I have no doubts that almost doubling the bit rate is worth quite a bunch of new cards...

The main worry when firmware is updated is that some things get better and some may be worse. Focus is key to the overall quality of video and autofocus hunting drives me mad. I had a Sony XV1000 mini DV camcorder for ten years and the autofocus would just never keep still constantly flicking in and out. Luckily Sony included a quick auto button so you could leave it in manual and just push the button for quick autofocus.

There has been a lot of chat about the U3 cards and from Sony's point of view I can understand why they have made it U3 only. The designation of SD card speed is very confusing with class10, UHS-1, UHS-II , U1, U3 (where is U2?), SDHC, SDXC. Plus the fact that manufacturers only quote the highest figures they can obtain which of course turns out to be not representative of what you may actually achieve with your camera. Additionally the market is infiltrated with fake cards. I guess the reason they have gone U3 is at least there is a guarantee that U3 is 3x faster than U1 at 30MB/s.

So far I have only made 1 video since buying the AX100 this month, a visit to Aldbourne where 101 Airbourne were stationed just before D-Day, a lovely little village with Pub overlooking the green. The AX100 produced a pin sharp image in perfect focus for every shot so I am a bit nervous that ver 3.0 does not mess it up.
Andy

Hi, I know there is a new firmware v3 for Sony AX100. I'd like to update my old v2 firmware but I don't know if I will get problems if I use SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s SD XC I U1 classe 10 64GB.
In your opinion can I make that update? Are there improvements over v2?
Thanks

I updated; it seemed to go well. Already have a U3 card so it records at 100Mbps okay. Focus is better. Zoom seems better. I'll see how it goes tomorrow.

Is autofocus hunting improved with the new firmware? Thanks

[QUOTE= I don't know if I will get problems if I use SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s SD XC I U1 classe 10 64GB.[/QUOTE]

You will have no problems from the update, your old cards will work the same as they do now.

Jeff,
I thank you for your news but I have read some time ago if you use U1 SD it is impossible to rec with 100 MB/s but AX100 recs with less MB/s. But I don't remember fine and I don't know if it is right.
Then I have read U1 SD you get this writings "please use memory cards UHS-I compatible U3". Is it true? Is this an annoying writings or you see it only when you put the SD into the slot?
Thanks to clear my ideas.

You didn't say you needed to record 100MB. For recording 100MB, I have no idea. Your old cards will still work the same as before, but I don't know which ones work for 100mb.

Andy - Welcome aboard!

That was a good post and I especially liked this part:
There has been a lot of chat about the U3 cards and from Sony's point of view I can understand why they have made it U3 only. The designation of SD card speed is very confusing with class10, UHS-1, UHS-II , U1, U3 (where is U2?), SDHC, SDXC. Plus the fact that manufacturers only quote the highest figures they can obtain which of course turns out to be not representative of what you may actually achieve with your camera. Additionally the market is infiltrated with fake cards. I guess the reason they have gone U3 is at least there is a guarantee that U3 is 3x faster than U1 at 30MB/s.

This is one of my pet peeves: phony, fake, even grey market, items that are imported and then retailers sell, and the Governments seem to be unable or powerless to do anything to stop it. These phony and fake items not only hurt the consumer, they hurt the company who's good reputation is on the line, and they hurt the nations economy all the while boosting the economies of those countries who allow it to continue.

What is also bad, is the used market has these phony and fake items circulating around in it for years afterward so buyer beware.

For example, online there are posts about microphones where people knock a mic for not being any good, or comparison tests between mics, but who knows if the poster has a genuine or a fake one? Then, when it is posted as being bad or not very good, there are readers who can believe it. The company's reputation is tarnished and everything that goes along with that. Companies spend resources with their help desk and technical support trying to resolve problems.

In theory, the good part about companies improving their products is that forces the bootleggers to re-tool inorder to catch up. However, in the case of something like the iPhone, these guys have managed to find out about what the new phone is like and produce the fake one before the real one even hits the street!

And as for the memory card designations - it is difficult to keep up with all the class names and that was a good summary.

This Transcend UHS-3 card has been working for me: Transcend 128GB UHS-1 SDXC Memory Card (Speed Class 3)

I understand when you update you can then choose to record 4k at 60mbs or the new 100mbs. Does that mean you can still use your U1 cards in the 60mbs mode?

Yes, cards that worked before the v3 update will still work in 60Mbps mode.

For 100Mbps mode, I've been using a SanDisk Extreme PRO 95 MB/s 64GB SDXC I U3 card.

Mark

Just did my first shoot today with the new firmware, but on my end I didn't notice any difference with auto focus. It still sometimes gets confused and hunts alas, but I guess that's the nature of the beast with auto focus.

Hi gang,

But what about the video quality?
Can you see a difference now that you are shooting at 100 bits?

Just ordered a new UH-3 San Disk. While waiting, I tried setting the REC mode to 100Mbps using my current UH-1 disk and it worked!
But, a window appeared saying: Cannot record still images when set to 4k 100Mbps

This is the current UH-1 disk I'm using:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IF4O644/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Did a few sample test shots in 60Mbps and 100Mbps and played back the footage direct from my camera to my new SamSung Ultra 4k TV.

Image quality to my eyes was slightly sharper, but you'd have to look really good.
If you're uploading to YouTube, I doubt that you'll be able to see it once they compress it.
I'll try this later.

Just shot some video in 60bit and in 100bit to compare.
Here's is a link to the video:

Sony FDR-AX100 Update Version Bitrate Test - YouTube

Hi gang,

But what about the video quality?
Can you see a difference now that you are shooting at 100 bits?

Derrick - theory aside, I can share with you my experience when after having used my EX1 for some time (1080p 4:2:0 @ 35 Mbps), I saw the 100 Mbps (and higher) 4:2:2 recordings of the same scenes (simultaneous recording) from my nanoFlash. The nanoFlash gave me 4:2:2 color resolution which was clearly visible (much nicer) on a large plasma screen; the XAVC-S codec of the AX100 is only 4:2:0 even at 100 Mbps but the bitrate difference *alone* is worth every penny! (I'm using my EX1->nanoFlash analogy as I don't yet have the AX100, or any 4k camera for that matter).

Just think about it this way: divide v2 60 Mbps by 4 (as 4k is four times the resolution of HD) - you get just 15 Mbps. With v3, at 100 Mbps, it's as if you recorded HD at 25 Mbps. Now think: 15 Mbps is a bare minimum for 4:2:0 1080p, while 25 Mbps is already what we're putting on Blu Ray disks - this tells a lot about the difference in PQ you're concerned about...

The major difference between 60 and 100mbs you will start to see on high detailed moving shots, there will be less macroblocking but I"m sure if you let 100 people look at a 60 vs 100mbs recording with the ax100 no-one will notice the difference.

But what about the video quality?
Can you see a difference now that you are shooting at 100 bits?

I mostly see a difference during editing when the camera pans, you can see the 60mbps codec breakdown more during that. But when watching footage normally on a tv I find it personally tough to spot the difference between 60mbps and 100mbps in the typical indoor scenarios I film, although I'm sure there's a torture test example out there like filming water with many trees on a windy day, etc, that would demonstrate more of a difference.

Here's a test I did of the 60/100Mbps modes.

FDR-AX100 Test - 60Mbps vs 100Mbps on Vimeo

I can't tell the difference with static scenes. I am on travel and couldn't bring a proper video fluid head, so I didn't do any panning shots, nor any scenes with branches, etc., just some props provided by the hotel. I did expect some differences to come out after doing some video effects to the footage in Vegas Pro, but I didn't see any differences there either.

Be sure to click on the HD icon for higher quality video. Shot in 4K, rendered to HD.

Mark

I suspect if any difference there is it would be minute to the point further re-encoding or re-compression e.g. YouTube posting or down scaling would likely make it unnoticeable. For instance, in the YouTube video posted by Derrick Mau above, I saw no difference. However, since the scenes are mostly static there might be something we could tell if some fast subject or camera movement had been included.

In the scenario where people only use 4k picture to pan&scan for the right 1920x1080 fragment to use in their 1080p projects, I'm more than positive you will see a difference - especially with grass, tree foliage and alike.

Here's a test I did of the 60/100Mbps modes.

FDR-AX100 Test - 60Mbps vs 100Mbps on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/122854245)

I can't tell the difference with static scenes. I am on travel and couldn't bring a proper video fluid head, so I didn't do any panning shots, nor any scenes with branches, etc., just some props provided by the hotel. I did expect some differences to come out after doing some video effects to the footage in Vegas Pro, but I didn't see any differences there either.

Be sure to click on the HD icon for higher quality video. Shot in 4K, rendered to HD.

Mark

Thanks Mark. Unfortunately the rendering to 1080p, together with the use of "mostly static" footage makes very difficult to spot any difference between 60Mbit and 100Mbit. May I suggest you shoot more "normal" footage and to uploade the 4K "RAW data " to Vimeo?

What I do want to know is if the higher bitrate has any effect on the noise this camera produces, something I plan on testing today since I have the camera.

What I do want to know is if the higher bitrate has any effect on the noise this camera produces, something I plan on testing today since I have the camera.

As far as noise is concerned, be prepared for actual increase of its "definition" in higher bitrate; more compression=good denoising filter...

Thanks Mark. Unfortunately the rendering to 1080p, together with the use of "mostly static" footage makes very difficult to spot any difference between 60Mbit and 100Mbit. May I suggest you shoot more "normal" footage and to uploade the 4K "RAW data " to Vimeo?


I can do that once I get back from my trip. Will try to have it posted by next weekend. Scenes with motion, some panning/slider shots, shots with lots of detail.

Mark

I can do that once I get back from my trip. Will try to have it posted by next weekend. Scenes with motion, some panning/slider shots, shots with lots of detail.

Mark

That would be cool, thanks!

We have had the 100Mbps update for a few weeks now and I thought I would ask if anyone has really seen any difference other than a doubling of the storage required. I have not seen any perceptible difference in any of the posted on-line comparisons. Last weekend I took some footage at a wedding and used 60Mbps, it stood up well to some increase in saturation in post and overall I am very pleased with the results. Auto focus only hesitated a couple of times (indoors) and hung on to the foreground faces. The challenge in editing was to make the best quality DVD with minimal shimmer in leaves/gravel outside. I found 'video to video converter' with 2 pass encoding to down res the 4K to give the best results.

The search continues...
I am working on a follow-up video, but the clips I've shot so far don't show any difference. I shot trains, palm trees, water fountains at a park, did a fast pan of a flower bed... not seeing any difference. My 1:20 video is 1GB in size already. I'll have it uploaded tomorrow sometime after I add one more scene with motion. I'm not sure what good all those extra bits are doing.

Mark

Hi Mark,

do you have a UHD monitor or a 1080p only? I ask because I wonder whether the reason for not being able to see the difference (even in fast moving footage) may be the monitor....I mean....albeit I have only a 1080p monitor, I can see the difference when I shot 1080p or 4K, but I cannot see well enough the 4K video and hence I also can not spot difference between the "almost" same footage at 60Mbit vs 100Mbit.

I believe that in theory the difference would be similar to the one we get with a 1080p at 15Mbit vs the same at 25Mbit....not a huge difference in bitrate, but still almost the double....I would bet I should see some difference....(I am puzzle)

Even if indeed there is not much difference between 4k @ 60 Mbps and 100 Mbps on a large screen, watched from the right distance (meaning just 1m for a 50" display) - which I doubt seriously - please do not forget that if your plan is to use 4k for 1080p projects (and use pan & scan cropping on the 4k material) - than those cropped "windows" will most certainly look better with much less compression artefacts visible if they are 100 Mbps.

But as I said - having experience on various bitrates on my nanoFlash (and that is for 1080p) - I am 100% positive that even full-frame 100 Mbps will look better with lots of "micromotion" (foliage in the wind, water splashes and waves, and alike).

Hi Mark,

do you have a UHD monitor or a 1080p only? I ask because I wonder whether the reason for not being able to see the difference (even in fast moving footage) may be the monitor....I mean....albeit I have only a 1080p monitor, I can see the difference when I shot 1080p or 4K, but I cannot see well enough the 4K video and hence I also can not spot difference between the "almost" same footage at 60Mbit vs 100Mbit.

I believe that in theory the difference would be similar to the one we get with a 1080p at 15Mbit vs the same at 25Mbit....not a huge difference in bitrate, but still almost the double....I would bet I should see some difference....(I am puzzle)

No, I don't have a UHD/4K monitor or TV. For now, I just want to see a difference on my computer screen and 1080P TV. I've watched YouTube videos of other camera tests for this type of thing and had no trouble seeing the difference.

Mark

Got it. I will also check for similar comparison on either Vimeo or Youtube (I also do not have a UHD monitor...even if the recent ones are not so expensive and I am considering.... :-) )

I'm no expert, but I believe the amount of difference depends greatly on the nature of your subject and lighting conditions.

Extremely detailed objects such as leaves, grass, should show a difference, as someone else has pointed out in a simlilar thread.

Well lit footage of a calm ocean or solid objects, I suspect, will look about the same both ways.

I believe footage shot in poorly lit conditions can benefit from the extra information, and should accept touch ups and FX much better as well, at least that's my understanding.

Hey Mark
Get a 4k monitor
It will blow your mind

AX100 Bit Rate Test II on Vimeo

Another test, with some trees, water, moving objects, a panning (fast) shot and a slider shot.
No cropping or adjustments made, just editing cuts. Was uploaded to Vimeo as UHD, so if one wants to download in original resolution, they can. It's a big file though.

Mark

Thanks for the upload Mark - for me the section that may show the most difference between the 2 bitrates is the shot of trees between 1:10 & 1:20.

However the downloaded file from Vimeo unfortunately only has a bitrate of 22mbps so doesn't quite work unfortunately.

Would it be possible to do a full res screen grab of your video at say 1:25:00 - that should help show up some artefacts?

Many thanks!

I can see no observable difference between the two, seems to be no good reason to shoot in 100mbps especially with the significant increase in memory required.

Paul,

I wasn't able to upload the screen-shot of the tree until I re-sized it to 50%. Not sure why it wouldn't go at original size since it was well within the size limits listed for .jpg files.

I have also uploaded a screen shot of the toy train that is cropped in quite a bit.

I took 4 screen shots of the tree clip and it does consistently show that the left side holds up better when I magnify in. The 60Mbps looks more "muddier" and pixelated.


Mark

I can see no observable difference between the two, seems to be no good reason to shoot in 100mbps especially with the significant increase in memory required.

Andy, I agree. It's really a minor improvement and what that means to me is I won't be buying any of them 256GB cards just yet (too late about the 128GB cards, jumped the gun and bought one already).

On the bright side, at least they didn't charge us for that upgrade.


Mark

I think it may make a difference if one is cropping/panning the image to 1920x1080 and then further processing in edit. Especially if like me you would like to use Respeeder to create a 60P file. The interpolated frames should be better with the finer detail.

Ron Evans

Not familiar with Respeeder but I have Twixtor for creating slow motion. Would be great if there's a noticeable improvement there. Even on static scenes, if I crop in to a ridiculous size, like SD, I can tell that the 100Mbps is less pixelated than the 60Mbps. But I think for 95% of what I typically do with the camera, nobody will know the difference. Great little camera that fits in my dSLR bag along with the 6D. (Man, I haven't picked up my XF305 in awhile now.)


Mark

I agree that the difference is less obvious than I expected, and much less obvious when viewing video rather than screen captures.

I have the X70, and since its upcoming 4K upgrade has been announced as 60 Mbps rather than 100, these clips raise the likelihood (pending seeing actual footage) of my purchasing that upgrade from 40% to 50%. In other words, it's not a deal breaker for me given the things I shoot.

Had the X70 4K upgrade been for 4:2:2, I would then say the differences would be more visible. But then, at only 60 Mbps, the compression ratio would be quite high.

Seriously You need a 4k monitor
There's a reason the 100mbs is only available in uhd
You wouldn't shoot hd to view on a uhd monitor and viceversa

Paul,

I wasn't able to upload the screen-shot of the tree until I re-sized it to 50%. Not sure why it wouldn't go at original size since it was well within the size limits listed for .jpg files.

I have also uploaded a screen shot of the toy train that is cropped in quite a bit.

I took 4 screen shots of the tree clip and it does consistently show that the left side holds up better when I magnify in. The 60Mbps looks more "muddier" and pixelated.


Mark

Thanks for that Mark - yes it does show a marked improvement, interesting!