Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Thanks Ron, recording is clear.

It is interesting for me that 4K consumers camera has twice bigger chip than 4K professional camera with twice price. Pixel count is the same (20mil vs 19mil) so the physical size of an effective pixel is much better at AX100 than at professional AX1.

The lens for 4K needs the best sharpness (level of details) so F2.8 iris is the expected solution. It would be really interesting to test the AX1 lens at wide F1.6 iris for 4K resolution.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Neither camera uses all the pixels on the sensors as the sensors are not 16x9 but sized for stills. So they are both cropped to 16x9 hence the effective pixel sizes of about 14 for the AX100 and 8.3 for the AX1. I think Sony wanted have a camera in the same form factor as the NX5U or PMW160 so used the lens/body from these cameras meaning they needed a 1/3" sensor with enough pixels. They then needed a sensor with around 8Mpixel ( for 4K ) that when cropped was close to 1/3". Hence the sensor from the HX30V ( I think ) . Start adding in a 20 X zoom lens with three control rings, XLR build in , programmable buttons dual record slots ( will be three ) paint functions etc and the price may be more than the PXW-Z100 !!! At F1.6 my AX1 has a very good image compared to any of my other cameras even in the theatre at 18db and a lot sharper when downconverted to 1920x1080.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Sony is a big chief .-) , but their cameras specifications are much worse than the picture result from those cameras. I had a personal FS100 experience, where chip was about 14mil pixels, but Sony spoke at specification only about 3,5mil eff.pixels, but result picture was very good.

So yes, a pixel count is only the one point of view, the practice is another view. I would really like to compare these models AX100 and AX1 at the same scenes with highlights and big contrast, 1" vs. 1/2.3" (with the same pixels gross count) are such different numbers! (Different count of the effective video pixels is some another question for the good color interpolation at signal procesor).

If you have some lowlight or highcontrast pictures it would be nice to see them, if you can put them to vimeo.
It is important for me to know how much is picture the result of an interpolation and massive denoiser power (of digital work .-) ) and how much is picture the result of physical pixel size and really good optics. I think that physical pixel must to have a certain size for good result, in opposite case is result often like a "digital feeling monster", too much of the processor work degrade the result.

Thanks very much, Ron.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I found a 1 hour video about it but it is in Japanese.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Wish I could understand Japanese as it looks like a fairly detailed review. It looks like the iris moves in steps like the consumer cameras rather than continuous like the FDR-AX1 maybe another marketing difference.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Even in Japanese, there were a few things to pick up on! The OIS looks pretty decent, the camera itself looks nice, if big compared to recent "handy" cams. Looks like the 120fps is going to be 720 rather than 1080, but couldn't figure out if it's continuous or not (like the FZ200)... would be nice if it's more than just the few seconds of clip that has been typical with Sony.

Will be interesting to get hands on one of these, as I see it the high bitrate 1080 60p will be a nice leap over "current" consumer cameras, the large sensor should be nice to shoot with (I've found the RX10/RX100M2 to be pretty capable). The 4K will be a "bonus", even better If the 30p turns out to be workable for high motion scenes.

Since the AX100 should intercut nicely with the RX10 and RX100M2, those three cameras will make for a nice multicam "package" that covers a lot of ground and produces some good footage for event type shoots and any possible "personal" use!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I think what he is doing is stepping up the gain values. He seems to have it cranked quite a bit there for a minute. If thats the iris than woah...that would be unusable.

CT

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

It's pretty apparent the OIS is much better than it is in the RX10, so that's a good thing.

Personally, it seems I got verification of what my editing program, Edius7 Pro states, it is compatible with the codec used in the AX100.

C'mon March, get here already! :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yes Edius Pro 7 or Vegas Pro 12 will edit XAVC-S but slowly unless you have a very powerful PC. Vegas Pro 12 will also encode to XAVC or XAVC-S but Edius will not encode to these formats at the moment. I have a FDR-AX1 and both programs will edit but for Edius I have returned to converting to HQX ( at 3840x2160) to make editing smoother when on a 1920x1080 timeline with files from my NX5U and NX30U. Vegas Pro 12 will edit at full frame rate with a reduced preview resolution. My PC is an i7 3770, 16G RAM, GTX560 and almost 5T of hard drives. I also have a 6core AMD system that will not play XAVC-S files in PlayMemories more than a few frames per second. I expect if you have a dual Xeon system then things may be fine !!! XAVC is much easier on the systems so it is the decode of the Long GOP of XAVC-S that is the problem needing lots of cores to decode. Crop and pan work fine in both Edius and Vegas, my main reason for 4K.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

It is of course easier to provide the long zoom with the smaller sensor(s) of the FDR-AX1.
And the FDR-AX1 of course has XLR's built in from the get-go.

I find this time of year impossible to make a decision. Every year I wait for the two big
North American shows, CES and NAB, and then start making camera decisions.

I will be very interested to see if at NAB the RX10/FDR-AX100 sensor+a new lens gets mated
to a FDR-AX1 body+back end. For lack of anything else call it the FDR-AX10.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ron, so are you saying Edius7 will edit 4K XAVC-S natively but can't output XAVC-S? I thought it could and that's how Grass Valley promoted it.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The optics of the Sony G Lens would have to be changed to use the 1'' form factor of the sensor, as the G Lens is currently only limited to 1/3'' sensor design at the moment.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Correct. Edius will edit both XAVC and XAVC-S but will not render to these formats. XAVC editing is smooth on my system but XAVC-S will not play smoothly at full frame rate which is why I have taken to converting to HQX to edit with much like I did when AVCHD came out a few years back. I do not recall Edius promoting rendering to XAVC or XAVC-S. You will need 7.21 to edit XAVC-S.


Edius is my main editor but I do have and use Vegas Pro12 which will edit and output XAVC or XAVC-S


Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Well aware of that. It's why I said "+ a new lens".

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I do have 7.21 Ron, so that's not a problem. I may have to add Vegas if GV doesn't upgrade to render to XAVC-S.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Why would you want to render to XAVC-S ? Sony have been giving away a voucher for Vegas with the latest high end camcorders so maybe one will be with the FDR-AX100.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Question for Ron Evans.

As I do similar events to you Ron, and all of our events are currently mastered to SD DVD (PAL), do you feel the your 4K camera gives noticeable difference in detail when it finally gets back to SD?

Currently we use Panasonic AG -AC130/160 series which are a much cleaner picture then we've ever had before.

I too use Edius for all editing.

Any difference in facial features when you have 30 odd kids on a dark stage would be worth $2000!

Thanks,

Vaughan

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ron, for a 1080p project, I wouldn't.

However, down the road when I have a 4K TV, I'd want to avoid generational losses for my personal footage as much as possible while maintaining 4K from start to finish. By avoiding a codec change in the editing process, and keeping things XAVC-S from start to finish, I'd think that would be my best shot.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Once you have edited the file the NLE will regenerate so whether its the same or other codec is questionable. It will depend on the playback system then as to what codec is appropriate. The PC encode of XAVC-S will depend on the PC version of the codec and unlikely to be the same as the source which is hardware accelerated with a custom circuit. It will be different and could be better or worse !!!

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ron, I agree, it's a crapshoot. It's a new codec and as with all new codecs it will necessitate some experimentation to see what works best.

To be honest, we're not even sure what will play back the 4K project on a 4K TV just as we're not sure what will play back the output from the Sony AX100. We know for sure the AX100 will play back its output on a Sony 4K UHTV, but beyond that who knows?

It's always fun being on the cutting edge...sometimes not so much. ;)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I think the FDR-AX100 has HDMI 2.0 so should playback 3840x2160 to any TV with this capability. We shall see !!

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Currently with XDCAM it's possible with some NLEs to do what's called "smart render". Basically, the NLE will re-render around a cut edit for a few frames (to rebuild a valid GOP structure either side of the edit) and render anything like titles, mix etc - but the vast majority of the material is unchanged from the original.

I'd expect the same to happen with XAVC-S.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yes I expect this may come but once the edit includes color correction or cropping it means the whole has to be encoded again. At the moment it seems that the file is encoded again even in Vegas.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yes, new lens, but for 4K it is not easy to make on wide angle "sharp cornes". I tried the small JVC 4K camera last year and the lens was the most interesting part - slow and not wide.

I was also very happy two years ago that new HD cameras have better LCD and EVF, but for focusing 4K we are back in that old problem - LCD has 1280x720pix for 4K focus.

Also my HW is very happy now, small hardiscs without power adapters work well with my notebook (i7), but 4K needs upgrade or proxy. I think that I can still wait one or two years then 4K start something for me. But new cameras are always so nice, I like them .-) .

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

The level denotes the maximum options and "best" feature set allowed and is a way of describing the hardware required to decode, it guarantees nothing about the encoding. For example a media player typically supports Level 4.1 in H264, and level 4.1 has maximum resolution of 2048x1024 at 30fps and at 1280x720 it supports up to 68.3fps, notice how this fits with the Blu-ray format, i.e. Blu-ray is limited to 30fps at 1080P (of course this may be as fields so 60i), but will do 60fps at 720P. Blu-ray requires a Level 4.1 decoder.

The next one up, level 4.2 means a decoder must support up to 60fps at 1080P, and so AVCHD Progressive requires a decoder that handles Level 4.2, this is why support for 60fps at 1080P is much more limited in hardware decoders as hardware decoders typically only needed to go as high as level 4.1 before its arrival.

Some people may quote Level 5.2 for the AX100 but this only relates to Sony's branding of H264 as XAVC which can go all the way up to 60fps at 4K. In the AX100 then 4K is level 5.1 (which is all that is needed to support their 30fps at 4K), and HD is Level 4.2 still.

If you take the Panasonic GH4 which has the option to record at 200Mbits/sec All-Intra makes HD on the GH4 Level 5 (only Level 5 decoders are guaranteed to cover that bit-rate), but it is still Level 5.1 for 4K HD. So to decode the GH4 200Mbits/sec All-Intra 1080P we would need a hardware or software decoder that supports Level 5, but for the Sony AX100 HD Level 4.2 will do. Of course at the moment there are no hardware decoders that will decode Level 5 or Level 5.1 available to the consumer. 4K HD TVs presumably have a level 5.2 H264 hardware decoder built in if they support playback from media. If the spec for an expensive UHD TV only says Level 5.1 for H264, we know it is limited to only playing back 30fps @ 4K, so has built in obsolescence.

There are other things called profiles, which typically cover things like colour sampling and further define maximum bit-rates. Profiles can be thought of as further refinement that allows hardware to target consumers, enthusiasts or professional applications within that Level.

Hope that helps explain it, more info on the Wiki H.264/MPEG-4 AVC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Phil, the new 2014 Sony UHD TVs clearly state they support 4K@60p. To me that's more reassuring than worrying about what 'level' they do or don't support. Clearly stating 4K@60p removes any and all doubt. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

No it creates doubt. What is the maximum bit rate? Can it decode 4.2.2, does it support 10bit? Only publishing the level and profile removes doubt.

I'd be surprised if it isn't level 5.2 however.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

No way for me...

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

Just to add I'm not sure if all or if any Sony 4K TVs support HDMI 2? So you will be limited to 4K at only 30fps from any external sources, not exactly future proofed unless they are firmware updateable to HDMI 2.0.

Buyer beware.

Edit, just downloaded the i-manual for XBR900 Sony 4K TV and under supported codec list it only goes up to Level 4.2, in other words it is saying no support for 4K media files at all, seems odd.

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The new Sonys clearly state they support 4K@60p. Just look at the website for the 2014 models. They all support HDMI 2.0. In fact the older models got a firmware upgrade to 2.0.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

The new to be released models from Sony still don't support the full potential of 4K, the specifications note that 4K at 60fps is only supported at 4.2.0 and 8 bit so no option to get more colours with 10bit or 12bit 4K or for better colour sampling like 4.2.2. It also looks like the internal media player is still HD only still, so no play-back of 4K encoded material via the network or USB. You'd struggle with any decent high-bit rate material anyway as the Ethernet is only 100Mbits/sec.

You'll have to wire up your Sony AX100 to the TV and hope you can get finished edits back onto a SD card in a format that will play from the camera.

These early 4K TVs are 4K panels with 2K electronics struggling to keep up. Sony isn't alone in having their 4K sets not feature complete for 4K at this time.

The manufacturers know that early adopters will pay over the odds and be prepared to replace their equipment once the finished products arrive, it is what pays for the R&D I suppose so we shouldn't complain.

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Not quite correct Phil, the new Sonys will play internet 4K content via the onboard apps such as the upcoming Netflix 4K streaming. As far as 4:2:2, have you seen these 4K displays? Color is absolutely gorgeous, regardless of how it's produced. Much nicer than 2K. Beyond that, what content have you seen at 4K/60p/4:2:2?

Lots of reasons to like the new 4K displays, but if you're determined not to buy, you can find those reasons too. Some might not buy a GH4 because it can't do 4K@60p.
Nothing is perfect Phil, nothing.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi

The 4K content it will play is low bit-rate streamed content, it will hardly be 4K even if it is 'delivered' as 4K. Will it play any H264 4K media file at 60 or 100Mbits/sec from a flash card or over the network? No, looks like it doesn't. Will it play a 10Mbit/sec stream claiming to be 4K from Netflix, yes it will.

Resolution doesn't make a difference to the colour. If a TV is calibrated correctly and can display the required colour space it will look as good as identical to the next, regardless of resolution. It's like my own computer monitors calibrated using a colorimeter, while they look totally different at default non-calibrated settings and you could argue out of the box one is better than the other, once calibrated they look identical, which of course is the whole point.

If you want to get into a conversation of Red looks redder, Green's look richer, Yellows look brighter, then here is probably not the best place to do that as all we would be discussing is carefully grafted demo's of TVs with "buy me" shop settings. What we know as fact is that 4K as it is currently being offered in these consumer cameras and TVs holds no more colour information than HD.

I've not said anything is perfect, I'm just being realistic, 4K TV's and camcorders/cameras are coming up short. The manufacturers are doing what they always do, they did it with HD as well, and the first products are not the final product. There is nothing wrong with waiting it out, and there is nothing wrong with taking the plunge straight away if you have funds and want to. Let just be honest and not afraid to challenge and question and discuss the limitations of what is currently on offer.

We all know in 12 months time all the 4K kit being sold now will look very dated and limited in their ability to showcase 4K at its best.

Regards

Phil

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

That's OK Phil, you're obviously not a fan of almost anything 4K as it exists today. I've seen your posts in other threads and that commonality runs through them. I happen to be a fan of the new crop of equipment and I fully realize their limitations. Equipment will always have limitations. However the picture I see on the current crop of 4K TVs (and the new ones coming as seen at CES), with their limitations, greatly surpasses anything you or I now own. The video I've seen from the AX100 also greatly surpasses anything I've shot with in many ways as will, I'm sure, the GH4.

We could argue until the cows come home about what current 4K equipment has or doesn't have and we'll settle nothing. The bottom line is, if it looks much better to my eyes than anything 2K, that's all I'm concerned about.

Remember Phil, there will always be something better, there will always be a next gen with additional features and capabilities. Two years from now, the models released then will make next year's models look dated. Life is short my friend, at some point we stop waiting. If you're waiting for perfection, it will never come, of that I'm sure. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Specs and engineering standards tell part of the story, but we don't see or hear "specs", we see pictures or video, and we hear sound.

In the end, does the final result look or sound noticeably better? Even if the "specs" say it "shouldn't", sometimes it does... there is more to life than numbers... conversely, sometimes the specs say it should be better, and it isn't...

Based on the RX100 and RX10, I'm thinking that the AX100 (and CX900 for that matter) will produce higher bitrate 1080/60p that will be better than any other camera at that price point currently available... even if it's not "perfect". The 4K is a bonus, and even if I'm not a fan of 30p... it may prove usable, despite the "numbers"!

I'm sure the first couple generations of 4K TV's will be "OK", but will be surpassed a couple years down the line. Tech gets better and/or cheaper, you don't like it where it's at, shut up and wait... but you'll probably be complaining when it's "better" and cheaper too.

Me, I'll take it as it comes and shut up and shoot fun cameras like the RX100 and RX10, and whatever comes next... like the AX100

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Dave, I have preached the danger of 'specs only buying' for years in both video and audio forums. It amazes me how many people still use specs as their sole criteria for judging, ruling out otherwise great equipment with what appears to be 'lesser' specs.

How many speakers can have frequency response curves that look essentially the same, yet sound totally different.

I'm 100% convinced you could take some people who previously railed against the AX100 for lack of this or that, and in a blind test tell them the picture they were watching was from a camera that produced RAW video with 4:2:2 color and I'd bet they'd gush over the picture despite the fact it was actually the AX100.

Preconceived notions can distort both perception and reality.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I will stop waiting right after NAB...these next couple of months are going to be long...

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Im sure our grandchildren will be complaining how horrible 8k is at 4:2:0 @ 8bit.

Im sure they will hate the quality of their 8k green screen keys at 4:2:0 and how they need more chroma resolution to pull off what they want to do.

Ok...10 bit and 8bit 4k, yes I get that argument.

But 4k 4:2:0 has a TON of color information. I seriously would not be able to spot 4:2:0 video vs 4:2:2 at 4k resolution in an A/B test at all. It really looks the same to me. And keying 4:2:0 4k, Im sure will give more than great results.

Lets not get lost entirely in "numbers" alone.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The specification of camera has its place if you are planning the type and amount of the postproduction work. I think that only persons with the long professional color grading experiences can tell you how good is the record from the certain camera during this grading process. HDV was really wrong, PDW700 is nice, PMW350 has its limitation, cine F3 (slog) is very good (even XDCAM 35Mbps 420 offline version can be ok), and so on.

It is not about one thing (lens quality, chip quality,...), this is about all small things under specification, from the quality of chip to the quality of DSP processing. The specification can tell you some basic expectations but only real work with camera can tell you more - if you make a big color grading (and clips were shot in extreme light situations). If you work in good weather (sunny days) and only need put pictures to YT than you can't see differences between good and bad cameras (10bit vs. 8bit or 420 vs 422). Sometime can 420 colors be better than 422 from the wrong camera .-) , but there are the others really important parameters.

The result can be in 420 and 8bit on TV screen, but good camera let you make the much better work in postproduction - but quality is not cheap and your choice depend on your needs.