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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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 |
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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
Quote:
Regards Phil |
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Quote:
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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 |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network