XAVC isn't a recording option on the FS700R but Sony does provide a 4K solution with the IFR5. Difference is 12 bit compared to 16bit for the F5/F55 so there is a clear difference. It will be interesting as to where Sony creates the differentiators between models. It may well be that the average person will not see a difference in any of the outputs at the first generation stage anyway !!

Ron Evans

I think the PXW-Z100 is more capable than either the PMW 100 or the PMW 160 just shooting 1920x1080 and forgetting about 4K. Just view 4K as a bonus with the present firmware.
I've seen this sort of thing repeated several times in this thread. Is Ron just repeating himself or is this a generally accepted expectation from the new 4k cameras? My recollection of the early HD cameras, particularly the Z1/FX1, was that the DV images they produced were not comparable to true DV cameras, since the in-camera down-scaling was pretty crude. (*) This has also been true of 1080-line images produced by DSLRs down-converting from native 3000 or 4000-line chips.

I can see it is handy to have this backward compatibility. However, unless someone has good information to the contrary, I would not expect a 4k camera to be as good at producing HD images as an HD camera.


(*) IIRC, there was one advantage to using the Z1 for DV - it was native 16:9 which could be an advantage over a PD150 and it's funny anamorphic lens.

My recollection of the early HD cameras, particularly the Z1/FX1, was that the DV images they produced were not comparable to true DV cameras, since the in-camera down-scaling was pretty crude.

The in-camera downscale was a bit crude, but suck in HDV and scrunch it down using a good quality scaler, little bit of sharpening to dress it up after, and yes - it was very nice. It was the long-standing joke - how to make a nice SD DVD - start with HDV.

Of course, crude down-scales, and leaving the detail wound up, would guarantee a scratchy aliased picture. But that, and black stretch, and careful use of longer focal lengths and it would punch above its weight. I could put my pictures (HDV downsampled) up alongside a DSR570 and not look embarrassing.

The in-camera downscale was a bit crude, but suck in HDV and scrunch it down using a good quality scaler, little bit of sharpening to dress it up after, and yes - it was very nice. It was the long-standing joke - how to make a nice SD DVD - start with HDV.

Of course, crude down-scales, and leaving the detail wound up, would guarantee a scratchy aliased picture. But that, and black stretch, and careful use of longer focal lengths and it would punch above its weight. I could put my pictures (HDV downsampled) up alongside a DSR570 and not look embarrassing.
Oh, I agree. Shoot and edit in HD then down-scale carefully with good software right at the end of the process, and you end up with really nice 16:9 DVDs. But don't expect a camera tuned to give good HD to also record good DV direct to tape/disc/card/whatever.

By analogy, I'd be very surprised if the AX1 or Z100 will record HD images that match an HD camera of the same size/price - which I think is what Ron Evans is expecting. On the other hand, if you can afford to shoot and edit 4k, and down-convert to 1080 lines right at the end, it should make for a pretty good Blu-ray production. In fact, until a decent 4k delivery tool comes along, that's probaly what most people will have to do.

Yes I have repeated myself on different threads---sorry. As to downscaling. The in camera downscaling has never been very good. I used to rent DVC200 before I got my FX1 and never rented after that as the FX1 was better in my experience. The FX1 setup to shoot DV rather than HDV was also good. It was just the output downscale that was not very good.

I never use in camera scaling always shoot in the HD format and then downscale using TMPGenc after editing in HD project. I expect the same from the 4K cameras and will see in a few months.

Sensor technology for consumers is continually driven by costs and size. For the professional the goal is performance. Every so often the developments in consumer tech overtake the pro market and I think this is now what is happening and drives the pro market to even more extremes to get the advantage. The net effect is that the low and mid pro lines are vulnerable to cost and performance when compared to the consumer products.

I am disappointed that these new 4K cameras do not have touch spot focus. Focus is difficult enough for HD now and with 4K will be even more difficult which has been mentioned already. Autofoucs is an answer but I for one would like to identify the point in the frame I want in focus. This is pretty standard now on all consumer cameras yet sadly missing from cameras that would really benefit from the feature. Focusing is much more difficult on my NX5U than the NX30U for example.

Ron Evans

Do remember the sensor tech is different this time around with it being a single sensor rather than 3, if you're comparing the Z1 downscaling workflow to the Z100 downscaling workflow.

I fear because the pixels are so small, too much heat or unintentional laser beam contact would easily cause some pixels to die easily.

These 4K cameras are using Sony sensor already used to shoot HD if it is the one in my HX30V which shoots great HD video as good as my CX700 or NX30U. My main interest though is to shoot 4K and crop a HD image from it just like I did with the FX1 to get a SD image. It worked very well for me then and I fully expect it to work that way again. We will all have to wait and see but I suspect they will also shoot very nice HD. Will it be as good as a PMW200 or PMW300 ? I don't think so as they will have a sensitivity advantage. Will the PXW-Z100 be as good as PMW100 or PMW160 I think it will. We will have to wait and see.

Ron Evans

There's always a catch to these "prosumer" cameras as they call them. They won't put up a $4500 camera to compete with their higher end cameras (obviously). I think the 4k will be "Good" but where it might excel is downsampling to HD for final output.

Sorry for the naive question, but what's the technical difference between "downsampling" (which everyone says will be great from 4k to HD), and "downrezzing" (which I know for a fact is never quite good)?

On a similar note: when the FS700 first came out, everyone was raving how its higher pixel count enables downsampling to a HD picture actually better than that from an FS100.... Why?

Sorry for the naive question, but what's the technical difference between "downsampling" (which everyone says will be great from 4k to HD), and "downrezzing" (which I know for a fact is never quite good)?
Not sure there is an accurately defined exact meaning, but "downrezzing" is normally taken to mean forming a high res signal from the chip and down resolving that, whereas "downsampling" means such as taking a group of photosites together and forming the lower resolution signal directly from that.

How good/bad either will be depends on circumstance. Downsampling works well in the case of something like the Canon C300 - but that's because the chip dimensions are an exact multiple of the desired output (1920x1080). Blocks of 2x2 photosites can be taken together to form pixels on a one to one basis.

Apply the same technique in a DSLR, and it's far more difficult. (And not as good.)
On a similar note: when the FS700 first came out, everyone was raving how its higher pixel count enables downsampling to a HD picture actually better than that from an FS100.... Why?
Well, I've always thought there was a bit of a mystery here, and if you look at charts, the actual performance of the two is quite similar. Best I've seen are from Adam Wilt - Review: Sony NEX-FS100 “Super35” LSS AVCHD Camcorder by Adam Wilt (http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/review_sony_nex-fs100_super35_lss_avchd_camcorder/P3) for the FS100, and High Speed and Low Light with the NEX-FS700 by Adam Wilt (http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/high_speed_and_low_light_with_the_nex-fs700/) for the FS700 . Note especially the vert/hor resolution imbalances in each case.

In fact, examine them very closely and the similarities between them are far more than any similarity either has with the F3 chart that Adam also prints - in spite of the general view that the F3/FS100 share the same chip. My own view is that the FS100/FS700 have the same (3840x2160) chip - Sony were trying it out in the FS100, but didn't want to let the characteristics be known because the obvious next question would be "so when's the 4k version coming then!?"

When contemplating the Z100 vs. the AX1, media speed and amount is not the only cost factor involved when building a complete solution (editing and delivery). Since the 10 bit 4:2:2 is probably the most striking differentiator of the Z100 vs. AX1's 8 bit 422, does anyone know whether the current UHD TV offering (Sony Bravia, Toshiba, or the cheap Seiki) offer the full 10 bit viewing? I doubt it, as they are so much cheaper than some smaller PC monitors from Asus, Samsung and others, which are said to cover 99% of Adobe RGB spectrum...

Isn't the AX1's codec 4:2:0?

Yes the FDR-AX1 is 8 bit 4:2:0, Long GOP XAVCS

Ron Evans

Of course - just a typo.

Sony PXW-Z100 4K Handheld XDCAM Camcorder is avail. at Bhphoto for pre-order $5499.00


Sony PXW-Z100 4K Handheld XDCAM Camcorder PXW-Z100 B&H Photo

does anybody know what wired remote lens controller Z100 will have, can't find that info,
will it have one at all?

Sony PXW-Z100 4K Handheld XDCAM Camcorder is avail. at Bhphoto for pre-order $5499.00


Sony PXW-Z100 4K Handheld XDCAM Camcorder PXW-Z100 B&H Photo (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1004182-REG/sony_pxw_z100_4k_handheld_xdcam_camcorder.html)

Is it me or is that $1000 less than when they first announced it? That's awesome. Is that the street price vs. list price thing I always hear about? I never really knew what that meant for new cameras.

This is only one of two cameras that I know of under $10k with 1080p60 and a 3G-HDSDI out (other is FS700) which is what we need so I'm all in!

Is it me or is that $1000 less than when they first announced it? That's awesome. Is that the street price vs. list price thing I always hear about? I never really knew what that meant for new cameras.
!

Yes, they did drop the price. It was listed for over $6,000. Much more tempting!

Can it shoot regular HD not just 4000 k ? Also 4k is not really being implemented yet in monitors and broadcast so how long do we have to wait for that . So is it really worth it to become an early adopter of this camera ?


Doug

Sony FDR-AX1 4K camera-First look

Sony FDR-AX1 4K camera-First look cinema5D (http://www.cinema5d.com/?p=21457)

+

SONY PXW-Z100

SONY PXW-Z100 - YouTube

Still waiting for footage that will make me pull the trigger. Not sold yet.

That was pretty much useless.

I regardless am not sold on the "consumer-grade" sensor. You can do all the DSP in the world, but if the pickup isn't up to snuff, it's like a Tube camera hooked to a Digital Betacam deck.

I view the FDR-AX1 and PXW-Z100 as replacing the AX2000 and NX5U which are respectively a prosumer and low end Pro cameras. The prices are very similar as well. If you want a full pro 4K camera then its the F5 or F55 I think or maybe the FS100 + etc.

As to the sensors, technology improves over time a great deal. My Sony cell phone takes as good a video as the FX1 I had !!! I am sure that sensor in these 4k cameras is the same as the one in my Sony HX30V still camera which takes absolutely lovely video comparable to any of the video cameras I have all AVCHD with the same codec !!! Sensor and DSP are a unit, raw output from a sensor always needs to be translated and how this is done is part of the process. One can only measure the whole not just a part. Yes small sensors have small sites so will not be as good in low light as a large sensors. So if one needs to shoot 4K in low light these may not be the cameras especially if one needs to zoom as the lens ramps quickly, the same as my NX5U. I view these 4K cameras as an improvement over the AVCHD versions with 4K as a bonus !! Same lens, similar size sensor almost the same camera body much the same controls........ I will get the FDR-AX1 because I need long record times and view it as an improvement over the NX5U I have. If the PXW-Z100 already had the firmware update I might have got that as a real replacement for the NX5U.

Ron Evans

Actually sensor technology is one of the slowest developing technologies as we are already pretty much at the limits as to what can be done with silicon. Silicon has a finite efficiency at converting photons of light into electrons, current sensors are are around 70-80% efficient (QE = Quantum Efficiency). There are small incremental improvements such as back illumination or better micro lenses but the base sensitivity hasn't changed much in the past 10 years and it isn't going to change until we move to an entirely new substrate material and that means a new manufacturing process not yet available. That's why the new PMW-300 uses the same 6 year old sensors as the original EX1, because a new sensor wouldn't bring any real benefit. All the picture improvements come from a better DSP.

In a camera like the Z100 and most full size cameras the sensor and DSP are separate units as an on die DSP would lead to a heat build up that would increase noise levels over time. Some noise reduction is done on the sensor and the A to D is done on the on the sensor, but the real DSP work is done in a dedicated DSP chip, in most cases some kind of field programmable micro processor such as a FPGA. The Z100 probably contains multiple processors, each handling different tasks.

It is either simply sensor and thus pixel size or processing that is making the big difference in modern cameras. Bigger pixels means better sensitivity, lower noise and higher dynamic range. Better processing, primarily noise reduction, means a better signal to noise ratio and thus a cleaner picture. But NR comes at a price which can be image artefacts such as smear, ghosting or soft edges.
This shows very well with the Z100. A small sensor with small pixels = lower sensitivity and dynamic range than a camera like the EX1/PMW-200 with it's older but larger sensors. The Z100 processing on the other hand is state of the art and as a result the image noise is very well controlled at lower gan levels, however push the gain levels up and the noise starts to overwhelm the noise reduction and introduces smear and image softening.

I don't totally disagree but the back illuminated sensors and on chip processing are an improvement for real and this was not 10 years ago. When I said sensor and DSP are a unit I did not mean a single chip I meant a processing unit to obtain the output. There have been lots of improvements even in the last year with large format sensors that require even more powerful DSP's all becoming available because of processing improvements. Fundamental silicon technology will of course not have changed but processing improvements have changed. Its the output that matters not the details of how that is achieved. Sensor or DSP is not important they are both necessary.

The FDR-AX1 and PXW-Z100 are not expensive pro cameras . As a serious amateur I have paid almost exactly the same price for cameras in this part of the Sony camera range since my VX3 Hi8 camera. Within a few hundred dollars the VX3, FX1 and NX5U and now the FDR-AX1 . As to perfomance over time my little still HX30V is superior to the VX3 or the FX1 and a good match for the NX5U in good conditions. My Sony Xperia T cell phone also takes some really nice video!!!!

Difference with the newer back illuminated video cameras is noise. The NX30U or CX700 I have show much less noise than the NX5 and challenge an EX3 that we shoot with too in low light. When the EX3 has to use gain, just like the NX5U it quickly show grain. Yes the EX3 is superior.

Ron Evans

A typical EXMOR-R sensor has a round 1.5db less noise than a front illuminated sensor, that difference will be barely perceptible to most people, but they are normally around 8db or just a little over a stop more sensitive. So the main advantage of BI is sensitivity, not noise. BI is only an advantage for sensors with very small pixels as the efficiency depends on the ratio of pixel surface area to obstruction from the surface electronics. So, while BI has helped with small sensors, it's been of little benefit anywhere else.

It is processing that has improved, but this comes with a heavy price in terms of image artefacts including smear and a reduction in resolution as gain levels increase. The NX30 shows less noise than the NX5 because it uses a Q67 sensor which allows larger pixels to be used, but this comes at the expense of very low chroma resolution (roughly 1/4 luma). In addition there is a resolution drop in low light. Skin tones of the NX30 are poor, faces look like plastic as they have no texture and the dynamic range is severely limited.

Sensitivity is only one factor in sensor performance. Dynamic range, noise, resolution and artefacts all add together to make an image.

Thanks Alister for providing the detail. It is what I see between my NX5U and the NX30U. When there is lots of light they are both fine and match well. As the light gets lower there is a point where the NX30U has a more pleasing image than the NX5U. When it gets really dark the NX5U falls apart because of the grain due to gain but the grain is suppressed on the NX30U or CX700 and is more usable. There is a choice, loose some resolution and get an image or have so much grain it is unusable without a lot of processing with noise reduction filter ( often with the NX5U).

Ron Evans

I'd just mention that the RX100M2, with a relatively "large" BI sensor, benefitted NOTICEABLY over the prior RX100 - there was some discussion that it wouldn't make much difference because BI wouldn't benefit a larger sensor, but in practice, it DOES. We may see another jump with the RX10 using a new generation Bionz "X" processor.

Theory and practice are not always aligned - I've seen several instances where "better" wasn't ACTUALLY better, and others where it "shouldn't be" based on "internet wisdom", but IS in practice.

I've also seen where one engineering "team" (I presume this is how they work at Sony?) takes a sensor and gets far superior quality out of one camera, while another camera (I presume from a different "team"?), using the exact same sensor, produces so-so or poor results.


I agree with Ron that in practice (use), the question is if you can get a usable image or not, and what the quality of that image is under various shooting conditions. And Alister correctly points out, there's more to that equation than just how many pixels are packed into how much real estate....

Hopefully in a couple of weeks I will find out how they all compare when I get my FDR-AX1 and can do side by side comparisons with NX5U , NX30U and CX700. Might even compare to the HX30V which may have the same sensor !!!

Ron Evans

When it gets really dark the NX5U falls apart because of the grain due to gain but the grain is suppressed on the NX30U or CX700 and is more usable. There is a choice, loose some resolution and get an image or have so much grain it is unusable without a lot of processing with noise reduction filter ( often with the NX5U).


I thought I was all set to get a PXW-Z100, but after doing some research I found that the low light performance will be not only slightly worse than my NX5U, but much worse.

from my NX5U operating guide: 1.5 lux, 1/30 shutter speed, f 1.6

from B&H PXW-Z100 spec webpage: 4 lux, 1/30 shutter speed

I know light sensitivity specs can vary greatly, but at least this comparison seems to be close to the same method of comparison.

Good low light sensitivity is more important to me than 4K capability. Maybe I need to be looking at a Panasonic AG-AC160A instead ( 0.4 lux, 1/30 shutter speed, f 1.6 ) ? I don't want to go the DSLR or cinema cam route, I want a run & gun video camera below $7,000 with a nice 20x or 22x lens that works well in low light.

I don't want to go the DSLR or cinema cam route, I want a run & gun video camera below $7,000 with a nice 20x or 22x lens that works well in low light.

While it may not fit the 20x or 22x criteria, finding a good condition used EX1 or EX1R would be perfect for this since it has 1/2'' chips.

The only thing I might say about the specs is that gain is relative. Decided by the engineers and marketing !! So that if the NX5U specs are at indicated 18db db max auto gain , unusable for the NX5U. FDR_AX1 and PXW-Z100 range is 0 to 21db. The NX5U goes from -6 db to 18db gain but the FDR_AX1 and PXW-Z100 start at 0 to 21db. The NX5U has a 3db gain advantage in this artificial test, even though from my experience unusable. Above 12db the NX5U is problematic, is that really 18db !!

For me the measure is when the picture falls apart because of too much noise. I should get my FDR-AX1 soon ( I hope ) then I will be able to compare side by side with the NX5U. I expect it to be just a little worse in low light. But not almost 3 times as the specs may indicate and the noise reduction of the newer processor may make it more usable than the NX5U !!!. With the NX5U my normal range of operation is iris between F1.6 and F3.4 and gain -3 to +6db. That should work fine for the FDR-AX1 too. When it get really dark I hope my friend is there with his EX3 or use the NX30 or CX700 for a clean wide shot!!!

Ron Evans

edit: Now looked at both NX5U specs and pdf of FDR-AX1 and see that although ranges for switch positions say one thing the auto limits say something else !!! NX5U has an AGC limit set of 24db but no apparent way of setting this manually and low light spec specifically says in auto. FDR-AX1 pdf says switch positions with limits of 21db low light spec with manually settings of 27db ( page 63 of the PDF ) but I cannot see how to set the camera to 27db manually when the switch position limits are 21db !! Will have to wait until I get mine or someone can answer what are the real limits. Sony always seems to get the specs mixed up ?

I would suggest that the NX5 and Z100 sensors have similar sensitivity. The NX5 has bigger pixels and uses a prism while the Z100 although it has much smaller pixels see's an approx 8db sensitivity boost per pixel because of the back illumination. Overall they should come out very similar.

However the Z100 has more sophisticated image processing. When I tested the Z100 alongside a PMW-200 I found the Z100 to be 1.5 stops less sensitive than the 200 at 0db, but... and this was the big surprise the Z100 was showing less visible noise (or at least the noise was less apparent). Raising the gain on the Z100 quickly results in more noise and some image softening, especially above +9db. So I think you'll see similar sensitivity to the Z5 at 0db with possibly a cleaner looking image from the Z100. But if you start adding in lots of gain the Z100 performance will start to fall away quite quickly.

Thanks Alister. I will shoot some side by side when I get the camera. Looking at the pdf that is now up on the Sony site, Sony eSupport - FDR-AX1 - Support (http://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=FDRAX1&LOC=3#/manualsTab), there are a few things I do not like such as battery indicator being just an icon instead of time, no smooth gain switch setting in menus, no spotlight setting either. Display indication are also not as good as I like to see all parameters and if they are in aututo or manual. Now AGC appears if gain is in auto rather than seeing the value and having an "A" next to it.. Button assignments are limited too compared to the NX5U. Very strange to go backwards on a consumer camera. These sort of things were the differences between the AX2000 and NX5U so wonder if these menu/ LCD settings are on the Z100. I like the dc power input though. One of the USB ports and SD ports do nothing at the moment waiting for that firmware update.

If you have an input Alister maybe suggest going back to time indicator for battery and adding back in the spotlight setting. I mainly use my NX5U full manual but sometimes use in auto excposure with buttons assigned to AE shift and spotlight, with AE speed set to slow so that switching the buttons takes effect slowly. Found this combination useful.

Ron Evans

That is kind of backwards... Batteries (especially INFOLithium) should indicate how many minutes remaining. Almost certainly an omission that may need correcting in a firmware update.

That is kind of backwards... Batteries (especially INFOLithium) should indicate how many minutes remaining. Almost certainly an omission that may need correcting in a firmware update.

Yes I hope so. I was expecting there to be less on the AX1 than the Z100 ( not seen a manual for that yet) much like the differences between the AX2000 and the NX5U but there seems to be a lot gone backwards from the high end consumer Handycams !!! Will wait and see when mine comes as having lots of Sony cameras they get a lot wrong in specs !!! However I like the LCD indications on the NX5U where I can see the values if they are in auto or manual, just an A next to them. Means I can switch to auto or manual when I know the value is the same for instance. Or know when iris is going beyond F5.6 or gain above 9db and take some action. Having the indication change to AGC or A.Iris is not useful at all. The AGC limit, AE shift and speed are there as well as shutter speed limit but no iris limit, very strange.

The AX2000 also had picture profiles and now there appears to be just a paint setup. The marketing seems to indicate 6 but what that means is one setup with 6 parameters !!! AX2000 and NX5U had 6 picture profiles there were just more parameters for the NX5U.

With three interfaces not working ( two SD slots and a USB slot) I think the real first release will be after the first firmware update !!!

Ron Evans

Everybody is saying that 4K still needs 3 or 4 years to be everywhere, lets say i want to stay with 1080p and i have to choose between Z100 and PMW 300 and i care about better quality considering that Z100 is 233Mbps and PMW 300 is 50Mbps

Which 1 should i Buy if im looking for better HD quality ?

ive read all the comments in this thread but still no one made it clear, or i missed it somehow sorry guys ))

lets say i want to stay with 1080p and i have to choose between Z100 and PMW 300 and i care about better quality considering that Z100 is 233Mbps and PMW 300 is 50Mbps

Which 1 should i Buy if im looking for better HD quality ?

No question about it, the PMW300 will produce a much better HD image. I suspect it will produce a better 4K picture once upscaled than the PXW-Z100 too. Oh, I'm sure the 100 will show more detail in good light, but in normal situations where lighting is not perfect, the 300 will win. The sensor of the Z100 will not even come close to maximising the capabilities of the codec.

Everybody is saying that 4K still needs 3 or 4 years to be everywhere, lets say i want to stay with 1080p and i have to choose between Z100 and PMW 300 and i care about better quality considering that Z100 is 233Mbps and PMW 300 is 50Mbps

Which 1 should i Buy if im looking for better HD quality ?

ive read all the comments in this thread but still no one made it clear, or i missed it somehow sorry guys ))

If you only want HD quality then the PMW300 is likely the best choice or even a PMW200. If you want to shoot and then crop into 1920x1080 then the Z100 will be a choice or a FS700, F5 or F55.
Ron Evans

Thank you Guys for you help

I better wait for the Next Z500 or Z700 ;)

When the light is OK, for example normal daylight, even if overcast the Z100 produces a remarkably good 4K picture. It is very low noise, very high resolution (much higher than HD), not over sharpened or enhanced and with good colorimetry. It does have very slightly less dynamic range than a PMW-300, but overall there is no way an upscaled PMW-300 is going to look as good at 4K as a Z100 under normal conditions.

In poor light then maybe the PMW-300, upscaled may be better overall than the Z100, but really in this situation neither is optimal and there are better options.

If you only want HD, don't want to have the flexibility that 4K can offer for re-framing, image stabilising etc then the PMW-300 is undoubtedly the better camera.

Is mainstream 4K a long way off? Maybe if you think 3 years is a long time. Netflix are to start 4K distribution next year. You can buy a surprisingly good 4K TV right now for less than $999. Even a good quality Samsung 4K TV can now be had for around $3,200. 40% of all US cinemas now have 4K capability and there are over 20,000 4K projectors globally. YouTube is available in 4K, Jeopardy is being shot in 4K along with at least 14 other main stream US TV series. Most digital photographs are more than 4K and Sony and others are looking at photo player apps and devices for 4k TV's that can show your digital snaps with amazing clarity. I think 4K will become mainstream much quicker than HD did. The biggest barrier to HD was broadcasting bandwidth. A massive percentage of the content we watch these days comes to the home over the web, largely bypassing the bandwidth bottleneck. It's predicted that in another 6 years time, online delivery of television will become more common that over the air broadcasting.

Well, Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune are Sony Pictures properties so if anyone's getting the F55 as Studio Cameras, they would no doubt do that.

Broadcast may even skip 1080p60 FWIW. The rarity of 60p on web delivery needs to be remedied, but no one in any web consortium seems to be interested in 60p delivery and just say 30p, 25p, and 24p are fine.

Lots of wonderful information on this camera. I personally only wish the low light aspects of it were better. Here is why. I believe that anyone starting to produce any long format documentary that they want to find a buyer for in say 3 years from now- and thats a short turn around for some docs- would most certainly benefit at the negotiations for the rights to that property if its originatied in 4K. Having just gone through the process of selling a property for distrobution, it was made clear to me that having 4K material will put dollars on your side of the table. If your project started today on 1080 you would certainly be driven down on the price at the time of sales. Its not even relavent what the topic is. Its one of the first hot points when you go to sell it.

I would certainly buy the consumer version , due to longer record times on the current cards, if I were starting a doc today. The buying party will take hammered, noisy, grainy 4k over great looking 1080 anytime.

I think the buyers will take engaging material over camera specs any day, and i think it's misleading to claim otherwise. The fact is, there is a vast amount of good doco material in circulation shot on cheapish cameras. The idea that film makers need to jump through yet another industry hoop to qualify for broadcast is absurd.

I think the buyers will take engaging material over camera specs any day, and i think it's misleading to claim otherwise. The fact is, there is a vast amount of good doco material in circulation shot on cheapish cameras. The idea that film makers need to jump through yet another industry hoop to qualify for broadcast is absurd.

And yet I wish my large library of previously shot footage was all taken in 4k. Even my EX1r footage looks dated and obsolete to me now.

And yet I wish my large library of previously shot footage was all taken in 4k. Even my EX1r footage looks dated and obsolete to me now.

I really can't say I can move to 4K without a defined colorimetry (the final release version of Rec. 2020), a good bitrate to capacity ratio (Shooting straight XAVC will require 512GB cards for longform recordings) and the broadcast community to move over to accept it and start broadcasting in it.

Plus, we've pretty much reached the limit of capturing photons to squeeze every pixel out for this camera and cameras like the Lumia 1020. Any smaller pixel density will be exclusively for the consumer market and would totally not benefit the professional in any way, since we're losing too much sensitivity.

Also, I'd much rather see the push for global shutter CMOS fabrication pricing to go down. It took an arm and a leg to use it on the F55, so tech should improve in that direction.

Again, it's the Z1U days of 4K, and that's how I'll view it until we get that EX1 of 4K.

I don't know the answers but it's hard to believe we'll be transitioning to UHD in 3 years, or that the reason we'll be able to is Netflix, YouTube or the internet. If I was to judge quality today, the latter 2 (at least) would be the WORST quality. Over the air and Blu-ray are the best quality for mainstream consumers. Somebody has to pay for all that broadband arriving at the curb.

Just my opinion, but I don't forsee a transition to UHD as much as I see gradual rollout of non-synergistic, diverse, niche UHD products entering into the mix of blended coexistence with everything else that's still out there and hasn't gone away, SD, HD, DVD, Blu-ray. (DVD still outsells Blu-ray by a wide margin.)

But I honestly feel it's going to be an even harder task for UHD, here's why:

1.) 4k acquisition is perfectly justifiable, makes good sense.

2.) But as a display, UHD viewing benefits are mainly with very large displays, or very close up viewing. <- That is a problem for mainstream acceptance. Many are perfectly happy with HD, or those who prioritize convenience over ultimate quality, or won't be viewing in home theater man-caves.

3.) HEVC (h.265) is twice the compression at the existing bit rates. So even though Rec. 2020 makes possible a wider color gamut as well 10 and 12 bit, what's going to arrive at the display is quite likely 8 bit 4:2:0 color.

4.) Already, many have been reporting that OLED 1080p displays are the winner when pitted against UHD panels displaying 2160p. OLED and plasma have better color purity than LCD. Better pixels trump more pixels at the sizes and viewing distances most consumers prefer.

One other gotcha...Gary Merson, the HD Guru is reporting that 2160/p60 will require HDMI 2.0, and that most current UHDTVs don't carry it. The bigger name brands like Samsung have announced future upgrade paths from HDMI 1.4 but other manufacturers may not.

As a display format, I think the uptake of UHD displays and transmission will be very slow and protracted, certainly not the deliberate transition as was the analog to digital switchover.

All the same arguments came up in the mid 1990's when HD was on the horizon, yet in Europe it took less than 2 years between the launch of the Z1 and the arrival of full time HD broadcasting (via satellite TV) and a further 2 years before the majority of main stream programme commissions were HD.

Back then we didn't have the kind of internet bandwidth we have today. I have a 100Mb/s fibre connection for my home internet. This is being upgraded to 150Mb/s in the new year. That's enough for 3 simultaneous real time 4K/UHD HEVC streams. In many parts of Asia, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore etc similar speeds are common and the desire for everything hi-tech is hard to grasp (even toilets can be computer controlled with heated seats, auto closing lids and play music).

HD TV's are the norm now. In the future more and more new TV's will be UHD. Those wishing to buy a new high end TV will want to future proof their investment, so many will buy UHD TV's, rightly or wrongly, it's an easy sell for the sales rep, bigger is better. This will creep down to lower cost TV's until eventually UHD becomes the norm for larger screen sizes. Since the launch of HD the size of TV's in the home has increased. In Europe, pre HD a 27" or 32" TV was considered large. Now 42" is common, in the last 10 years TV sizes have doubled and continue to grow by an average 2" per year. TV's will grow to fit the quality of the images delivered to them. In addition home cinema installations are no longer just for the rich and famous and increasing in popularity.

The BBC Natural History unit is already committed to 4K capture. Many documentaries as well as drama are now being shot in 4K. As a big time stock footage shooter, I'm already looking at my HD library as having a now very limited shelf life. When HD came in my SD footage sales took a hit well before HD broadcasting became common place as programme makers wanted to future proof their productions.

Why UHD and not 4K? Simple - scaling. UHD is 4x HD, so any up/down conversion is really simple and most likely look better than the odd scaling from 4K to HD. In addition 4K at 17:9 would require letter boxing for HD or 16:9 viewing. UHD makes a lot of sense for broadcasters. The difference between 4K and UHD is only really the aspect ratio, 4K is slightly wider, but the resolution is the same for the given picture height.

It isn't going to happen overnight. It will take time, but happen it will and probably quicker than many expect as there are fewer barriers to UHD than there were to HD. I'm sure there will be many areas that will hang on to HD or even SD, but if you start at 4K you can cater for all.

Why UHD and not 4K? Simple - scaling. UHD is 4x HD, so any up/down conversion is really simple and most likely look better than the odd scaling from 4K to HD. In addition 4K at 17:9 would require letter boxing for HD or 16:9 viewing. UHD makes a lot of sense for broadcasters. The difference between 4K and UHD is only really the aspect ratio, 4K is slightly wider, but the resolution is the same for the given picture height.
I can't fault your logic for nearly all of that post, and fully agree, but I think it's important to draw a big distinction between acquisition and transmission/display.

For high value material with future value - and your stockshots are obviously a prime example - then the argument for 4K/UHD acquisition are obvious.

I agree that UHD makes most sense from a broadcasters point of view for transmission etc, for the reasons you say, but for ACQUISITION isn't 4K the better bet? (With the caveat that it's shot 16:9 shoot and protect?) If 4K is what's later needed, it's what's there. If UHD is needed, it's a simple crop at the sides, but no scaling. And if shot and protected 16:9, you know no essential detail will be lost - exactly the same as the early days of 16:9 in the UK, using shoot and protect to 14:9.

Shoot UHD, and if 4K is later desired, it's not then as satisfactory. It will also mean a crop (this time top and bottom) - but also a rescale as well.