage, but I think I had far better results than your sample with my PJ760 (w/ 2x tele lens), and I got decent results with the RX10 at full digital zoom... and yep, I was thinking an AX100 would have been useful, if I had one in hand.



Back to the 4K trail...

Picked up a cheap used 4K TV, only to scratch my head about what I had that could output to 4K... no computers I've got will output 4K at the moment (memo - need to find parts for a cheap 4K build!)...

Finally dug up an HDMI to allow me to hook up the RX10... in stills mode it outputs 4K, and the difference between 1080 and 4K was quite convincing at a short distance - I'm sure it would be less noticeable at greater viewing distances (my eyes don't resolve at distances that well!), but I definitely notice it's "easier" on my eyes the sharper the image, so I'm happy with "step #1". One thing I noticed is a couple photos which looked almost perfectly sharp at 1080 had noticeable, if slight focus issues at 4K! Focus issues are going to be more and more "fun" with these high resolutions!!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Steve, if you don't like the AX100, that's perfectly cool with me. (it's no skin off my nose)

But seriously, if you are looking for problems with the AX100, you will certainly find them,..LOTS of them, no doubt.

And,...by the same token, if you are looking for problems with ANY camera on planet Earth, you will of course find as many as you want to find. Put any camera in front of me, Panny, Canon, Sony, BlackMagic, RED or AJA and tell me to identify 100 "problems"....BELIEVE me!...I WILL find 101 problems or reasons why I don't like each and every one.

For my purposes, the AX100 is a small, handheld run and gun camera with FULL manual control that has an absolutely crazy, eye popping, wicked UHD resolution. It has a sharp power zoom lens, great sensor and fantastic processor. I can throw 3+ hour batteries on there and shoot all day long too. Even the audio pre-amps are PRISTINE and VERY "beachtech XLR friendly"

What other small handheld 4K camera is in this class for $2000? Answer = "zero", non,...nothing.

The AX100 is even a supurb HD camera with 4:2:2 XAVC onboard. Adjustable peaking and Zebras adjustable in 5 IRE increments? Seriously? That's killer! How about the 720p high speed shooting? Damn!

The GH4?, sure its a cool camera too. It's softer and (supposedly) only scans a 1:1 pixel crop from the center of it's sensor. Let's see, that's around 2 million red, 2 million blue and 4 million green pixels in Bayer pattern...the AX100 (supposedly) over samples its UHD with far more pixels to start with....prolly the actual reason why it's so ridiculously sharp too.

Y'know how we say that an image "pops" out the screen when it's sharp? Well,..the AX100 doesn't "pop",..it "explodes" out of the screen. Every single person that has seen my footage says the exact same things..."WOW!,..holy crap...woah" These are all common reactions...lol.

No 60p? who cares? I don't even watch true 60p in 1080 today!...let alone watch 60p in 4k!! The very best I can hand over to a client is 29.97 PSF inside 60i on Blu-ray today! YouTube 4K @ 60p?...forget about it, not for a LONG time.

Bottom line? The GH4 will do things the AX100 cant do,...the AX100 will do things the GH4 cant do.

So?...buy what is best for you and be happy with it!

It's funny to read camera geeks bicker back and forth.

CT ;-)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Cliff, speaking for myself, I'll only 'bicker' when I know certain aspects of a camera's picture have been clearly mischaracterized due to sloppiness on the part of the 'reviewer' or just plain bias and hidden agendas.

I totally agree, the AX100 is not a perfect camera, far from it, but damn man, show me another camera anywhere near its price that can produce a picture anything like this. The answer, none.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

And you sir are living in la la land. OBJECTIVE testing has proven you wrong every step of the way. I have no idea what your true agenda is Steve, but frankly I find it reprehensible that you try so very hard to talk people out of a camera that simply does NOT possess the failings you continue to claim it does. I have a very critical eye for video, but it's an eye that sees things that are there and doesn't see things that aren't there. Therein lies the difference.

You were so sure of yourself when you presented "evidence" of artifacts early on, only to find out later it was YOUR editing mistakes that were introducing artifacts. Please don't come here to slam equipment for which you have not properly and certainly not objectively tested. A sloppy review is no review at all.

Once again, independent testing from Slashcam puts your 'claims' in the proper light they should be put in, baseless.

I would never take your assessment on a camera at face value ever again. This is certainly not a case of owners 'defending their turf'. The feedback this camera's video has produced has been met with rave reviews by those that have no axe to grind.

Is the camera perfect? Of course not, but NOT in the ways you point out. One final word to you Steve, the picture you posted of the brick wall from my video is a FRAUD. You know it, I know it and anyone knowledgeable about video knows it. The actual video has NOTHING like that, NOTHING. A frame grab from your computer downscaled to a lower resolution? Talk about intellectual dishonesty! Enough.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Where are the 422 is the downsample from 4k to hd?

Ugo

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I'm going to request that all parties please start from zero here, Let's try and get back on to the ax100, kisses, hugs, and cookies all around.

Because i'm still trying to nail down a few consensuses on this cam, my return policy looms, and it's a particularly puzzling camera stuck between two worlds. The BMC4k was fairly easy to diagnose and determine not to keep, but this camera has so many things to like.

So let me see if i can organize some thoughts on this:

1: Articating: zero issue, whatever is there is still in league with some of the best cameras.

2: CIZ/Active zoom/stabilizer: There is a loss in FOV and a small but present loss in resolution. (and for some reason on my camera i can't even get the 18x CIZ) and while the separate digital zoom looks okish at some zoom, you can't limit it, so it goes to an absurd looking 160x. why didn't they give options?

3:It's sharp, 4k, no kidding

4: Image control: is there really only cinematone? I've likened cinematone to canon WDR, and standard to.... well i guess about as flat as you can get with this camera. Remarkable that there's no sharpness/contrast/saturation?

5:like the rx10, the fly by wire controls for focus make it unreliable for repeatable focus pulling

6: the lcd/evf are quite lovely, not top notch but very nice to work with.

7: the focus assist button should get the darwin award of placement


But seriously, i have pressed about every button to try and get the CIZ 18x to work, and yes, read the manual which says almost nothing on the matter. removed the battery several times, reset the camera back to stock, and it just won't give me that CIZ 18x.

Oh and has anyone noticed that the the loss to f4 while zooming is remarkably small? either it's a really long and smooth graduation to it, or it's not quite 2.8 or 4. it seems like less than a stop difference from full wide to tele.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Can you clarify what you mean you cannot get CIZ 18X to work? If you invoke Active mode stabilization, you get CIZ 18X. That's it. See my baseball video posted here; clearly (as it were) I was getting 18X zoom.

Your other points seem spot on (but don't forget focus peaking and zebras and built-in ND as real plusses).

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Darren, the following would be my observations in response to your points:

1. After seeing my recent posts, you know I agree, especially when viewed on a 4K monitor!

2. This one is perplexing. I have digital zoom turned off in the menu and when Active Stabilization is turned on, I get the relatively lossless 18x zoom. It does not zoom beyond 18x as one should expect, since digital zoom is turned off. I've never turned on digital zoom, ever.

3. It's sharp on an HD monitor and nuts on a true 4K monitor. The Dell 24" 4K monitor I'm using presents a 100% color gamut and the colors are just wonderful. I'm seeing subtle hues I never saw on my HD monitor.

4. Yes, you could say that's where Sony fell down a bit on the AX100. There are no color level, contrast & sharpness controls. Of course these have always been rather crude controls to being with. Generally 3 steps up and 3 down.

However there is one, often overlooked control. When you choose WB, you are presented with an "Option" control. This allows you to shift the color in a standard yellow, green, amber or blue direction via a familiar color grid. This option is available for any of the WB presets and actually gives you greater color image control than just a color level control that some Sonys have. With that said, it would have been nice to have the standard adjustments too.

Tempering that though is what I think is one of the best AWB systems I've ever used on a video camera. The AWB seems to adjust accurately in a wider variety of settings than I've seen with almost any camera I can remember. Obviously there's always MWB should it be needed.

5. Agreed. However you can use the touch focus control on the LCD panel quite effectively to achieve similar results.

6. Agreed. I would have liked a brightness control for the VF too and not just the LCD panel.

7. Yup. Could it be that Sony engineer have 3 hands? ;)

Again Darren, just make sure Digital Zoom is turned OFF in the menu and Active Stabilization is turned ON. That 'should' give you the 18x CIZ. If not, there's some kind of weird glitch in your camera.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Believe me, i've searching for the obvious, but as you can see, it just isn't working. I recall it working once when i first tried it, then never again

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

No, I do not see. What are we supposed to see in that video of your lcd screen that makes you think it is not working? It zooms (Might be useful to do this when there is light and an object to focus on). Are you complaining about focus? what?
What do you mean by "not working"?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Did you not read the prior posts? Look at the zoom bar in the video, there is no CIZ available after the optical zoom range. nothing to do with focus

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ken, you mentioned, (20 pages back or so), that you re-formatted your SDHC card to exFat. With what utility/software did you do that? Everything I've found online seems to be about formatting FROM exFat to Fat32 not the other way around. I want to do a test using a SDHC card I already own before investing in new ones for a camera I'm still trying to arrange to finance.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

There is no indicator of CIZ I get either. That does not mean you are not getting CIZ with Active mode. Instead of looking for an indicator, why don't you test how far the lens zooms when Active mode is on compared to it off? If you had complained you did not get an indicator, maybe I would have understood your problem. You video demonstrates nothing but you get no indicator ("it isn't working" is not obvious). It does not show you get no CIZ since you focused on exactly nothing.

Repeat: I do not see any indicator bar or otherwise either with Active mode engaged on myAX100, but for sure I get a longer zoom when Active is on. I shot video with it, and it made a big difference in zooming.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Any Windows computer running 7 or 8 will format an sd card exFat. It's an option in the format command. I bet you have an Apple computer.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

No need to get snooty,

yes, i've been wondering about the absence of an indicator of when it reaches the optical end, and starts the 'CIZ', being that one of this camera's closest relatives is the RX10 which does just that. after re-reading Wacharapong's last post, i see now it's entirely different.

'The CIZ is integrated throughout the entire range of the optical zoom as opposed to engaging after reaching the optical end. Thus giving a full smooth 18x equivalent zoom range without the 'speed bump' you get with a typical, separate optical/CIZ function'

That's whats missing from any documentation and hence my confusion on the matter.

Wacharapong,

where you referring to the other cameras you were talking about, or the ax100 specifically?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Someone posted this a few pages back, but this should have it's own thread now in the Sony sub-forums. It's been out for a while now.

Chris?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Quick test to see if CIZ Is "working" - turn off the active stabilization and check the framing at max zoom - it would seem that Sony has changed the implementation of CIZ and Digital so that CIZ is not even being indicated on the display?? That would throw us long time Sony users for a bit of a loop!


Finally realized I have a 4K output capable machine - had to manually configure the HDMI output, but WHOA, a 4K desktop can look rather nice - won't get to try some 4K YouTube videos for a few days, but at least now I will be able to actually see 4K output, such as YT can supply. I continue to be baffled by those saying you can't see the difference between 1080 and 4K... Perhaps if you don't get all the pieces in the right order or something, but that 4K desktop, with RX10 still wallpaper was like looking through a window, once again - you see things that you just couldn't quite make out at 1080! It's not my eyes that are fuzzy, it's the screens!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

considering how sloppy and cluttered the full display info is, i guess they figured just to let it be magic

Just ran a bunch of tests, thanks to a1ex for posting a star chart on the lantern forums, and well, looks impressive to my eye how little degradation there is with the CIZ. i do NOT have a 4k monitor, so i have to resort to simply playing it windowed in VLC so it shows 1:1 pixels

compared full wide, half range, and full tele with and without CIZ, if there's degradation, it's really not much at all(apparent in this test at least), which is very nice to have. makes sense though, 18 is 50% more than 12, so figure since they can get good looking 2x CIZ with the extra rez for HD, 1.5x for 4k should indeed be at least very good.

For anyone whose seeing poor results with active stabilizer on, what scenarios have you seen it go south?

EDIT: scrutinizing further, yes there's some sharpness loss but still on my admittedly limited monitor needs peeping to see

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Many of the posts here show the value of this thread - confusion cleared up - but also an alarming tendency: Almost everyone assumed, when they were not fully informed, that there was something wrong with the camera rather than that their understanding was incomplete.

Cases in point:

1. The video has terrible aliasing artifacts - turns out it was the editing software and viewing device. Took multiple threads to straighten this out. But the camera was blamed as having a problem of artifacts over and over, and over, and over. Those who tried to straighten this out were called fanboys.

2. There is no mic input, or I can't believe you have to plug the mic in the headphone jack. Guy could not read correctly the manual diagram. Kept dissing the camera for its stupid design, over and over.

3. There is no Clear Zoom or clear zoom is not working. Turns out the guy assumed he would see an icon when this was invoked, and so concluded that it was not working when not invoked. The assumption was not crazy as it was on older models, but there is a statement that he actually saw it once before on the AX100 so it must be broke. The Ax100 manual shows no CIZ icon, but does show an Active mode icon, and they are one and the same.

This behavior led to some heated reactions, not surprisingly.

It would have been nice if:

Case 1 were instead: Why am I seeing aliasing artifacts and no one else?
Case 2 were instead: Where is the mic input, or why can't *I* find it?
Case 3 were instead: How come there is no Clear Zoom *icon*?

Assume the camera is at fault seems to be the mode.

We do need our own AX100 thread.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hey Mark, you know what's also alarming? Your attitude.

I was clearly trying to figure out what i was missing about the feature and get a consensus on whether or not it in fact was something i was missing or a camera glitch. because guess what: glitches happen. Others were helpful without the snark, you on the other hand spoke with an edge(and such things are what lead to heated reactions), whether you realize it or not.

keep it chill, or no cookie

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

As most of you know I have an AX1 and on the topic of artifacts you all may try something that may be the reason for Steve's problem. If I place a 3840x2160 60P 150Mbps clip in CS6, Vegas Pro12 or Edius Pro7 projects then resize the preview monitor I can make artifacts appear and disappear depending on the preview window size. I have 3 monitors on my PC two 24" Dells and a 23" Viewsonic VT2300LED TV/monitor. None of these artifacts appear if exported with Laczsos3 to 1920x1080. All these NLE's, I assume , use different scaling algorithms so will induce different effects during scaling for the preview monitor. Moral is if the monitor does not show the 1:1 image be careful with any conclusions. Looking at Steve's png it appears to be 1440x900 clearly a window capture from the monitor and of almost no value.

This lesson of course applies to everyone when editing 4k on a system that has to scale for editing. The reason for the Viewsonic in my setup is to get a 1920x1080 image from the preview monitor for editing. I guess a 4K unit is coming soon !!!

Ron Evans