Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Michael, do you think the AX100 will be a good enough tool for you to shoot 4K, then deliver 1080p to your clients? I sure hope so, I'd love to shoot 4k.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I only shoot for fun now days, but to me it's horses for courses. Plenty of professionals deliver content shot on AVCHD. From what I've seen, it looks like the AX100 will do better than most AVCHD cameras, whn used within it capabilities.

For long form broadcast on a big station, I'd say no.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Both 4K and glasses free 3D will be big in a few years. Some people just like to stay in their comfort zone and that is why there is still 100 million Windows XP users out there.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I joked about a 4K video capable phone early on in this thread. Well, it seems Sony might be close to actually launching such a phone already! Never a truer word spoken in jest - and all that!

Leaked software suggests Sony's next flagship phone will record 4K video

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

well, Samsung been selling one since September last year

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

How funny would it be if that Sony phone comes with 4K @60p. The article does reference 'high frame rate'. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I saw no contradictions to my understanding in the presentation. To me XAVC-S was always 8bit, 4:2:0. XAVC was 10 bit with the option for 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 intra frame. This was discussed with the differences between the FDR-AX1 and the PXW-Z100. At that time the main firmware upgrades, due this summer discussed for these cameras was AVCHD 2.0 for both and the LongGOP version of XAVC for the PXW-Z100. At the time it was not clear to me whether this was the XAVC-S of the FDR-AX1 or a variant of XAVC. Now it appears it is XAVC LongGOP I think so may be still 10bit 4:2:2. making the PXW-Z100 a much better choice than the FDR-AX1.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Samsung Note 3 shoots 4k video and 1080 60p.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Only on the same size screen (or the same viewing angle). However, just as the jump from 480 to 720 or 1080 prompted us all to go and get bigger screens, won't the next increase to 4k only really be worth having on bigger "4k-ready" screens? And on those screens, you'll want similar compression ratios to those currently used for 1080 - won't you?

In which case, it will probably catch on, though not to the same extent as HD. Just as DVD is good enough for many people (because it's so much better than VHS!), my guess is that HD screens will be good enough for most people for a long time, and they'll only upgrade their screens when the old one packs up or they move to a bigger home.

Don't you lose a whole lot down-converting from 50/60p to 25p? Doesn't it take forever to re-render? Doesn't any fast motion come out jerky? Delivering and playing back 50p is still an unresolved problem, it seems, which is partly why I've not yet made the move away from 50i...

(I'm very much an "enthusiast" - I'll sell a few discs a year, but really I make them for myself and my friends. I want standards and equipment that will last 5 years minimum, and which I can always play back, even in 50 years time!)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yes, but 4K@ 30p.

Sony FDR-AX100 and Cropping Video for 1080p
 

I was reading an article at SmartReview.com, that gave another advantage of the 4K video even if you will ultimately be doing 1080p Full HD as your end result. That is that you can crop your video, just like picture, because you have 8 million pixels to work with versus 2 million in HD. So, theoretically you could zoom in 4 times. This would give a lot of creative advantages to the filmmaker. And you have a 4K master or negative, thus making you ready for the future, as 4K is coming. CES was full of 4K TVs, tablets, monitors, etc. We have to get ready for the next step in HD. Hoping the FDR-AX100 is the 4K camcorder it appears to be.

Source: Sony Handycam FDR-AX100/B 4K Ultra HD Camcorder Reviews | AX100B | 2014 | SmartReview.com

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yes, if you mean BW screen. But if you speak about colored pictures then you need (in 422 chroma subsampling usual at professional level of work) about 4mil pixels on the chip for HD and 2x8,8mil pixels (17,6mil) for 4K 422 chip.

If you have only 8mil pixels on the chip for 4K then you must to create the rest of pixels in the signal procesor by an interpolation (from your 420 chroma subsampling).

So be careful to spoke about the quality of 4K signal from one 8,8mil pixels, it is like XF100 at HD, not like HD cameras with 6mil of pixels on the chip/chips (6mil at HD is like 26,5mil at 4K).

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The comment about "same size screen" is perfectly true and yes, the whole point I was making only holds true in that context. But that's the point. A user has a 40" screen, wants a 60". If they stick with (say) 1080 and AVC-HD, the artifacting gets magnified in proportion. Move to 4K (but at less than 4x the bitrate) and they'll be better off overall, and better off than using HD at the same (60Mbs) bitrate - without datarates becoming too unmanageable in a consumer context.

But it does mean a few things being said are over optimistic......:

Following on from what Mark says, that may well be true if the video was uncompressed, but put it through a compression mill and once you start to zoom in, the constraints aren't just resolution but the size of compression artifacting as well.

The review doesn't actually say "zoom in 4 times" - rather "Footage in 4K can also be used for Full HD video production, as you can crop or zoom in on your footage and still maintain Full HD quality.. How much cropping you can do (whilst maintaining full HD) will depend on compression issues as well as sheer resolution.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Leaving compression issues aside, then if you zoom in to get full HD from a quarter of the 4K screen, then you'll get fullHD *with the same subsampling as the original 4K*.

If you start with 4:2:0 4K, you'll end up with 4:2:0 HD. The 4K will have 3840x2160 luminance samples and 1920x1080 chrominance. Take a quarter by that of area and you halve all the figures - 1920x1080 luminance samples and 960x540 chrominance.

Full HD with 4:2:0 sampling.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I like to heard about sharpness of 4K pictures, but for me is quality of colors (and dynamic range) much more important then sharpness.

Some "4K numbers" look very nice, but the others are a little quiet .-) .

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

^ Then I guess we won't reserve an AX100 for you, Pavel.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

My note isn't about that one 4K cam .-) .

My note is only about quite usual terms of quality of the camcorder and about style of discussion. There are some pros and cons and both are relevant. If somebody present some "4K numbers", please be correct (sharpness is only the one point of view).

My point of view to 4K is to get the better possibility of art. Better sharpness isn't on my the first place because I know how this is limited by optics (lens) quality, viewer or LCD quality for focus. I really like rich but natural colors, big dynamic range of chip for high contrast scenes. There is a lot of discussion about pixels count, zooming or crop possibility, but for me it is not the whole thing about 4K. I wish we have a little better disscusion about what 4K really brings (my english isn't perfect, I hope that you understand).

For example if there is the better post zoom option on the one hand, then on the other side we pay for this in color quality or DR. And we need to consider what is more important for our sort of the art. A very sharp image often doesn't looks very naturally (with the cheap lens and a lot of interpolation at signal procesor, low color quality and low DR), it is some another problem in this digital times, etc. No doubt that 4K is king but needs a lot of investment for really good result. Really good HD camera can be for many of us a better way for wonderful quality of pictures with the good price point.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Pavel, keep in mind this thread is devoted to the AX100 as opposed to a general discussion of all the elements of 4K shooting.

I understand your admirable desire for all aspects of high resolution shooting to improve, but this is a $2,000 consumer/prosumer camcorder and it's just not reasonable to expect 4:2:2, the highest quality lens and better compression codecs to prevail at this price point.

Personally I think it's nothing short of amazing to be getting this much for this little at this point in time.

For everything to come together as you wish, I believe, at least in 2014, we're talking about a device that few of us could afford. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Well said, Ken. This camera may very well be my first entry into 4K video. I think it will be a big seller for Sony.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ken - I understand what you mean. At consumer part of 4K is AX100 ok. I know that the "one man band" workers used these good consumer cameras for the low cost part of their work or as the second cheap camera.

I hope that in the middle class (it's not consumer and together it's not broadcast quality of the work) we get an option from manufactures to select 4K or a very good HD camera, about 5000USD with very good quality (422, 10bit, 50Mbps long GOP or with a greater sort of compression, with good LCD and viewer, etc., and good price point).

That is why I wrote this a little opposite view, HD is not dead and we have a great chance for really good quality HD cam, if manufactures heard this from us.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The PXW-Z100 is ALMOST there. The cell phone camera sensor is what's preventing it from having very good picture quality. I'm certain 1'' lenses that can be adapted for the prosumer form factor can be made, or combine Boinz X with a 2/3'' native widescreen sensor, similar to the HPX600.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Agreed Ken, I think the AX100 is amazing value for the money and more importantly it's here now.
It's only a few short weeks since my RX10 turned up with the best looking AVCHD yet , so if the AX100's HD is as good as the RX10 with 4K thrown in and pro level manual control, i'm very happy.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Paul, that's my thinking too. Like you, I too recently bought the RX10 and have been extremely pleased with its output.

Since the AX100 shares the same sensor, ironically much larger than its more expensive 4K siblings, and full sensor scanning (no line skipping), I'm hoping, in many respects, it will be a 4K iteration of the RX10.

Not often discussed, I'm also expecting better OIS than exists in the RX10. That's been my only area of disappointment with the RX10.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ken, when I had chance to hold the AX100 at CES, I was very pleased with the OIS, both in standard and active mode, helped partly by the handycam shape and balance it's way better than the RX10 which I agree is poor at the telephoto end.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Good to hear Paul, thanks.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

My FDR-AX1 is not that bad. In good light its lovely. As to the sensor one has to understand that Sony have a lot of sensors around this size used in still cameras like my HX30V, Actioncams like the AS10/15/30/100 and Sony do not always get their numbers on specs correct !!! I think its the cellphone has used one of these rather the the camcorders using a cellphone sensor !!! Agreed that the sensor size is the issue for low light performance at 4K and will look forward to seeing the difference. 60P is a must for me though so will wait to see what else Sony brings out. In the meantime I can work on integrating 4K into my edits.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

As another RX10 owner who is happy with what it can do, the AX100 is a logical upgrade to one (or more) of the 7xx series handy cams. IF I can get acceptable crop and scan, in theory one AX100 might well replace 2-3 cameras.

The RX10 seems to render color and detail quite nicely as I'm learning to get the most from it. I'd expect the same from the AX100, what with the same pedigree on the sensor/processor.

Will the AX100 be the "perfect" camera for every use? As is typically true... no... there is no such device, AFAIK... thus I have a "few" cameras in my collection! Will the AX100 perhaps replace several other cameras, as the RX10 has for me? Aside from my reservations about the 30p, it should at the LEAST be a nicer camera for 1080/60p than pretty much any other cam I've got currently. That'll do... I'm sure I can find a couple cameras I won't "need" that can be retired...

Would I "like" a high bitrate option for "better" footage? Maybe... ask me after I wake up after passing out after realizing how much the media will cost...

2-3 years from now, when perhaps there is a "consumer" priced, commonly available media to record 4:4:4 at 1 bazillion bits/sec or whatever the ideal "perfect" recording format is... everyone will be "happy"... or maybe not...


This is the "bleeding edge" of technology, it's fine to push the envelope, but realize sometimes wings fall off and you have to bail out! OK, it's probably NOT that drastic... you just have to adjust expectations and work with what the technology CAN do while wishing it could do more - in a few years, all your wishes will likely come true, and you can find something ELSE to complain about/wish for.


Speaking for myself, I was "wishing" for the RX10... I still wish it had 4K (based on the AX100, it SHOULD have!), but it'll do "as-is"... the RX100M2 fit's another niche of the "wish list", and complements the RX10... I can see the AX100 fitting into another niche nicely. Put 'em together, those 3 cameras (toss in an extra 100M2 for additional angle), and I'm shooting 1080/60p multicam, with decent sensors and capabilities, and the entire set will fit in a small bag! I'm not going to complain about that... unless the resulting video is pretty darn offensively awful! I've not been put off by anything I've shot with the RX's (aside from "operator inexperience induced error"), so I think an AX100 will be on the "wish list", warts and all!

I'm fairly sure that I won't look back in 20 years and feel like somehow the things I captured are somehow fatally, fundamentally flawed because of some weakness in the technology (any more than footage shot with the old HC1 is scrap!). I'd rather have reasonably good tools to shoot with, and enjoy them for what they are!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Dave, I could not have expressed it better. My thoughts exactly. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Right on, Dave! Looking at my HC1 footage shot almost 10 years ago and compared that to what I usually get from the current crop of HD cameras, there's no denying it doesn't look as good. Did I ever wish it had been 14-bit RAW 4:4:4 and shot with a Zeiss Master Prime?, Umm.... maybe but the thing I'm more sure about is it wouldn't have been acceptable had I had to worry silly about finding some specific equipment that was either unavailable or unaffordable so much so that the chance of capturing the worthy moments were gone because I happened to have nothing technically "worthy" enough to capture them.

Maybe that's because my clients and my preference are much more focused on the content rather than technical perfection. Yours may be different.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I'm still scratching my head about this AX100. If the reports are true and this camera does not have some of the typical "Handycam" crippling of Iris, Gain and shutter speeds....it just seems to be an unusually bold move on Sony's part for this class of camera. Sony didn't even allow the NXCAM NX30 or NX3D to have full manual exposure control. Many Handycams and NX30 aren't even allowed to display gain amounts on the screen when shooting. (only shown on playback)

With no AX100 user manual available yet, I'm wondering what Sony crippling "surprises" are built into the firmware. We know the 60Mbp/s codec is a limitation that helps Sony's higher models fight the AX100. The 30p limitation is another protection. No XLR audio and those goofy triangle shaped audio meters is another limitation tool too.

Is that it? I can only expect that the "Pro" NXCAM sister to this Handycam will have the answer to these AX100 cripples. I'm debating in my head if it will have 60p 100 Mbp/s on XQD or if it stays with SDXC at 30p 60Mbp/s. Giving the pro version 100Mbp/s might be too scary or risky for Sony to add at this price point. This 1 inch sensor with is dangerous enough to the AX1 sales.

I'm dying to see the AX100 user manual.

CT

P.S. I wonder if Sony will throw in the "VG20-style" 1/25 shutter speed in 24p. (yeah,..when shooting at 24p, you cant select a true 1/24 shutter speed,....only 1/25....sounds crazy but they do use that trick too!)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Cliff, I think we have finally arrived with a fully functioning Handycam as Sony sees the AX100 as the 'RX' of Handycams, just like the Cybershot market that has been destroyed by the iphone generation, the 'home movie' market for the Handycam has dried up even more so.

Sony have had great success with the RX hi end cameras and are now trying the same here.

The AX100 is probably a one in a generation camcorder, the market for 4k is in its infancy, they know they can only sell through to 'enthusiasts' and 'weekend pros' for the moment so the AX100 has to be the best HD 'enthusiasts' cam going as well, with full manual control and everything thrown in, not just 4K to make us buy all over again.

Sony will be already be working on what comes next, 4K for the mass market, with no viewfinder smaller chips and size, auto everything and a choice of 5 colours!, look at how bad the HC3 was that replaced the much loved HC1 a year later!, chances are apart from maybe a mk2 refinement this is as good as it gets for the enthusiasts for now, sorry just cant bring myself to say 'prosumer'!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Back in the days of Hi8 Sony's higher end consumer cameras like the CCD-V801 had full controls with buttons just like the AX100. They stopped doing that with the introduction of DV. Maybe they now will start going back to how it was before !!! I had a VX3 and a couple of CCD-V801 for multicam back then. Price points were similar !!!

If you want full artisitic control ( and the ability to really mess it up !!) then it is essential to have the manual controls. However , as in my case for the smaller cams, they go unattended so good auto controls are more important with the ability to bias response. Set limits on parameters and AE shift response times etc. In this mode one is letting the designers set the parameters to keep the lens/sensor in its sweet spot. My wife uses my NX30U for closeups in this mode, AE shift usually -1 and she uses spot focus for focusing. AE shift on the dial so she can adjust if she sees the zebras appear too much etc.

I still feel 60P is important as there is no interlace for smooth motion and this may be the differentiator. It is a very nice AVCHD camera with slow frame rate and low data rate UHD. For those who like 24P stuff this would be great.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

exactly my thoughts,

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

It is really interesting - consumer AX100 has 1" chip with 13.2mm x 8.8mm (20mil pixels, 14mil ef.) and FDR-AX1 has only 1/2" chip (19mil pixels, 8.3mil ef.).

AX100 has XAVC recording with 50Mbps (8bit, 420, long GOP) on SDXC Memory Card(Class 10), FDR-AX1 has the same type of recording with more expensive cards XQD (XAVC-S with 100Mbps or more, 420 and 8bit?).

Consumer AX100 has EVF (OLED) with 2mil pixels, I don't know the EVF type of AX1.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The AX1 and Z100 might use a 1/2" chip (actually, slightly smaller than that (1/2.3")), but it's only using 1/3" area of it. So it's truly a 1/3" camera.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Michael Warren - for me is more important the physical size of one pixel. The consumer AX100 has much bigger chip with the same count of pixel as professional AX1 (with price 4500 USD), 20mil vs. 19mil.

It is important for high-contrast scenes and lowlight. Ef. pixel count is important for 422 vs 420 chroma subsampling.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Do you have links to the pixel sizes? The quality difference between the AX1 and AX100 suggests much more than a 1mil difference in pixel size.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Chips size is in the specification, all pixel count on the same place - look for Imaging Sensor.
(Don't change "all pixel count" and "one pixel physical size", it is not the same because its depend on chip size).

4K/60p Handycam Camcorder - FDRAX1 Review - Sony US

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

Effective pixel count (14mil) for AX100 is in the review - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/te...camcorder.html, for AX is eff. count in specification.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Sorry, I thought you were talking abut the size of the pixels, not the count.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Both FDR-AX1 and FDR-AX100 use XAVC-S which is 4:2:0 8 bit. AX1 records at 60P, 150Mbps it will also record 30P at 100Mbps twice the data rate of the AX100. This to me is the biggest difference and likely the reason for the more expensive higher performance memory. We will have to wait on test for real performance differences I think. One would think that the AX100 would be better in low light from the sensor size and I expect this to be the case but there are almost twice as many effective pixels and the lens is F2.8 compared to the AX1 lens of F1.6 both ramp to about the same F3.4 I think. There are other operational difference too. Dual memory slots as well as a SD card slot that will be active in the next firmware update that I think will record AVCHD simultaneously with UHD. So with adequate light operationally the FDR-AX1 has a lot more capability.

Ron Evans