Paul, it's not released yet. This week's free firmware 2.0 will be required for the 4K update which is rumored for June 15. Undocumented fixes in 2.0 include that XAVC-L is finally natively compatible with FCPX, and it offers a fix for a rare problem of the camera locking up when shooting with 2 cards simultaneously.

Oh, OK, my demo would be for June 30, so let's see how that works out.

Paul

Hello,

has some technical answers, i own service manuals of CX900, AX100 and X70. All this camcorders is basicaly indentical inside, but has some little difference. Main difference is CPU, CX900 and AX100 use same cpu called IC6000 MSZ4G4G02C , this is CPU, CAMERA DSP, AV SIGNAL PROCESS, LENS CONTROL, MODE CONTROL, HDMI PROCESS. X70 has this CPU called IC6000 MHZ4G8G11A, internal specification say of this cpu more performance, more features as in CX900, AX100. Sony says about bitrate "We are looking to support a higher bit-rate recording mode than 60 Mbps for 3840x2160 XAVC-L in the future."

I think all is marketing and want sell more ax100, then add more bitrate.

And this is more specification about cmos chip in CX900 AX100 X70, btw. this chip can do 4K video mode (4096H × 2160V, 60 frame/s)

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/new_pro/may_2014/imx183_e.html

Since 100Mb/s is already "in" the AX100 (and looks excellent), as well as the "consumer" AX33 and X1000 Actioncam (looks OK, but limited by the tiny sensor, IMO), there really shouldn't be any reason the X70 doesn't get that rate when 4K is added, IMO.

Interesting speculation that Sony "could" squeeze even a bit more out of the processor/sensor combo... UHD, 60P at higher bitrates... hmmmm. Oh to have a "fly on the wall" at the Sony "mad scientist laboratory"!

Dave, +1

I might buy into the fact that the X70 needs a higher CPU than the AX100.

4K Codec aside, it's possible that the X70 truly IS doing more calculations per second than the AX100. I'm sure picture profiles, dual card writing with proxy, WiFi control with streaming encoding all eat more CPU cycles.

In fact, I have both models right here next to me and I have been doing back and forth testing this weekend. The X70 certainly eats Sony VF100 batteries SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the AX100. I have noticed this with three different Sony batteries. I'd guess that the X70 drains batteries 35% (or more) faster when shooting 1080 than the AX100 does in 4K. I was quite surprised by this.

Could this X70's higher processor have more cores or run at higher clock speeds?

I have said this before, if the X70 needs WiFi control, face tracking, proxy and dual card recording and IP streaming shut off to achieve reliable 100Mbp/s 4K?...I think it's absolutely worth it. How often does anybody control their X70 with the mobile app? How many people do IP streaming? How often do you use the cameras codec?...every day you shoot, right?

Without a solid recording codec, you have nothing in any camera.

So Sony have just released the RX10 mk2 & the RX100 mk4 Pocket camera - both with 100mbps 4k recording & we have to pay £499 for ****ing 60mbps. Seriously now considering selling my X70's & buying some JVC's

The new NX100 uses the older NP760 batteries which are much larger and maybe is a better form factor for the X70. Again not sure the logic of Sony product management/marketing is at the moment. Seems to me a more feature rich version of the NX100 would be a better model than the X70 and therefore not need the X70 in the lineup at all.

Ron Evans

Don't forget that although 60mbps is low - it doesn't quite equate to 15mbps at Full HD due to the compression algorithms (IIRC the maths from a sony seminar when HD first came out - it would actually be a little higher than 15mbps as an equivalent!)

Actually - No, who am I trying to kid??, it's uselessly low & It should be a minimum of 100mbps.

Grab the torches & pitchforks and we'll all meet up outside the Sony HQ!!


I know the math, but, respectfully, do you know the images? I am shooting 60 Mbps 4K with the X70 and it looks OUTSTANDING. I viewed a lot of my footage on a 4K monitor with a respected colleague and we did not observe said compression artifacting. (I own an F55 and have shot many 4K Raw and S-Log projects, so I have a very good basis for comparison.) The bottom line is not algorithms and equations, but how the images actually LOOK, and is your client and audience happy with them. All else is purely academic.

Here is some of that 4K footage (obviously compressed for YouTube):

Sony PXW-X70 4K field test: Jody Eldred DP/Editor - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx3t3bLS-fo&feature=youtu.be

Meanwhile back at the ranch... the Sony X70 shoots 'em up in 4K - YouTube

As an extremely rough "rule of thumb" with h.264:

If you have 1080 at 30p encoded at 24Mbps "AVCHD", you get a certain quality. If you multiply that times "4" for UHD resolution, you get "roughly" the same quality equivalent in UHD. (Yes, I know with Long GOP and block size, this is a bit debatable)

So....

100Mbp/s UHD is similar to 25Mbp/s in 1080p

60Mbp/s UHD is similar to 15Mbp/s in 1080p

"Similar to..." simply means the codec's ability to deal with motion and sharpness per pixel blocks. I'm fairly certain the block size and math stays the same with H.264 no mater it's resolution. In other words, h.264 doesn't really get significantly more "efficient" as the frame size gets larger or smaller, (1080 to UHD using the same baseline,Main or high profiles with CABAC enabled )

This is not just "math"...it's also very visually evident when you compare with your eyes...especially on zoom/crops. Color grading the two bit rates is also VERY different as well.

So yeah, UHD at 60Mbp/s is really only 15Mbp/s per 1080 quadrent...very low indeed and this is why No Panasonic, Canon, JVC or any other Sony camera uses 60Mbp/s today!!!! (and with very good reason)

At 60Mbp/s, the PXW-X70 is really sitting all by itself at the BOTTOM of the industry UHD bitrate list. It is using a bitrate that even the cheapest consumer camcorders stay far away from.

Math is one thing, but have you SEEN the 4K images? Don't you think that calling out Sony as having a worthless codec and a poor quality camera simply on calculations and not actual experience is perhaps a bit specious?

:-P

I am shooting 60 Mbps 4K with the X70 and it looks OUTSTANDING. I viewed a lot of my footage on a 4K monitor with a respected colleague here in Los Angeles and we did not observe said compression artifacting. (I own an F55 and have shot many 4K Raw and S-Log projects, so I have a very good basis for comparison.) The bottom line is not algorithms and equations, but how the images ultimately LOOK, and is your client and audience happy with them. All else is purely academic.

(I must remind everyone here: this is a $2,000 camera, plus the upgrade. If you want more firepower, it's available in the FS7, the F5, and the F55. But you're going to pay 4x, 8x, 15x as much, plus lenses. The X70 is absolutely amazing, especially for the price.)

Here is some of that 4K footage (obviously compressed for YouTube):

Sony PXW-X70 4K field test: Jody Eldred DP/Editor - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx3t3bLS-fo&feature=youtu.be

Meanwhile back at the ranch... the Sony X70 shoots 'em up in 4K - YouTube

Rough calculations taking into account that both sets of footage would be 8-bit 4:2:0

Your AVCHD 1080/50p @ 28 Mbps would have a compression ratio of 42:1
The UHD/25p @ 60 Mbps should have a compression ratio of 39:1

For the compression ratio, I took the number of bits required to store one second worth of the footage in 8-bit 4:2:0. Then divided by the recording bit rate.

Is the AVCHD footage at 50p really just using 28 Mbps though? I had thought it would be more like 35.
Sorry, but that argument is missing something vital - namely that going from 25p to 50p will almost certainly mean keeping the GOP-interval constant with respect to TIME - and hence the number of frames per GOP will change.

Numerical compression ratios don't tell the whole story in isolation - raise the number of frames in each GOP, and a higher (numerical) simple compression ratio will give equivalent quality per frame.

So it's likely that the time interval between I-frames will be 1/2 second in each case - which implies 12 frames per GOP for 25p, and 24 for 50p. Since the datarate in the difference frames is small compared to I-frames - and the number of I-frames/sec is 2 in each case - it follows the overall datarate won't need to increase very much between 25p and 50p for equivalent quality. Hence why "only" 28Mbs for 50p AVC-HD.

As for the ratios of HD:4K, then again (for equivalent quality) data rates don't scale up linearly with no of pixels. More pixels means more potential redundancy in the image for the compressor to exploit, so no, 4x as many pixels shouldn't mean 4x the datarate. (You can test the theory in Photoshop - start off with a high res image, then have a few downscaled versions, and compress them all to JPEG with the same quality setting in each case. I think you'll find that the compressed file sizes don't scale linearly with the image sizes.)

As per David's comments on scaling data rate to frame size, Jan Ozer wrote this interesting article some years back.

"Microsoft’s Ben Waggoner, a respected compressionist, uses the power of .75 rule. Here’s a snippet of an email he sent to me explaining the rule.

Using the old "power of 0.75" rule, content that looks good with 500 Kbps at 640x360 would need (1280x720)/(640x360)^0.75*500=1414 Kbps at 1280x720 to achieve roughly the same quality."

The Essential Key to Producing High Quality Streaming Video (http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/blogs/the-essential-key-to-producing-high-quality-streaming-video.html)

The bottom line is not algorithms and equations, but how the images ultimately LOOK, and is your client and audience happy with them. All else is purely academic.
That hits the nail on the head - well said!

That's what we all want...great or at least equivalent image quality with small file sizes. Hopefully, Sony will live up to it's design vision and the XAVC long GOP (MXF version) will outperform the rest of the XAVC-S version codecs and at historically low(er) Bit Rates which will directly help keep the file sizes manageable.

They have been describing this vision for two years. The promise of the XAVC chip has all been part of their plan. Better chips, better battery life, and better algorithms have been promised. Let's hope that this is a harbinger of what the X70 can deliver--at 4-2-0 no less. The jury is in deliberation and the verdict is near!

Traditional views of Bit Rates alone no longer tell the story.

Looks like my upgrade license shipped today with an expected arrival date of July 6th! woohoo!

Mine shipped as well, and I didn't order from B&H until four days ago.

Edit: mine will also arrive Friday, and B&H has already kindly emailed the rebate form.

Mine is supposed to arrive on Friday AM from B&H!!!

That's what we all want...great or at least equivalent image quality with small file sizes. Hopefully, Sony will live up to it's design vision and the XAVC long GOP (MXF version) will outperform the rest of the XAVC-S version codecs and at historically low(er) Bit Rates which will directly help keep the file sizes manageable.

They have been describing this vision for two years. The promise of the XAVC chip has all been part of their plan. Better chips, better battery life, and better algorithms have been promised. Let's hope that this is a harbinger of what the X70 can deliver--at 4-2-0 no less. The jury is in deliberation and the verdict is near!

Traditional views of Bit Rates alone no longer tell the story.

Allot of people believe that XAVC is an actual "codec". However, it's really just using the industry standard MPEG h.264 compression. There is nothing in XAVC- I, S or L that goes beyond the standard h.264 algorithm. Yes, Sony does have some patented VBR encoding tricks and some look ahead optimization. However, it does NOT "exceed" the h.264 standard and does not include any new mathematics that go outside the official h.264 spec. (Something that ALL companies that employ h.264 have full access to...not just Sony)

Sony's XAVC-S, I and L are all mostly folder structure and container specifications. The Sony XAVC standard specifies metadata storage too. But these, of course don't affect the picture quality of the image.

So, to sum up: "XAVC-x" is a "format/container standard" that uses the MPEG h.264 standard as its "codec" of choice.

60Mbp/s is still way too low. This Pro XDCAM camera should NOT be FAR below all other 4k cameras on the market today. It's a shame that even the cheapest industry consumer 4k cameras ALL exceed the X70 with 100Mbp/s.

As per David's comments on scaling data rate to frame size, Jan Ozer wrote this interesting article some years back.

"Microsoft’s Ben Waggoner, a respected compressionist, uses the power of .75 rule. Here’s a snippet of an email he sent to me explaining the rule.

Using the old "power of 0.75" rule, content that looks good with 500 Kbps at 640x360 would need (1280x720)/(640x360)^0.75*500=1414 Kbps at 1280x720 to achieve roughly the same quality."

The Essential Key to Producing High Quality Streaming Video (http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/blogs/the-essential-key-to-producing-high-quality-streaming-video.html)

Yet, it's a statistical fast that no other company, Panasonic, Canon or JVC use 60Mbp/s for 4k recording. Not even any other Sony camera today used 60Mbp/s. (No,..not even the cheapest entry level Handycams)

The industry has basically chosen 100Mbp/s or higher for even the cheapest 4k consumer models. Even Sony's tiny "Action Cam" records 4k at 100Mbp/s.

This rule might work ok for simple "viewing" purposes. However, in post production and editing, the lower the bitrate, the faster it will break when color correction or gamma bending/stretching is applied.

Color grading is FAR more demanding of a codec than just simple "viewing" of the video.

Again, this is why no other 4k camera in the industry records at 60Mbp/s.

The Sony PXW-X70 is all buy itself at the bottom of the list.

Allot of people believe that XAVC is an actual "codec". However, it's really just using the industry standard MPEG h.264 compression. There is nothing in XAVC- I, S or L that goes beyond the standard h.264 algorithm.
But there is no "standard" MPEG H264 compression. Any standard defines how to decode an H264 signal, it only defines coding in so far it has to meet the decode criteria. Hence XAVC is a subset of H264 - it does define how the signal is to be coded, and all the tricks to be used. The result has to be H264 decoder compliant, yes, but saying "it's XAVC" says so much more than saying "it's H264", and that goes way beyond wrappers and containers.

I like to think of it as baking a cake. To meet consumer standards to call a product "a cake" means it must meet certain criteria (and in the UK, it has big tax implications whether it's a cake or a biscuit, but I digress..... :-) ) But there are many, many different ways to bake a cake, and many different ingredients which may or may not be used. Think of H264 as "a cake", and XAVC as "a Victoria sponge".

If you want an illustration, just look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Levels and the table labelled "Software encoder feature comparison". It compares various software encoders - which will all produce an H264 compliant file - but they don't all use anything like all the possibilities that the standard is capable of, and consequently results will vary widely at the same bitrate. That's why you cannot talk of "the standard h.264 algorithm" in relation to a CODER.

It's like going into a shop and asking for "a cake". Do it a few times and you could come out with widely differing things - and some a lot better than others!!
Yes, Sony does have some patented VBR encoding tricks and some look ahead optimization. However, it does NOT "exceed" the h.264 standard and does not include any new mathematics that go outside the official h.264 spec. (Something that ALL companies that employ h.264 have full access to...not just Sony)
Other companies may have access to such mathematics and "tricks" - but that's not to say their products use them. That may be for a variety of reasons. If a defined subset of H264 (as XAVC is now) it's spec becomes fixed for a variety of reasons, or it may be that a given piece of equipment has a coder whose performance is limited by power, technology or whatever. The advantage Sony have with XAVC is that it's relatively recent, hence have been able to fix the latest levels and "tricks" in the spec.

Same with the varieties of XDCAM - they were MPEG2 at heart, but saying "MPEG2" only told you half the story. "XDCAM" defined a lot more. (Compare the relevant performance of HDV and XDCAM as codecs, for example.)

As for "is 60Mbs enough?", then all I'll say is that 60Mbs of XAVC is highly likely to be better than 60Mbs of other forms of (more basic!) H264 encoding! From a manufacturers point of view, then whilst one side may want to up the bitrate for quality reasons, another side may argue for keeping it down for reasons of cost (filesizes, speed of memory needed etc). Which is why you have to consider the market any product is in, it's cost, and what it's target customers are most likely to go with in terms of cost/performance.

David, I suspect you already know most of this but I will say it for the others reading who might not know.....

You are certainly right that CODING h.264 is different than DECODING it. And yes, manufacturers are free "play" with the CODING aspect all they want....with the limitation that whatever they CODE must be DECODED by a standard h.264 library.(circa 2003 or around there)

For instance, let's say Sony engineers came up with a new trigonometry calculation that improved edge sharpness 15%. Let's say they also modified the CABAC algorithm and CODED their XAVC with 3 new geometry equations to improve entropy block estimations by 10%. How wonderful!,..they just improved their XAVC/H.264 codec by a significant margin!!!

However,....

Once an h.264 library tries to DECODE it...what happens? The DECODING library tries to run the calculations against the "official" parameters that it's programmed with (dating back to 2003 or so) and suddenly hit's these new "Sony" mathematics and says: "What the heck are these calculations?....they are not in my DECODING library and I don't have the SOLUTION for them." And of course, the file is then completely unplayable.

Every calculation in XAVC MUST not include anything that is not in the MPEG h.264 library.

Another way to look at it: We all CODE and DECODE English every day. Here is a sentence I will CODE for everybody:


The brown dog ran around the "bruniwafllop" and then ran up the "gronoklipop" and saw his friend who barked at him "grunubvicaton" and then ran away.


Nobody is not able to DECODE my sentence because I CODED "proprietary" words (only I know) that are not in your translation DECODING library.

In the end, if Sony adds one single calculation that is NOT in MPEG h.264's pre-established library...than their video is simply no longer "h.264" and will not be DECODED by h.264 standards.

You are right about Sony pushing the limits on ENCODING. I don't think anybody does a better job than Sony in real time h.264 ENCODING. I don't know how many or what they exactly are but I know Sony has patented several techniques for doing it. I think they are VBR look-ahead tricks and some important things on real time, two pass filtering. (That's why when you hit "stop" button, the card light is still going for a second or two..it's a Sony write delay for improved VBR CODING)

In the word "CODEC" (Code & DECODE) the two processes must work 100% together and communicate with the same established h.264 library created in 2003. (or something like that)

I was on a global chat/presentation with Hugo Gagioni (Sony CTO) about XAVC. He stated to me that XAVC is 100% h.264 all the way.

Sony is definitely trying to market XAVC as best they can without talking too much about the h.264 part.

Bottom line: "XAVC" uses a sophisticated modern hardware chip set CODING process...that files that MUST be played back with an MPEG h.264 library that was created over 10 years ago.

Yet, it's a statistical fast that no other company, Panasonic, Canon or JVC use 60Mbp/s for 4k recording. Not even any other Sony camera today used 60Mbp/s. (No,..not even the cheapest entry level Handycams)

The industry has basically chosen 100Mbp/s or higher for even the cheapest 4k consumer models. Even Sony's tiny "Action Cam" records 4k at 100Mbp/s.

This rule might work ok for simple "viewing" purposes. However, in post production and editing, the lower the bitrate, the faster it will break when color correction or gamma bending/stretching is applied.

Color grading is FAR more demanding of a codec than just simple "viewing" of the video.

Again, this is why no other 4k camera in the industry records at 60Mbp/s.

The Sony PXW-X70 is all buy itself at the bottom of the list.
Except the GoPro Hero4 - that's 60mbps @ 4K :-)

lol,..yes, I stand corrected! ;-)

So the professional market Sony "XDCAM" PXW-X70 sit's at the bottom of the 4k camera industry bit rate list along side it's 60Mbp/s buddy,...the GoPro Hero 4.

Still,...very embarrassing, indeed!

Just get rid of your X70 and find another 4K camera with the more respectable bit rate, problem solved.
Sony said they were going to put 4K in the camera, and they did.
Don't buy a camera without the features you need and hope they will come out with a free firmware upgrade later.

Just sayin'

Mark

For instance, let's say Sony engineers came up with a new trigonometry calculation that improved edge sharpness 15%. Let's say they also modified the CABAC algorithm and CODED their XAVC with 3 new geometry equations to improve entropy block estimations by 10%. How wonderful!,..they just improved their XAVC/H.264 codec by a significant margin!!!

However,....

Once an h.264 library tries to DECODE it...what happens? The DECODING library tries to run the calculations against the "official" parameters that it's programmed with (dating back to 2003 or so) and ........
I don't disagree with what you're saying in general, but aren't you forgetting about the concept of levels, which I believe go a long way to counter exactly the problem you describe?

So decoders are split into various "levels" - a given level of decoder will decode all levels below it, but not above. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Levels

By standardising their H264 implementation relatively late, Sony (with XAVC) have been able to take advantage of the latest tricks, those corresponding to (I believe) level 5.2.

So in your above example, it's quite true if you tried to decode XAVC with a version of a decoder which only supported level up to 4.2 it wouldn't end well. Which is why if you want to use XAVC any NLE etc has to be "XAVC compliant". This is one reason why even if it will deal fine with another H264 variant, it may not handle XAVC or any other level 5.2 encoded H264.

If you like, a level 5.2 capable decoder is a version of your dictionary reprinted with the definitions of "bruniwafllop", "gronoklipop" and "grunubvicaton"! ( :-) )

It's worth then thinking about other forms of encoding based on H264. Can manufacturers not just incorporate the latest "tricks" in their latest products? The problem is that you could then end up with a state of affairs where consumers wouldn't know if their existing equipment could or could not work with a given product.

To take AVC-Intra as example, then I believe it's spec DEFINES it as being based on H264 level 4. If Panasonic was to now bring out a new camera and take advantage of level 5 "tricks" then it would be a recipe for confusion if it was still to be described as AVC-Intra. A broadcaster with a large AVC-Intra based post infra structure would suddenly find that any files produced by the newer camera wouldn't be usable by their existing system. Imagine they employing a freelancer with a newer camera - "is your camera capable of AVC-Intra recording?" - "yes" - ........ "your files appear to be faulty......."

And the same would apply to XAVC if some even newer techniques were to be developed - a "level 6" if you like. If such as Sony wanted to use them, the result wouldn't be XAVC. That's the whole point - "AVC-Intra" or "XAVC" etc defines which level is used, as well as a host of other factors.
Bottom line: "XAVC" uses a sophisticated modern hardware chip set CODING process...that files that MUST be played back with an MPEG h.264 library that was created over 10 years ago.
No, not true. Try decoding XAVC with an original H264 decoder from 2003 and you won't get very far! It has to have the capability of "knowing about" H264 level 5.2, which software from 2003 wouldn't have. (Though the converse would be true - a new version of a decoder should be able to play back a file created with a 2003 encoder.) And all this is before we even start to think about different H264 profiles........

Now just how much difference level 5.2 abilities etc do make I can't quantify. Would it, for example, at least make up for a drop from 100Mbs to 60Mbs, if the 100Mbs material was level 4 compliant? I can't give a direct answer to that, but as regards your comment that "Yet, it's a statistical fast that no other company, Panasonic, Canon or JVC use 60Mbp/s for 4k recording.", then whilst it may be factually accurate, it doesn't really tell the whole story. If those companies are using encoders which comply to a lower level, any 60:100 comparison tells you nothing in isolation. (Other than that 60Mbs will be far more tolerant of media write speed, and give smaller file sizes. :-) )

And we al know XAVC of the same flavor is always fully compatible with the various NLE's. :-)

Paul

And we al know XAVC of the same flavor is always fully compatible with the various NLE's. :-)

Paul
But it may be for the reasons I say, it will rely on any NLE having the level 5.2 H264 ability for decoding amongst other things. And may need a given standard of hardware as well.

If a given NLE version states it's "XAVC compliant", then given adequate hardware that should be that. But no one should expect XAVC to work with earlier versions of the software.

Unfortunately it's a fact of life of going for " the latest and best" whether it be 4K, a new codec or whatever. The price you have to pay is a period of waiting for other factors to catch up.

And it reinforces what I said above about why a manufacturer can't tweak the spec of any existing codec like AVC-Intra or XAVC once finalised. It may be bad enough if you are running a system based on AVC-Intra to find it won't run XAVC - but just imagine the confusion if it would run AVC-Intra files from some cameras but not other (newer) ones.

I meant Sony just "modified" the XAVC-L in the X70 to make it work......obviously, people are messing with the internals of the levels, and ARE in fact messing up compatibility.

Paul

I don't disagree with what you're saying in general, but aren't you forgetting about the concept of levels, which I believe go a long way to counter exactly the problem you describe?

So decoders are split into various "levels" - a given level of decoder will decode all levels below it, but not above. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Levels

By standardising their H264 implementation relatively late, Sony (with XAVC) have been able to take advantage of the latest tricks, those corresponding to (I believe) level 5.2.

So in your above example, it's quite true if you tried to decode XAVC with a version of a decoder which only supported level up to 4.2 it wouldn't end well. Which is why if you want to use XAVC any NLE etc has to be "XAVC compliant". This is one reason why even if it will deal fine with another H264 variant, it may not handle XAVC or any other level 5.2 encoded H264.

If you like, a level 5.2 capable decoder is a version of your dictionary reprinted with the definitions of "bruniwafllop", "gronoklipop" and "grunubvicaton"! ( :-) )

It's worth then thinking about other forms of encoding based on H264. Can manufacturers not just incorporate the latest "tricks" in their latest products? The problem is that you could then end up with a state of affairs where consumers wouldn't know if their existing equipment could or could not work with a given product.

To take AVC-Intra as example, then I believe it's spec DEFINES it as being based on H264 level 4. If Panasonic was to now bring out a new camera and take advantage of level 5 "tricks" then it would be a recipe for confusion if it was still to be described as AVC-Intra. A broadcaster with a large AVC-Intra based post infra structure would suddenly find that any files produced by the newer camera wouldn't be usable by their existing system. Imagine they employing a freelancer with a newer camera - "is your camera capable of AVC-Intra recording?" - "yes" - ........ "your files appear to be faulty......."

And the same would apply to XAVC if some even newer techniques were to be developed - a "level 6" if you like. If such as Sony wanted to use them, the result wouldn't be XAVC. That's the whole point - "AVC-Intra" or "XAVC" etc defines which level is used, as well as a host of other factors.

No, not true. Try decoding XAVC with an original H264 decoder from 2003 and you won't get very far! It has to have the capability of "knowing about" H264 level 5.2, which software from 2003 wouldn't have. (Though the converse would be true - a new version of a decoder should be able to play back a file created with a 2003 encoder.) And all this is before we even start to think about different H264 profiles........

Now just how much difference level 5.2 abilities etc do make I can't quantify. Would it, for example, at least make up for a drop from 100Mbs to 60Mbs, if the 100Mbs material was level 4 compliant? I can't give a direct answer to that, but as regards your comment that "Yet, it's a statistical fast that no other company, Panasonic, Canon or JVC use 60Mbp/s for 4k recording.", then whilst it may be factually accurate, it doesn't really tell the whole story. If those companies are using encoders which comply to a lower level, any 60:100 comparison tells you nothing in isolation. (Other than that 60Mbs will be far more tolerant of media write speed, and give smaller file sizes. :-) )

I think you might be accidentally interchanging "profiles" with "levels".

"Levels" determine the restrictions for frame rate, frame size, chroma sub-sampling, and overall bit rate and stuff like that.

"Profiles" determine the amount of MPEG "tools" (calculation types) that the video is allowed to have from the established MPEG tool list. This is where the actual analysis and compression is done.

Many of the changes that have happened over recent years involve raising the "level " constraints. Each level is less and less "restricted", the higher it goes. A level 5.1 video does NOT mean that it's more "complex" than a level 5.0 video. It just means that it's less "constrained" and is allowed to exist in larger parameters if necessary. Larger frame sizes and faster frame rates means more calculations per second and certainly requires more CPU horsepower and data throughput.

Theoretically, MPEG could release a new level "6.0". This level could allow for 8k frame sizes with a new frame rate at 240p. with 2 gigabit maximum bit rate. The core tools in the chosen the MPEG "profile" are then simply scaled proportionally higher into the new "level" parameters. (Same calculations, just more of them per second) The h.264 CODEC tool sets aren't exactly "changing" it's just being scaled to a larger, higher level. Yes, "6.0" will prolly never happen, (because HEVC is taking it over from here on in). I'm just saying for the sake of discussion.

Changing "levels" is less difficult than changing "profiles". The heart of the CODEC is really in the "profiles" because that is where the meat and potatoes of the mathematics live. The "levels" are mostly just "scaling" the mathematics that is being done to fit into in the proper "level" restrictions.

Think of "levels" increases as a mathematical "restriction" or limit that has been raised. It allows the "profile" math to function inside larger parameters.

Again, the majority of the compression tool sets (all those crazy mathematics that do the magic...or "profiles") was done 10+ years ago. Throughout all the years, the "levels" have been raised higher and higher to allow those "profiles" and tools to exist and operate in bigger spaces. (higher levels) The changes in the past 10 years have mostly been minor. Things like frame packing 3D and multiview and lot's of size and bit rate increases.

Interesting enough,..h.264 is being replaced with h.265 (HEVC). H.265 is built directly on top of h.264. It contains many of h.264's existing tools and math but expands them much further and adds in new tools and even higher new levels limitations. MPEG could never have called this h.264 - Profile @"Super-Ultra-High" and Level 6.0. Why? Because it "breaks" the original h.264 tool and profile set. It not only exceeds 5.2 level limitations (no big deal) but it also "alters" the original CODEC profile math. Once you do that, you have just created a new codec.

Sorry if I stated the exact same thing in 3 different ways. I tend to be redundant sometimes. ;-)

All of this is a wonderful discussion but it doesn't change the fact that the Sony PXW-X70 "XDCAM" 4k/UHD camcorder sit's at the bottom of the industry list (along side the GoPro 4) in terms of bit rate. ;-)

60Mbp/s is just WAY too low. Sony, you are better than this. Show some respect for yourself and please fix this.....

I meant Sony just "modified" the XAVC-L in the X70 to make it work......obviously, people are messing with the internals of the levels, and ARE in fact messing up compatibility.

Paul

Interesting about the X70. If you inspect the original X70 firmware video files that it created...the METADATA was literally missing!!! It was "blank" and completely empty! No media flags at all.

Some NLE's require and read that metadata before you can decode it.Sony Vegas is one. If you completely strip the metadata from a video file, it cant play it.

Sony fixed this in the last X70 camera firmware. Now the files have the proper metadata included...total screw up on Sony's part. And, the fact that it too Sony 6 months to fix it?...wow, that is sad.

Remember, unpacking the file wrapper is an important part of playback. Unpacking .mp4 and playing the video is different than unpacking it in .mxf. (even though the h.264 codec inside is completely the same)

So yeah,..no h.264 codec problem there. It was totally an .MXF container screw up.

CT

Cliff

Sorry to correct you on this. You are not far off but I knew what the issue was back in early April but because of confidentiality requests from Sony I couldn't at the time mention what the problem was. I am frequently in a feedback loop with SCS on the software side. This stems from years back having been involved on their Beta test team. Now that the issue of X70 footage being accepted by most NLEs is resolved I feel I can quote verbatim information from a heads up I received in early April.

-------------------------

"Update: We found out that the camera team was aware of this and that it is a problem with the SMDK (development kit). They are building a new release that among other things will: "Remove assertion failure when parsing invalid descriptive metadata."

Which is what we were experiencing – invalid metadata from the older SMDK. Once we get that it will have to be implemented and then go through QA again to make sure there are no regressions. So, not a quick turn-around but hopefully this update will fix the problem.

-------------------------

So the metadata wasn't 'blank' its just an unfortunate fact that in the case of the X70 its development was done with an older version of the SMDK and some of the metadata involved with that meant that the later software developments would see this data as invalid. This causing the importation of the X70 files to be aborted.

I'll also add that David is very much on track with his comments about the later implementation of levels such as 5.2. and the compliance issues surrounding the use of these levels across various platforms and software. In consumer equipment where manufactures don't have to worry too much about cross platform, equipment and software compatibility manufactures have a freedom to introduce changes fairly quickly. Changes that cannot happen as quickly when SMPTE ratified standards such as AVC-Intra and XAVC are involved. All changes to ratified SMPTE standards have to be tested, accepted and ratified again by SMPTE before they can be brought to the broadcast market. Well that's generally the case if the manufacture wants their equipment to be accepted as 'meeting' the standard.

As David alluded to this ensures that there is full compatibility across all equipment and software platforms. This of course all takes time and is one of the reasons that changes and development in cameras such as the X70, the baby of the broadcast family, will lag behind their cousins that run in that juggernaut that is the retail consumer camera market which is driven by very competitive 'one jump ahead of the competition' marketing.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

lol,..yes, I stand corrected! ;-)

So the professional market Sony "XDCAM" PXW-X70 sit's at the bottom of the 4k camera industry bit rate list along side it's 60Mbp/s buddy,...the GoPro Hero 4.

Still,...very embarrassing, indeed!

Cliff - I just came across this while searching for a better (less complicated) upgrade installation pathway for the 4K X70 upgrade. This is from the UK Sony website describing various software upgrades for Sony cameras. Please note the footnote down at the bottom.

PXW-X70 Firmware V2.0
Upgrade includes chargeable element and will be available June 2015

New Features & Improvements:

Support for 4K (QFHD) Recording (optional)
This 4K recording update provides support for QFHD shooting at 30p/25p/24p, allowing the X70 to capture scenes with stunning quality and at high resolution*. Furthermore, for projects finalized in HD, 4K recording greatly expands the creative possibilities by enabling digital panning, camera-shake correction and other post-production effects. NOTE: 4K recording requires purchase of the 4K Upgrade License (CBKZ-X70FX).

Format

Resolution

Wrap

Quality

Frame Rate

Bit Rate

XAVC-L

3840x 2160

MXF

4:2:08bit

29.97p

60Mbps

23.98p

60Mbps25p

60Mbps

*We are looking to support a higher bit-rate recording mode than 60 Mbps for 3840x2160 XAVC-L in the future.



So there is hope - if the AX100 already has 100Mbps then it should be 100 on the X70 - maybe even 150 unless there are mechanical limitations like overheating etc.

Pardon my ignorance but does the flavor of XAVC used in the X70 allow for 10 bit and 4:2:2 for 4K ?

Nope, UHD/4K on the X70 is only 4:2:0. 8 bit. (supposedly the HDMI is 4:2:2, 8 bit though)

Yes, I have known about their "possible, maybe, might, could someday have a chance of higher bitrate" statement. It's not very reassuring and is no way any actual commitment on Sony's part.

If they do manage to get a higher bitrate, I'd be shocked if they did anything other than 100Mbp/s. (Even though Sony's direct JVC competitor does 150Mbp/s)

It's just sad to see a professional market "XDCAM" CODEC getting passed by cheap "HandyCams" and "Action Cam" CODECs

I'd love to see Sony fix this so we can all forget about this screw up and try to pretend that it never happened and never speak of it again.

It's literally a disgrace today.

But you forget it is wrapped in "professional" MXF wrapper. The consumer models are wrapped in civilian non professional mp4 wrappers. How does that saying go......you can polish a turd?

Paul

I'll take the .mp4 wrapper over .mxf any day. .Mp4 is practically universal. Everything can play it. .Mxf?..a complety different story.

I'm not even sure why .mxf is considered the more desirable container. .mp4 is used professionly on other cameras like JVC and even on SxS cards with XDCAM.

60Mbp/s is just WAY too low. Sony, you are better than this. Show some respect for yourself and please fix this.....

While I totally agree with the above statement (and not just basing on the "more is better" rule) - I wonder about several things. We all remember the time when nanoFlash unleashed very high bitrates to the average Joe cameraman, making it possible to record as high as 180 Mbps (L-GOP) or even 280 Mbps (I-frame) for the first time, using practically any camera with SDI/HDMI output. What happened then was a big disappointment in the actual quality of that high data rate material - I remember endless discussions on how the 180 Mbps version of the (then a top quality) EX1 became even more noisy than its internally compressed and recorded, 35 Mbps, version... The bottom line being that - with too much noise to start with - a more compression recording acted as sort of a filter, apparently making the image a tad softer but at the same time, more than a tad noise-free! At least this has been my conclusion of in-depth testing the high bitrate nanoFlash files...

So, a question now comes to my mind: did any of you - AX100 and X70 owners - compare the AX100, 100 Mbps stuff with the 60 Mbps X70 material with the above in mind? With a mediocre camera systems like those two, a very fine line exists somewhere that separates the low bitrate, compression artefact prone and difficult to grade stuff - from that with higher bitrate, less compression artefact, easier to grade but perhaps more noisy in the first place... I'm just asking, as I never had the opportunity to watch any of them like it should be watched - large display with full UHD support.

Doesn't the 60 Mbps stuff show less noise than its 100 Mbps version? With just a little penalty of compression artefacts that many don't even see at all?!!

One has to compare apples with apples. I don't know the details about the 4K implementation on the X70 as yet but comparing the technical difference between the MP4 50-mbit HD of the JVC GY-LS300 and the MXF 50-mbit HD off the X70 shows a world of difference just between those two examples not withstanding that one is 8-bit and the other 10-bit.

The JVC:

Video

Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : QuickTime
Codec ID : qt
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 49.8 Mbps
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High 4:2:2@L4.2
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
Format settings, GOP : M=3, N=24
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding

The Sony:

Video

Format : MXF
Format version : 1.3
Format profile : OP-1a
Format settings : Closed / Complete
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 54.2 Mbps
Writing application : Sony Mem 2.00
ID : 2
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High 4:2:2@L4.2
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
Format settings, GOP : M=3, N=12
Format settings, wrapping mode : Frame
Codec ID : 0D01030102106001-0401020201316001

On the JVC you will notice two major and I mean in the terms of H.264 encoding major differences.
Firstly the JVC does not appear to be employing Context-Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding, CABAC in other words, the Sony is. The JVC Long GOP is encoding an 'I' frame at every 24 (N=24) frames whereas the Sony is encoding an 'I' frame every 12 (N=12) frames which is twice as efficient in terms of prediction accuracy between 'I' frames.

A brief overview of CABAC efficiency over the VLC (Variable Length Code) that the JVC seems to be employing:

CABAC entropy coding method is part of the Main Profile of H.264/AVC and has found its way into video streaming, broadcast and storage applications within this profile.

Results have shown the superior performance of CABAC in comparison to the baseline entropy coding method of VLC/CAVLC. For typical test sequences in broadcast applications. Averaged bit-rate savings of 9% to 14% corresponding to a range of acceptable video quality of about 30–38 dB were obtained.

For the real background on CABAC go Fraunhofer the inventors of the scheme:

CABAC (http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/cabac.html)

Also bear in mind that the X70 is part of the Sony XDCam lineup and therefore uses the broadcast Material Exchange Format for its wrapper. Sony's AX100 uses the much simpler .MP4 wrapper but that no longer cuts it today in the XAVC broadcast world. XAVC-S in the consumer market is wrapped as .MP4.

In other words we all have to be careful not to put a too simplistic analysis on codec bit rates vis-a-vis one another when there are many other serious considerations that go into configuring an efficient and bit rate economical codec and its wrapper. it will be interesting to see what Sony have done with its UHD version for the X70. For me the X70 25/30p UHD holds very little interest. If I was to go that way it it would have to be a 50p version for me to be of any real benefit.

A full breakdown of the JVC and Sony 50-mbit codecs are attached in TXT form.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Many thanks Christopher for your post. I have taken the liberty of printing it out and intend to win a few beers with it someday soon.
Cheers
Brian

One has to compare apples with apples. I don't know the details about the 4K implementation on the X70 as yet but comparing the technical difference between the MP4 50-mbit HD of the JVC GY-LS300 and the MXF 50-mbit HD off the X70 shows a world of difference just between those two examples not withstanding that one is 8-bit and the other 10-bit.

The JVC:

Video

Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : QuickTime
Codec ID : qt
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 49.8 Mbps
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High 4:2:2@L4.2
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
Format settings, GOP : M=3, N=24
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding

The Sony:

Video

Format : MXF
Format version : 1.3
Format profile : OP-1a
Format settings : Closed / Complete
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 54.2 Mbps
Writing application : Sony Mem 2.00
ID : 2
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High 4:2:2@L4.2
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
Format settings, GOP : M=3, N=12
Format settings, wrapping mode : Frame
Codec ID : 0D01030102106001-0401020201316001

On the JVC you will notice two major and I mean in the terms of H.264 encoding major differences.
Firstly the JVC does not appear to be employing Context-Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding, CABAC in other words, the Sony is. The JVC Long GOP is encoding an 'I' frame at every 24 (N=24) frames whereas the Sony is encoding an 'I' frame every 12 (N=12) frames which is twice as efficient in terms of prediction accuracy between 'I' frames.

A brief overview of CABAC efficiency over the VLC (Variable Length Code) that the JVC seems to be employing:

CABAC entropy coding method is part of the Main Profile of H.264/AVC and has found its way into video streaming, broadcast and storage applications within this profile.

Results have shown the superior performance of CABAC in comparison to the baseline entropy coding method of VLC/CAVLC. For typical test sequences in broadcast applications. Averaged bit-rate savings of 9% to 14% corresponding to a range of acceptable video quality of about 30–38 dB were obtained.

For the real background on CABAC go Fraunhofer the inventors of the scheme:

CABAC (http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/cabac.html)

Also bear in mind that the X70 is part of the Sony XDCam lineup and therefore uses the broadcast Material Exchange Format for its wrapper. Sony's AX100 uses the much simpler .MP4 wrapper but that no longer cuts it today in the XAVC broadcast world. XAVC-S in the consumer market is wrapped as .MP4.

In other words we all have to be careful not to put a too simplistic analysis on codec bit rates vis-a-vis one another when there are many other serious considerations that go into configuring an efficient and bit rate economical codec and its wrapper. it will be interesting to see what Sony have done with its UHD version for the X70. For me the X70 25/30p UHD holds very little interest. If I was to go that way it it would have to be a 50p version for me to be of any real benefit.

A full breakdown of the JVC and Sony 50-mbit codecs are attached in TXT form.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney


It was common for manufacturers to use CALVC entropy scheme when h.264 was considered "difficult" to work with in the early years of the CODEC. CALVC required less CPU horsepower to use than CABAC did. However, today, I'm not sure why CALVC is still being used. Modern processors have caught up to CABAC and it's not longer a big issue to work with any more.

Totally spit-balling here but I'm wondering if CABAC requires and more expensive MPEG LA licensing fee to employ it? Maybe not. I have no idea why JVC is not using it. It's always been available to all manufacturers. You just needed the extra CPU power to work with it.

Sony has been using CABAC since the old AVCHD days of h.264....very strange on JVC's part.

As far as .mp4 vs .mxf. I still fail to see why the .mxf container is more "pro" than .mp4. Any company can pack the exact same CODEC specs and achieve the EXACT same image quality in either container. The image quality lies in the CODEC used. The container or wrapper has nothing to do with image quality at all.

.Mp4 is a pretty universal standard with extremely wide support. .MXF?...well yeah, it holds certain metadata in certain places but that is no benefit to me. In my opinion, .mp4 is just as "pro" as .mxf...so I don't know why Sony likes .MXF for XDCAM and .mp4 for Handycams and Alphas.

I don't know, it seems to be Sony marketing illusion?

Cliff no not quite.

"I don't know, it seems to be Sony marketing illusion?"

I think this misses the point about MXF. It goes way deeper than that. The prime reasons Sony and Panasonic use the MXF container is that:

"The Material eXchange Format (MXF) is a container format for professional digital video and audio media defined by a set of SMPTE standards.

The MXF is a "container" or "wrapper" format which supports a number of different streams of coded "essence", encoded in any of a variety of video and audio compression formats, together with a metadata wrapper which describes the material contained within the MXF file.

MXF has been designed to address a number of problems with non-professional formats. MXF has full time code and metadata support that is not supported in the generic MP4 container. MXF is intended as a platform-agnostic stable standard for future professional video and audio applications.

MXF was developed to carry a subset of the Advanced Authoring Format (AAF) data model, under a policy known as the Zero Divergence Directive (ZDD). This theoretically enables MXF/AAF workflows between non-linear editing (NLE) systems using AAF and cameras, servers, and other devices using MXF."

If you have ever had to export AAF (Advanced Authoring Format) files from an edit session for further work in Pro Tools you would then appreciate the ease of doing this when working with MXF files.

MXF was developed for the professional broadcast world. The reason why the X70 records MXF files is this little camera was dropped into the broadcast XDCam HD lineup. I am the first to agree that for users of this camera who aren't using the camera in a broadcast environment and who's footage isn't being used in a broadcast workflow then MXF wrapped files are totally unnecessary. MP4 is the way to go and that is exactly what you will find on the Sony AX100, MP4. On the other hand if you buy into a SMPTE ratified standard such as MXF you have to expect all that goes with that even if it's of little use to any particular user outside the broadcast industry.

As for the 4K upgrade on this camera it doesn't meet any broadcast UHD Tier 1 or Tier 2 camera requirement and therefore requires no ratification. Just look at its UHD '4K' as an an added bonus if you wish to make use of it. The primary purpose of this camera was to have a broadcast compliant MXF HD and I stress HD camera that was cheap, used cheap media, was easy to use and that could be put into the hands of video-journos, news self shooters etc of which there are more of these days.

If you are interested in the usefulness of MXF in the broadcast world it's pretty well covered in the attached PDFs. I found these docs fairly informative as we do sport and documentary work for broadcast. MXF is all we use for broadcast acquisition plus all our imported archive material for docs is converted to MXF on the fly via Blackmagic cards using Sony Vegas as Vegas can do real-time conversions to MXF. For our corporate work AVCHD with its basic .MTS wrapper is more than sufficient.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Yup. .MXF does have allot of metadata advantages over .MP4, no doubt. And, if you have a specific work flow built around .mxf, than yeah, you are in heaven with it. (For me as an event and corporate shooter, I'm just as fine with .mp4)

Ironically, the X70's original firmware screwed up it's .mxf implementation. I was shocked when I tried to pull a "MediaInfo" metadata list and saw that my .mxf files almost no data displayed at all. Sony did fix this in it's last X70 update. I'm still shocked as to how that one slipped through the Sony cracks. (and took sooooooo long to fix)

I think most of us know that the wrapper has no impact on the visual quality of the CODEC used. However, I still have people coming up to me and saying, "I think .MXF looks better than .MP4" I still have to shake my head and tell people "It's just a container, it's NOT the actual video CODEC"

Christopher, maybe you can shed some light on this about .MXF:

I don't know this as a fact but I have read that the container format DOES have an affect on the playback processing overhead. I have read that "unpacking" the CODEC form the file is not the same process across the different container formats. In other words, reading h.264 or MPEG2 from an .MOV, or MP4 or MTS or M2TS or any other of the dozen containers results in different amounts of CPU playback overhead. I have been told that MTS is the simplest but I know that supports muxing ability so I don't know.

Can anybody out there answer that? I have also read that reading a CODEC inside .MXF is a bit more processor taxing than other container formats.

I have always wondered the truth that question.....

CT

I'll say it again: most of this (ALL of this?) discussion is academic.

How many of you have actually viewed your 4K footage on a 4K monitor (even a consumer one?)
Did you see a lot of compression artifacting? Of course not.

To repeat: I projected my 4K X70 footage onto a 15-foot screen using a high-end professional 4K projector in the main color grading suite at Roush Media in Burbank. They grade feature films and TV, ranging from 35mm to Alexa, Red, FS700, Canon 5Ds, Canon C300s and C500s, and Sony F55s in 4K (XAVC, Log, Raw.) Sr. Colorist Keith Roush remarked that the footage from the X70 graded like images from the $16,000 (plus lenses) C500 and was very impressed. As was I. (And to repeat again, I own an F55 and have shot numerous 4K projects in the abovementioned color gamuts. So I have some perspective on this.)

You can talk numbers and algorithms all day long, but what it comes down to is "How does it actually LOOK?" In the demanding environment of that 4K color grading suite where EVERY fault is purposely revealed, the 4K X70 footage looked AMAZING... far better than it should for a $2,500 camera!

I'm certainly not saying it looks "bad". It actually looks OK. I have watched plenty of X70 4K footage on my 70 inch 4k consumer TV. Yes, you will see macro blocking on highly complex areas that have random motion. Tree branches and leaves in my forest shots will block up. Water and ocean wave splashes will too.

And yes, if you shoot with a desaturated, flat profile, you will notice more breakdown after to add the contrast and saturation back. You certainly don't need an expensive studio to see it. You are talking high-end Hollywood major Studio productions? If you brought 60Mbp/s to 99% of them, they'd laugh at you. Those guys don't want to see any long GOP 8 bit codec. They all want at least 10 4:2:2 ProRes. For "real" (snobby) Hollywood colorists, that's the typical "minimum" that they expect.

Yes, 60Mbp/s looks good. I'm not saying it sucks. However, I think that if 60Mbp/s was perfectly OK, than every other camera from Panasonic, Canon, JVC, Canon and Sony would use it. But they dont....nobody does. 100Mbp/s h.264 is the de facto "low-end" UHD standard in the industry today.

Ever wonder why Sony upgraded the AX100 with 100Mbp/s? Do you really think that was unnecessary on Sony's part? If you do, well?...Sony engineers obviously disagree with you.

Not sure why you're seeing blocking. I am not and have shot extensive movement: trees, leaves, waterfall. Zero macroblocking. None. And no banding either.

I have a VERY picky colorist and we were looking at this on the most unforgiving platform that exists, designed to reveal any flaws. It looked terrific-- and I am picky too.

I also looked at the footage on a very low-end $1,000 Chinese 4K consumer monitor with a colleague who shoots F55 and F65 and we were all very surprised at its quality.

I just do not see (literally) how this discussion on "low" bit rate has any pertinence in the real world of the finished product and how the viewer will perceive it. The X70 makes stunning images and it's a $2,500 camera for gosh sakes!! Give it a rest!

And Clif, when you write, "This really is a shame. Can somebody please tell me why Sony is doing this? The X70 is an "XDCAM" with a codec that is easily beat by it's Handycam and Action Cam cousins.

This is embarrassing and it's a shame.", then you later write, "I'm not saying it sucks.", I have a hard time trying to understand what you're trying to communicate.

And a "final" note... Mbps is only one small part of the equation as to how an image looks. If you bet all your money on that one hand you'll lose every time. Codecs matter. Sensors matter. The codec chip matters. Color space matters. Color gamut matters. Dynamic range matters. The type of compression algorithm matters. In fact, I submit that ALL those matter more than the Mbps rate.

And the compression algorithms Sony uses in its codecs are different from those used by Canon, Panasonic, Red, Arri, etc., and they are in a constant state of evolution. You cannot compare 60 Mbps from one manufacturer to another with meaningful metrics.

Same goes for the 100 Mbps in the AX100 and the 60 Mbps in the X70. The codecs are different. The X70 has vastly different Picture Profiles from the AZ100 offering far more latitude in how its image can look.

Lots of factors to consider that MUST be considered.

Wow Cliff. U r sorta off ur rocker man! Chill out and stop thinking about numbers so much. I bet u use a PC because u can hit better numbers for cheaper? Am I right? What about Android vs iPhone? U must be Android cus again the number, ON PAPER, look better!! I had a feeling that this whole bitrate conspiracy was going to end with someone like Jody doing real world work with the files!! Plus all your "pros" that will not touch a petty 60mbs file prob get footage from way less nowadays. Im sure they have even used some, wait for it..... iPhone video and found it acceptable for what it was being used for. And if u don't like the cam, go get one of the 100+ bitrate cams so u can feel better and stop annoying the people that are trying to work together to talk about a camera they happen to appreciate or may be researching. In short, noone cares about your whining!!! And thanks Jody!!!

The CODEC inside all forms of XAVC-S-L-I is the same...industry standard MPEG H.264 at various levels. The hardware VSLI chips might be different but the CODEC across them is all the same.

Forget about Panny, Canon, and JVC. Let's just look at Sony itself. XAVC has a tall ladder of H.264 implementations for XAVC. It ranges from 8bit, 4:2:0 Long GOP@ 60Mbp/s and goes up to 10bit 4:2:2 10bit Intra @ 600Mbp/s with different frame rates..

Today 60Mbp/s 8bit, 4:2:0 is the LOWEST rung on the XAVC ladder. In fact, I will argue that Sony will not likely ever build a future 4K camera locked at 60Mbp/s only. (they have conceded that its' not enough today even for ENTRY level camcorders) I think it's safe to say that all new Sony models will carry at least 100Mbp/s as an option. Yes, even the grandmother-friendly AX33 does 100Mbps.

Honestly, I never expected to hear anybody say; "60Mbp/s is good enough for me" Especially not when every other Sony camera now has 100Mbp/s. If 60 gives you all you want, does that mean if Sony adds 100 to the X70 that you will NOT use it?...because there is no reason to,....right? ;-)

As far as the Hollywood colorist goes. I have never myself heard of any colorist that "likes" 8bit 4:2:0 video with EXTREMELY high compression ratios like 60Mbp/s in UHD. (never met one) Dont know what to tell you there. Extremely high compression rations are always a colorists worst enemy. (so is 4:2:0 video that has HALF the chroma resolution that luma resolution...and 8 bit?..hahah)

If 60Mbp/s is "good enough"...I'm sorry but Sony doesn't agree with that. This is why they built XAVC with many, many higher specs.

Look,...I think 60Mbp/s is "OK" if you dont need to grade it. That is why I say it doesn't "suck". But yes, I do agree with Sony on giving 100Mbp/s to ALL 4k models from here on in. And I agree completely with Panny, JVC and Canon engineers and going 100Mbp/s or higher too for their models too. I agree with Sony giving the tiny 4k ActionCam 100 also. Sony and the rest of the industry is doing the right thing today with 100Mbp/s!

Now Sony,...please do this for your X70 too. For the EXACT SAME REASONS that you did it for your entire 4k camera fleet.

CT

p.s. On the issue of dynamic range, sensor resolving power, noise and all other aspects of every camera?...this is a completely separate argument than the CODEC topic here. Yes, obviously those are "pre-CODEC" conditions that are not in this X70 bitrate debate.

Wow Cliff. U r sorta off ur rocker man! Chill out and stop thinking about numbers so much. I bet u use a PC because u can hit better numbers for cheaper? Am I right? What about Android vs iPhone? U must be Android cus again the number, ON PAPER, look better!! I had a feeling that this whole bitrate conspiracy was going to end with someone like Jody doing real world work with the files!! Plus all your "pros" that will not touch a petty 60mbs file prob get footage from way less nowadays. Im sure they have even used some, wait for it..... iPhone video and found it acceptable for what it was being used for. And if u don't like the cam, go get one of the 100+ bitrate cams so u can feel better and stop annoying the people that are trying to work together to talk about a camera they happen to appreciate or may be researching. In short, noone cares about your whining!!! And thanks Jody!!!

If it bothers you, or are offended by this topic, why not just pass over it? Is somebody making you read this against your will or something?

It bothers me in the regard that you are well beyond stating facts and constructive input for everyone. It borders on being a troll. But u said this... "Look,...I think 60Mbp/s is "OK" if you dont need to grade it." Ask Jody about that. Im sure he could tell u again how it colored fine!!! Anyways, Im not trying to start anything. I was just reading thru and all I kept thinking was "give it up already!"

Wow,...sounds like you are really taking this bitrate and CODEC stuff to heart. It's certainly not something to stress about. As far as grading 8bit 4:2:0 60Mbp/s?...if your guy likes it, good for him. You can certainly grade ANY video you want. There are no hard "rules" that say you cant grade ANY video....no matter how compressed it is. Who is to say what looks "great" and what doesn't? It's all subjective. You could rip a 4k 15Mbp/s video off YouTube with the RX10-II's SLOG-2 gamma curve and grade it. You might even say that it looks awesome. Who am I to say you are wrong?

It's all good,..we are all just chit chatting here anyway. No need to get upset about the numbers or any opinion that anybody has here. It's just all opinion anyway.