Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I have to ask what are the "more colours" that 4:2:2 and 10/12 bit sampling are going to give you in 4K that you don't get with 4:2:0 and 8 bit?

Look at it this way, all current HD broadcast and Blu-Ray is 8 bit and 4:2:0 encoding. Can anybody say they've ever watched a Blu-Ray of a feature film at home and been aware of that?

Now move up to 4K and think on this. For 4K 4:2:0, then the chroma information alone is 1920x1080 - same as the luminance in HD! And it's twice the amount of chroma samples in 4:2:2 1080p! Given that the human eye has less resolution to colour than luminance, do you really think you'll notice the difference on any sort of normal viewing, even with a large screen?

As for "more colours", then well, I suppose 10 bit or more theoretically does give a greater range of tones. But again, the human eye won't be able to perceive them. If you disagree, then try the test - Color Test - Online Color Challenge | X-Rite Still think the "extra colours" that 10 bit gives you over 8 bit are worth it?! :-) (Come on, what score did you get.........?)

Now this is not to say that better colour sampling and higher bitdepths than 8 bit don't have relevance - they do - but it's really only when you come to post manipulation that they have real significance, and in the case of bitdepth far more when used with something like s-log or RAW. And they need a first rate camera front end to bring much to the table anyway.

Unfortunately, terms such as 4:2:2 and 10-bit have taken on a life of their own. In the world of SD, 4:2:2 certainly made a big difference, but it's far less in HD, and less still in 4K - even less when you move away from true pro cameras.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Great assessment Dave! It's the old case of people always thinking 'more is better'. As you say, in certain cases yes, but in most cases it's not going to mean much anyway. But if you're looking for an excuse not to buy, this just makes some feel better. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The difference that really matters is 10bit, high dynamic range and wider color gamut. Dolby Vision with localized high dynamic range is part of the equation that requires a higher bit depth, with Rec. 2020 gamut mapping also part of the equation. You can do all of this in 4:2:0 without too many problems, but we will have to move from 8bit to 10bit to truly realize these parts optimally.

I agree on a small screen 4:2:0 shouldn't matter at all. Home theater can remain in 4:2:0 for quite a while, since people are moving more towards convenience rather than quality. Netflix 4K is likely going to be a very popular choice over the Sony server based player.

When you get into theatrical, that's when 4:2:2 and even 4:4:4 matter, with digital intermediates for VFX and etc.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Cat 5e or 6 with appropriate switching and NIC's is 1000 Mbps.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I took the color bar test and got a 28....

More cowbell...

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yes let's not forget the main clue to the specification is in the HANDYCAM badge on the side!

Here NOW in 2014 we have a Handycam with full manual control, improved HD codec and OLED viewfinder etc. with entry into 4K thrown in almost as a bonus.

After Handling this at CES, I for one can't wait, I wonder-has any one been thrown a firmed shipping date yet??

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Paul, Amazon is saying 3/19 if I recall correctly. Sony is usually pretty good with meeting product release dates.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

My feminine side won over, I got an 8. I know my color perception has always been pretty good. I remember doing that test a year ago and got a similar score. My wife got a 5, that surprised me.

Hey, maybe I do need 4:2:2! Dave, you can make do with B&W. :)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Your score: 11
0 ( Perfect Color Acuity ) 99 ( Low Color Acuity )
Color Test - Online Color Challenge | X-Rite

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

You are right that 4K has more color samples than HD, so 4K has the better start position for colors interpolation from 420 than HD. But 422 (or 444) color subsampling is not important for your eyes, this is wrong answer for our question.

The 422 (or 444) color sumbsampling is only the one small part of camera qualities, you need quality lens, chip, A/D converter, all DSP circuits must have the best quality (including the color interpretation), audio part..., coder, compression for record. The specification is only the basic view, I know a lot of differences between cameras with similar specifications.

10bit sampling and 422 chroma subsampling are inportant for big grading in postproduction, it is input for computer, not for your eyes .-) . It has also nothing to do with the quality of your eyes, with poor signal and with big color grading you will quickly see the differences.

I think that 4K 420 will be much more often in the low class of professional camcorders then in HD. Our brain will be surprised by the unusual sharpness from the beginning of 4K era, but quickly gets used. After this input we will see the same differences - natural image with really nice colors or unnatural image with an eletronic sharpness and poor colors.

Tha natural look is the most important part for viewers, more than sharpness .-) (the high contrast in details).

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I'm going with it's time to replace/upgrade monitors and video card... yeah, that's it, not my old eyes!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I'll support you on that Dave. ;)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Redid the test, got an 11... on a non color corrected LCD no less... though definitely newer than my "main" color corrected screens... hmmm....

Still say "more cowbell"....

And I still say that the new cameras will likely have "eye popping" image quality, and good looking color, sharpness, etc... however "deficient" the specs may be! I have yet to feel "disappointed" by anything I've shot with the RX10... it keeps calling to me to shoot more...

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Dave, I think the 11 score has moved you out of the 'color blind' category and in to our elite club where members can clearly differentiate red from green from blue. :)

Seriously, it's so easy to miss a few subtle shadings and color transitions on that test....and then there's the issue of the monitor you use during the test.

I agree though, I firmly believe the AX100 will surprise many just as the RX10 did. The RX10 has gained the respect of almost everyone out there. With what is essentially the same sensor and processing but with 4K, many additional features and an ergonomic form more befitting a video shooter, I'll be surprised if it isn't a hit.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

And all joking apart, that's why I linked to the test.

If you import a screenshot into Photoshop, you can use the picker to see the R,G,B values of the individual blocks - typically, they are a couple of values (in the 8 bit world) apart. As Ken says "it's so easy to miss a few subtle shadings ....." - and that's with those differences. (They typically represent 7 bit resolution.) And it's without noise, especially moving noise, which typically masks gradation differences.

Do the test with some noise added to the blocks, and expect the score to go far higher....! :-)

So who still thinks 10 bit will make much difference over 8 bit in terms of seeing extra colour gradation on normal images? :-) Yes, it makes for a difference in the post process - but only if the source material is of extremely good quality in the first place. That's why unduly worrying about 10 bit on this class of camera is pretty pointless.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Great points Dave, thanks.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

This is strictly a rumor...however I read a post on a Sony board about the AX100s HDMI output. The guy was posting claims that a Sony rep told him that the HDMI port is NOT a clean output.

Again...no way to know if this is B.S. yet. That might be completely false.

If it us true, than this "could" be the smoking-gun crippling trick that we have been waiting for with this camera. "If" this is true, than there will be no way to ever get more than 60Mbp/s long GOP out of this camera...ever. Future 4k external recorders will be useless on this.

Again. No way to know yet until it hits the streets. Lets hope this is a lie. Or Sony changes its mind quickly on this.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Really not sure how many would be using an external recorder with this camera. As for 4K external recording, your choices are one.

So I guess I'm dubious as to how many potential buyers would be deterred if this turns out to be true.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I agree, and if I was on the design team for the camera, I'd be hitting my head against the wall.

I'd feel like I'd designed a superb small, budget car, which everybody agreed was far better than anything in it's class or price range had ever been before - and I started to read comments along the lines of "it doesn't have the performance of a sports car though?" and "you can't even put a sports car engine in it!?"

All design - be it cars, cameras, washing machines or whatever - has to be a series of compromises. Do you (in the case of a car) design for off road ability? Capital cost? Fuel economy? Comfort or performance? Two seater and sporty, or can take the family - or big load carrying?

There's no right or wrong (from a designers point of view) but different products will appeal to different buyers. FWIW, I think this seems well designed *for the market it's aimed for*. Worrying about lack of features you may expect on a far more pro camera (10 bit, 4:2:2 etc) seem a bit like a farmer buying a 2 seater sports car, and complaining about it's lack of load carrying ability and off road performance......... :-)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

And on the contrary if this turns out to not be a lie and assume it to be 10-bit 4:2:2 of some sort then you could almost write an obituary for the AX100 and PZ100. Sony's got to be thinking hard about this before that March date arrives.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I think of feature crippling this way instead. It's like these companies design a superb small budget car with a standard 5 speed transmission...but at the last minute they remove the 3rd gear from the transmission. This is done because somebody in the company saw the performance numbers in testing and decided that this budget car was a bit "too good" and could negatively affect the sales of their next highest model.

HDMI output crippling was an old trick that Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panny have used that I think peaked about 4 years ago. Lately, many manufacturers have left that trick behind. I hope Sony does not bring that old one back. I think most buyers find it to be an ugly wart on their camera.

If Sony feels they must do it, I hope it's not the old "80% crop/zoom" trick. I hope it's not the "force all data on the screen" trick. If they "must" do it to protect the "PRO-NXCAM" sister to be announced next month, let's hope it's just the "leave run time on the corner" or the "Force the red record icon on the screen" trick.

Something that won't interfere with my Atomos HDMI waveform monitor or RGB parade too badly.

Better yet, lets hope this is all a big fat lie. Sony successfully fought the urge and temptation to cripple it's wonderful little $1300 RX10.

I don't know about 60Mbp/s for 4K (or UHD) It's a bit low and concerns me in quality. (we'll see though...I'll give it a chance.)

I'm wondering if Atomos will have a 4K recorder/scopes in the works?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Dave, after reading some of the comments here it's clear that no matter what Sony does with the design of the AX100, no matter how good the picture quality, no matter how clear the target audience is, it will never be good enough.

If it turns out to have a clean HDMI out, you'll hear some then say 'what, no XLR inputs?'. If it had XLR, the comments would be 'what, no interchangeable lenses?', and then if it had interchangeable lenses the comments would be 'what, no racing stripes??'.

One thing that never changes with any new camera, no matter how good it is, no matter how well designed, there will always be those who will never be satisfied. In this case, given how much the AX100 offers, with an unprecedented amount of manual control at an unprecedented price, I applaud Sony for what appears at this point, a great effort.

And to the naysayers, I would say you really need to be cognizant of the reality of marketing, audience targeting and the dangers of cannibilizing your much higher priced products. If you were in charge of the decision making at Sony, honestly, would you really do things so differently? In fact the biggest danger Sony may face with this camera is not what they omitted, but rather what they included.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I have owned 14 Sony cameras in the past 17 years. Sony is the only brand I buy. And yes, the AX100 will be my next camera. (If I don't pick the "pro" model instead.)

XLR or not, I understand. Codec differences I understand. All the stuff that divides cameras from one another for market protection....I get.

However, I only beg the industry to do one simple thing: If your camera costs $1,500 or more, please make sure it has 4 of the most basic functions:

1. Independent IRIS control
2. Independent GAIN control
3. Independent SHUTTER SPEED control
4. Clean HDMI out.

All the other features can be sliced and diced all day long. Size, sensor, image quality, lens, hard buttons, soft buttons, touch screen, XLR, battery,....all that stuff can be played with to their hearts content.

Just give me these 4 basic things on every camera out there and I will be happy with all the rest of the feature differences. Those things are what makes cameras so interesting anyway.

Yeah,...It's true that even if the AX100 had no HDMI at all, I wouldn't be happy about it but I'm still buying it anyway....no doubt.

At least it has the other big three basics!! ;-)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Cliff, what surprises me with your list, is that image quality is almost an afterthought ('all that stuff can be played with to their hearts content'). For me if the image quality isn't there, it's irrelevant how many features are included or not included.

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but your post does make it sound that way.

FWIW, I can't remember a 'handicam' with this level of manual control, so I'm happy about that. Personally, at this level of equipment, I'd much rather have the first 3 on your list than the clean HDMI.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hi8 days had full manual which then disappeared with DV. I had VX3 3chip same range as the current AX2000 etc and V801's, top of the Handycam line at the time, that had full control.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

There are several "Handycams" with full control. VG20/30 and 900. FX1 and all the "Top Handycams" after it.

As far a "image quality" goes. That is what it is. If a camera looks bad, I'm obviously not going to buy it no matter how much manual control it has.

I'm only trying to say this. If you are a camera company and you sell a $1,500+ camera, crippling BASIC manual control of shutter, gain and iris is not a very "respectable" attribute.

Example: You would think that an "NXCAM" NX30 would allow simple manual control of these BASIC exposure functions. It's an OK camera otherwise, but if you set the shutter at 1/30 you are thrown into auto on the other two. You can then only control exposure using EV +/- I tried to use that and I thought it would be a fun little "C" camera. However, over time that silly limitation drove me nuts. lol

There are 1000 different camera features ans functions to think about everyday. IQ is certainly a giant one. But of all things to worry about, please don't play games with basic shutter speed, gain and Iris. And yes,..just give me clean HDMI too.

I'll have plenty to be concerned about the with the 996 other features. For $1,500+ I shouldn't need to think about the first BASIC 4.


CT

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The tricky part here is to determine what "basic" features users want most. I've pre-ordered the AX100 and I have to say I have no need for any of the 4 "basic" features you mention. Short of locking white balance, I'll be leaving the camera in full auto, that's what works for my particular business need for this camera. In fact my top 4 "basic" requirements would be:

1) 4K resolution as many of my customers view my content on retina type displays, so I'm currently lagging behind by sticking with 1080p.
2) Small manageable codec because I archive all my own footage so it all has to be manageable, going with Raw or Prores would kill me.
3) Camera must be very small because I need to he able to hold the camera with one hand in odd positions and sometimes the subjects will be filming themselves, hence large cameras are of no use to me.
4) Not too large of a sensor because I don't want extremely shallow depth of field. I tried using my vg900 for this but while that camera is excellent for one of my websites, the large sensor is actually a hindrance for the others.

Extending my list a bit I would add:
5) Good auto focus and face recognition. Because my stuff is mostly run and gun and very unpredictable, I need very good auto focus. I would argue that a small handheld camera like the AX100 would be better at this than larger cameras because it has to. It will be purchased by people filming their families, kids and what have you so it's auto focus must work very well otherwise everyone will be returning the camera. When you go to larger cameras it's often expected that people will forgo auto focus and go full manual or use follow focus setups so people there tend to tolerate poor auto focus more.
6) Good low light performance. Because I'm an army of one I don't have a lighting crew, so even when I do setup my lighting the fluid nature of what I film can still sometimes lead to unpredictable lighting situations.

Personally I'm so glad Sony and others ignore what some people demand on various forums and websites here and there. For example many call for the death of avchd and demand to always have prores. Goodness if that happened I don't know what I'd do, my archiving would become a nightmare! Same with those demanding xlr on everything, I'd never have the small camera I need if Sony listened to those cries. Everyone's needs are different, so to make a definitive "basic" list isn't really possible as my list will quite likely be orthogonal to yours.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

If most of what you do is handheld then 30P may not be as good as a wish for 60P. Which is what I would like from such a camera.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yeah I would have liked 60fps for sure as that's what I film now with my NX30. But I see this camera more as a transition camera that I'll use for a year, and that hopefully they will have future 60fps cameras using h265 instead of h264 so that I can get my 4k 60fps and still have manageable file sizes in a small camera that doesn't need a noisy fan. Right now I'm not really willing to go to 4k 60fps if it means I have to deal with a 150mbps h264 based codec, or if it means using a large camera.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I'd much prefer H.264 for now. HEVC throws away a lot of data during it's compression and it would certainly not pass generational testing. (re-encoding over and over again) It doesn't even have a High Profile yet.

HEVC will be for final delivery while acquisition will remain in the RAW domain or H.264 one for quite some time. Consumers may see HEVC camcorders, but I guarantee it will not hold up as good as H.264 if you're planning to do lots of post-production on the footage (Grading, VFX, etc.)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Personally I'd call for the death of AVC-HD - but in this market to go with XDCAM 35Mbs

The file sizes aren't that much bigger, the quality is somewhat better (how much depends on the individual AVC-HD coder) - but XDCAM is far more easily managed processing wise.

I'd argue that was a better compromise. AVC-HD came about as a way of getting decent quality video onto cheap (read SDHC) cards. But the latter could easily manage XDCAM datarates almost before AVC-HD product became available, which rather destroyed the whole point of AVC-HD.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

XDCAM is more of a pro level version while regular AVC-HD is still more tailored to the consumers.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I think Sony will now push XAVC-S for most all their camcorders even the POV AS100. I have the AX1 and Edius will edit just fine by itself. I backup to LTO3 data tape anyway which may make me move to LTO5 a little sooner which I was considering anyway. Nothing comes free if you suddenly increase the data by 4 times. If you want 4K it is going to cost.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

My first post here on DVINfo... I got a 4 :)
I am a photo retoucher, so experienced with color.

I joined this thread, because I am very interested in getting a new 4K cam, and the FDR-AX100 seems like the right choice.

I am looking specifically how this camera handles skin tones in studio lighting.

I am looking to see how much color grading will be required for a high-end fashion/beauty type shoot, compared to how the color looks straight out of the camera. Of course I know it depends on the studio lighting, but less assume pro set-up with correct CRI and color balance. I have not seen any studio sample footage with critical skin tones, just outdoor footage with natural light.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Cliff, what I should have said is one of the typically small handicams. IOW, the form factor of the AX100. I owned both the NEX VG20 & 30 and neither was particularly small. I still feel the pain of that moire that would so often rear its ugly head. ;)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Interesting I didn't know that, I was actually expecting h265 to creep into the camera world next year. Well I guess that means at some point I'll have to accept 100mbps or so for 4k 60fps as I presume 60mbps wouldn't be acceptable for 60fps 4k video. Although I guess the first realistic step is to see how the AX100 handles 4k 30fps to begin with.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

So very true Pete. This is why I would not want to be a camera designer. One guy will say you were totally ignoring the pleas for most of what was on Cliff's list and the next guy will say as you did, I don't need that, give me the things that I want. I'm kind of amused when people are totally dumbfounded because something was left off of their list as if 'their list' should have been the only consideration of Sony.

Obviously Sony was not listening to ME, because I wanted 4K@60p. What the hell were they thinking!!! :)

You'll never please everyone.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

For the HDR-AX1 , 4K@60P ( 59.94) is 150Mbps. At 24P ( 23.98) or 30P (29.97) you have a choice of 100Mbps or 60Mbps. The data rate on the PXW-Z100 10bit 4:2:2 is 4 times as much with the XAVC codec.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Oh yeah, it is 150mbps for 4k 60fps with h264 isn't it. Hmm, if it's true that h265 isn't coming to cameras any time soon then I may have to deal with mass amounts of data archiving if I want 60fps. Ugh :( Or I guess I can stick with the AX100's 30fps longer than anticipated assuming it looks ok.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

For my FDR-AX1 a 64G QXD card last about 50 mins at 60P so a 2 hours show takes about 150G. For my NX5U at 60i that would be about 25G!!! So backup for a 2 hour show with AX1, NX5U, NX30U and CX700 ( all but NX5U shooting 60P ) almost 200G. About half a LTO3 tape at $25. I used to be able to backup all source and finished projects 4 to a tape now it will be more like 2 to a tape. Still way cheaper than keeping DV tapes and faster to transfer to PC and backup to tape too.

I do not like the judder of slow frame rates so its 60P or nothing for me. I tried 30P on the AX1 as it was for YouTube anyway but could still see the judder even though almost no one moved !!

Ron Evans