I'm admittedly a HUGE Sony fanboy and have owned 16 Sony cameras in 20 years.

I own a Hanycam AX100 and I just purchased an X70. Like others here, I'm anxious to get the 4k upgrade for it. However, I do have a big concern about it. The 60Mbp/s codec is really the rock bottom bit rate that you can shoot UHD with. (It's litterally 15Mbp/s per HD quadrent of the UHD frame)

Considering that the rest of the industry and all other Sony cameras shoot at 100 Mbp/s or higher. The AX100, AX33 and even Sony's new Action Cam has a 100Mbp/s codec. Literally ALL Panasonic, JVC and Canon 4K cameras shoot at 100Mbp/s or higher. (because realistically, every manufacturer knows it's very necessary)

This leaves the Sony X70 all alone and by itself with the LOWEST 4K (UHD) bit rate in the industry.

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.

CT

and what bitrate is that?

and what bitrate is that?

It was in the original post.

The 60Mbp/s codec is really the rock bottom bit rate that you can shoot UHD with.

and what bitrate is that?

Sony is offering 60Mbp/s in the next paid firmware upgrade. Im perfectly happy to pay for this. I think its fully justified on Sony's part. However, 60Mbp/s is just WAY too low. If you have ever tried to grade 60Mbp/s you know that it falls appart rapidly. if you bend or stretch any area of it than it immediately falls apart with compression artifacts coming from everywhere.

This is why Panasonic, Canon, JVC and all other Sony products DONT use 60Mbp/s!

Sony will not officially commit to 100Mbp/s and that is a total mystery to me. (They say they "might" go higher at a later date)

Why is Sony holding back on this and allowing the X70 to exist all alone as "the lowest 4k bitrate camera in the industry"

Sony...please do the right thing here. If you are going to do 4K on a "Pro XDCAM" model, at least give it the bit rate that your consumer "Action Cam" records to on Micro SD cards!

CT

Here is a simple run down of the other 4k (UHD) models that exist today:


JVC GY-HM200 = 150Mbp/s (Sony's DIRECT competitor to the X70)

JVC GY-HM170 = 150Mbp/s (Sony's DIRECT competitor to the X70...much cheaper than X70 w/4K)

Panasonic/Lumix DMC-GH4K = 100Mbp/s (Allot cheaper than Sony X70)

Panasonic HC-WX970K = 72 Mbp/s (Very cheap consumer entry level camera)

Panasonic HC-VX870K = 72 Mbp/s (Extremely cheap consumer entry level camera)

Panasonic DMC-FZ1000 = 100 Mbp/s (Consumer high zoom model - less than half X70's price)

Panasonic DMC-LX100K = 100 Mbp/s (Consumer 4k pocket camera - less than half of X70's price)

Panasonic DMC-G7KK = 100 Mbp/s (Extremely cheap, entry level consumer MFT model)

Canon XC10 = 305 Mbp/s (Similar price to X70 w/4K...similar 1 inch type sensor)

Sony FDRX1000V Action cam = 100 Mbp/s (Sony's consumer "GoPro" model!!!...1/5th the cost of the X70)

Sony Handycam AX33 = 100Mbp/s (Very cheap, base entry level consumer 4K model)

Sony Handycam AX100 = 100Mbp/s (High end "consumer" 4k (UHD) model)

Sony PXW X70 = 60 Mbp/s (Professional XDCAM PROFESSIONAL market model)

There you have it. The numbers don't lie. All of these camera are either similar in price to the Sony PXW X70...or far, FAR cheaper.

Sony, if you cant put 100Mbp/s on the next paid firmware, that's OK. However, please do make a public statement and commit to 100Mbp/s as a future firmware release. That is all I'm asking.

The industry has shown that 100Mbp/s is the "reasonable" low end H.264, 8 bit, 4:2:0, 4K codec bitrate...not 60Mbp/s

Sony, I know that you already understand all of this....so why?

CT

p.s Does anybody else feel as strongly about this problem as I do?

The source for the X70 is the AX100 that already has 100Mbps and to be fair the price difference to the CX900 is about the same cost as the X70 upgrade to 4K but of course the AX100 has 100Mbps for that. If Sony really want to make the X70 competitive then 150Mbps for 50/60P would be the differentiator. I would likely buy for that but the DVX200 is looking more attractive even though every other camera I have is a Sony.

Ron Evans

I'm happy with the X70 base price of $2000. I'm happy with a $500 4K upgrade. I'd gladly pay that for 100Mbp/s. My complaint is that if Sony is going to add 4K, it needs to at lease be "consumer-level" 100Mbp/s 4K to match their own lower models and match their competition.

If Sony offered 150Mbp/s like JVC does, I'd even be happy if they had a two tier upgrade path:

$500 = Plan 1 - 60Mbp/s & 100 Mbp/s to match the AX100 and most other manufacturers standards.

$750 = Plan 2 - 60Mbp/s & 100 Mbp/s & 150 Mbp/s.

60Mbp/s is almost worthless. The only thing you could really use the 4K upgrade for at that point is the 4k HDMI output for a Shogun recorder or something.

Sony, please match your competitors or even better,...please match your own cheaper 4k models!

I'm trying to get a customer fire started here in the hopes that Sony will listen.

The source for the X70 is the AX100 that already has 100Mbps and to be fair the price difference to the CX900 is about the same cost as the X70 upgrade to 4K but of course the AX100 has 100Mbps for that. If Sony really want to make the X70 competitive then 150Mbps for 50/60P would be the differentiator. I would likely buy for that but the DVX200 is looking more attractive even though every other camera I have is a Sony.

Ron Evans

Generally agree with your statements but I notice though that there are some caveats that come with the Panasonic DVX200 in getting that higher bit rate and that is the windowing of its sensor in UHD.

In the DVX200 at 4K 24p its 28mm wide lens becomes 29.5 and that in 4K 50/60p it becomes 37.2mm! That means they are windowing the sensor by 32.8% to be able to output 50/60p in 4K at 150-mbit. That's a massive crop. With the fact that MFT has a crop factor of 2 x That's a wide end equivalent to 74.4mm in a full frame camera... not very wide in 4K at its widest is it? Even if you had .8 x zoom through wide angle converter that brings it it back to 59.52mm. A 60mm wide end in a fixed lens UHD camera, hmm, well that's a tough ask that one. That lens width wouldn't work for me.

What's also not great in my mind is that at 1280 x 720 in 50 / 60p Panasonic is stating a maximum bit rate of 9-mbit, yes you read correctly 9 -MBIT! With a highly compressed AC3 audio codec to boot. To me that's crazy as it makes the 720p video selection on the DVX200 a pretty useless feature. I don't know about a lot of you guys but I do most of my corporate web based work in 720 50p and 9-mbit just won’t cut it.

I wonder if the X70 will lose lens width in UHD? I don't think so having seen the 24p example here.

PXW-X70 4K/24p Beauty image - YouTube

I've downloaded the 4K file and it looks pretty good for a cheap camera in spite of it being 60-mbit. As it stands I think the camera as a pure HD cam is well worth the money. If I want full 4K at a higher bit rate I might look elsewhere but at the moment it won't be the DVX200 on its crippled lens spec.

See attached DVX200 specs. Lens width specs under the picture of the camera.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

In the DVX200 at 4K 24p its 28mm wide lens becomes 29.5 and that in 4K 50/60p it becomes 37.2mm! That means they are windowing the sensor by 32.8% to be able to output 50/60p in 4K at 150-mbit. That's a massive crop. With the fact that MFT has a crop factor of 2 x That's a wide end equivalent to 74.4mm in a full frame camera... not very wide in 4K at its widest is it?

The 28mm & 37.2mm focal lengths stated are already at the 35mm equivalents - ie. at 50/60p the FOV will be equivalent to 37.2mm on a full frame camera - not that wide but very useable in many situations.

If it is genuinely at an equivalent of 74.4mm that would be a joke & Panasonic would be laughed out of business & the only people would would buy this camera (with 800mm+ equiv. at the tele end) would be people who film birds in flight & peeping toms/perverts!!!

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!!

Yes I noticed the FOV change for the 50/60P of the DVX200 as well. The internal processor may not be able to handle the computations at that rate. Maybe that it why my FDR-AX1 has a fan !! I do not shoot 720P so that is of no concern to me but a wide UHD at 60P is important. So if the final product is like that it too will be off my list. Will just have to keep saving for a FS7 !!!!

I have a FDR-AX100 and a FDR-AX1. The FDR-AX1 does shoot UHD at 30P ( what the X70 would shoot ) at both 60Mbps and 100Mbps and of course the AX100 also shoots at 60Mbps and 100Mbps and I can see the difference !!! I think Sony have got themselves totally confused in model specs by market. 30P for a consumer may be fine but for any thing professional where one would like to crop into a UHD image to 1920x1080 ( why I want UHD ) then I want to match it with interlace 60i from my NX5U or AVCHD 60P from my other cameras. 30P at 60Mbps or 100 Mbps just will not do. There is also a visible difference moving to 150Mbps at 60P on my FDR-AX1 too. The main downside of the FDR-AX1 is poor low light performance.

Ron Evans

The 28mm & 37.2mm focal lengths stated are already at the 35mm equivalents - ie. at 50/60p the FOV will be equivalent to 37.2mm on a full frame camera - not that wide but very useable in many situations.

Doh! My bad. Of course they are the 35mm stated equivalents. For some reason that just didn't click in my brain. As you say though not very wide that's for sure. Will still be interested to have a look at it all the same.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

I think the thing that bothers me the most is at 60Mbp/s...the PXW-X70 sits at the VERY BOTTOM of the industry in 4K (UHD) bit rate. It is literally LAST on the industry model list in 4K codec quality and it's beat by consumer Action Cams and ENRTY LEVEL 4k cameras designed for soccer moms and grandmothers.

The PXW-X70 is a professional market "XDCAM" product. It should, at the very bare minimum, equal the codec performance of it's cheap Handycam and Action cam family members. It certainly should not be passed by them. C'mon Sony,...a cameras codec is one of the top 5 most critical factors.

Are my expectations completely absurd or way off base here?

I don't think you're off-base here at all. Even if I were to move to 4K, I would require 4:2:2. I haven't seen any details on if the X70 will send out 4K via its HDMI in 4:2:2 or if that will also just be 4:2:0. Pretty sure the HDMI out would also be 8-bit and not 10-bit.

So bit-rate aside, really surprised this pro-level cam doesn't do internal recording of 4K at 4:2:2. That at least would be something when comparing to other cams.

Well I agree that the X70 should at least match the AX100. However it is the entry level of XDCAM and if one needs 10 bit 4:2:2 for 4K/UHD it is there in the PXW-Z100 or the FS7. Even these for Long GOP 150 Mbps change to 4:2:0 8 bit. Intra frame 4:2:2 at 10bit needs about 600Mbps so would need a move to XQD cards to achieve this. With the upgrade to 4K as announced the X70 will cost about $1000 more than the AX100 for 10bit 4:2:2 HD , XLR audio, SDi and timecode etc. If you think that is worth it fine. If you want more then move up the family to Z100 or the FS7 and pay 2 to 4 times as much. When you do this you will also get 50/60P , more robust memory cards etc which in my mind is a lot more useful.

Ron Evans

I think that for the price point, $2000 for the camera and $500 for the UHD upgrade, there are no complaints there. I feel that it's a good value.

I do think that 4:2:0, 8bit, long GOP is what the UHD upgrade should be. (10bit 4:2:0 UHD internal recording is certainly going too far) However, I STRONGLY believe that you can't do UHD properly at 60Mbp/s...that's is ridiculously low and the rest of the industry agrees with this. Sony answered the industry and brought the AX100 the minimal level that every other 4K camera is set at.

It just baffles me that Sony leaving this PXW-X70 XDCAM to hang in the wind all by itself with a "SUB-CONSUMER" level UHD bitrate.

The Z100? Well, it's a nice form factor but for me, I don't like the tiny,high megapixel "cell phone" image sensor that it has.

If Sony is worried about profitability, I'd certainly consider a second upgrade charge for 100Mbp/s if it was necessary.

It would be rather surprising if they failed to match the existing FW upgraded AX100, but often times Sony releases old or inaccurate information, so maybe that's where the problem lies?

I think the manufacturers are still trying to sort out what 4K "looks like" in the marketplace, and what the expectations will be.

The AX1 sensor is used in a lot of Sony cameras. It is cropped to about 1/3" in the AX1 so is comparable to a lot of the smaller Sony's sensor sizes. I have both the AX1 and the AX100 and in good light shooting at 100Mbps UHD 30P on both there is little difference . But of course the AX1 can do 60P at 150Mbps which is what I want, and the difference in low light is not dramatic as the AX1 wide open goes to F1.6 compared to the AX100 at F2.8 almost makes up for the sensor size. Both are slower than my NX5U by quite a margin they just have less noise in the image with newer sensors and electronics. The NX30U that I also have I think is a little faster than either too. So having a large sensor is not a complete answer unless the lens is also good and fast. My hope is that Sony make a UHD version of the EA50 so that the large choice of e mount lenses would be available. The body of the EA50 is also big enough for XQD cards and fan !!!

Ron Evans

It's funny, Sony has a couple of "low end" UHD models that people can choose from and they also have the high end market very well covered with the FS7, F5 and F55.

Sony has stated that FS7 sales were so strong that they significantly increased production of the model. As we know, the higher the model the more the profit margin.

There are very little "mid level" $5,000 or so 4K market choices. You either need to come in on a "low" 4K model or save your money up for an FS7. I think right now, Sony is holding off on the mid-level market and forcing as many people as possible to move "up" into a good high profit margin FS7.

It seems Sony doesn't want to lose the potential sale of even one FS7 to any "mid level" model today. After all, Canon and Panasonc are doing the same thing right now. It does seem like the mid-level market will start to develop be the end of this year though. Panasonic is releasing a MFT ENG-style camera in Q4 for around that magic $5,000 price point. So,...this might begin to for Sony's hand and adding more models into the price point. (i.e. Sony "FS1"...a crippled, 8bit, 4:2:0 version of the FS7 body.)

Could this be the reason why the PXW-X70 is only being given 60Mbp/s? Is it odd marketing strategy?

Who knows?

Yes, Canon and Sony are leaving the middle ground wide open at the moment and that's where JVC with the LS300 and (I think especially) Panasonic with the DVX200 will gain significant sales in the next 12 months.

I was all set to buy either a "cheap" 4K camera (initially I thought the X70, then I leaned towards the JVC HM200) and "dabble with 4K" - or go the whole hog and buy a C300MkII…. but more and more I'm getting close to pre-ordering the DVX200 as it meets so many of my needs for the type of shooting I do. I also feel uncomfortable about paying the high price tag of the C300MkII when it still has a few compromises from my perspective and the 4K camera landscape is changing so very fast.

Although we have yet to see images from it, the DVX200 is likely to offer a decent (enough) step into 4K without breaking the bank. Still wish it did 150Mbps in 4K though, not 100Mbps, although I like the idea of 200Mbps for HD, when needed. 120 fps in HD could be useful for some slomo effects too. The X70 is now off my list with its lowly 60Mbps 4K codec limit.

Well said Andy. Very good points that you have there, indeed.

I have only had my PXW-X70, professional market "XDCAM" camcorder for a week now. I'm still within my 30 day return period.

If, in the next three weeks, it looks like Sony is going to keep this PXW-X70 professional market "XDCAM" camcorder at a 4K bit rate WELL BELOW the "consumer" market standard 4K bit rate...than yes, I must return it.

I really hope someone at Sony with any kind of decision making ability is listening and understands how silly it is to only add 60Mbp/s to this PXW-X70, professional market "XDCAM" camcorder.

After all Sony, is there any reason why ANY "XDCAM" professional market camcorder should have a codec that is LOWER than my grandmother's $900, 4K AX33 Handycam codec?

Maybe this all makes perfect sense and I'm the one who is actually wrong here.....

...
Could this be the reason why the PXW-X70 is only being given 60Mbp/s? Is it odd marketing strategy?

Who knows?

I expect they are different design teams working off a base model. The X70 would need to have Long GOP 8bit 4:2:0 like the PXW-Z100 not the XAVC-S like the FDR-AX100 or the FDR-AX1 for example. It took the PXW-Z100 design team almost a year to provide what the FDR-AX1 had from the beginning in terms of Long GOP recording times. Using MXF Long GOP may be the cause of the problem for the X70 not just being able to use what the AX100 already has installed. Clearly for both these model types the base engineering is the same source. I still think the easiest way for Sony to hit the upcoming DVX200 price point would be a 4K variant of the EA50 with 18 to 105 lens or the new 28 to 135 lens. This would provide an interchangeable lens advantage over the DVX200 or just leave the stock lens on. The DVX200 would then have a zoom range advantage. Current EA50 is about $2600 so add $2000 for 4K and XQD card slots and you have something that would beat the competition. Limit functionality, only Long GOP for instance or stay with SDXC cards, even the FMU128 may be fast enough, so that it did not compete too much with the FS7 and Sony have a winner.
Ron Evans

I get the feeling that the only "large sensor" 4K model that it wants in it's lineup today is the FS7. We know that above that is the F5/55 but if the FS7 is really selling as hot as they say it is, they might be paranoid about cannibalizing even $1 dollar of it's sales numbers.

By now, we should have seen a Handycam 4K "VG900" but I'm guessing that idea scares them too much right now. Maybe they are timing the market on a month to month basis?..lol

Rumors say that an A7000 APSC (super35 in video) could have internal 4K. The rumors also say that Sony could cripple it with a 15min video limit.

I think that a 4K EA50 locked down to 100Mbp/s, 8bit 4:2:0 would be a brilliant camera at $3500 - $4,000 but I cant see them risking that this year. If they did, Sony would prolly install a 24 megapixel sensor in it just to scare potential FS7 buyers away from it.

Once the middle class 4k log jam breaks, we will certainly see a big flood of new models from Canon, Panny and Sony all at once. Sony might no do anything until FS7 sales saturate and begin to decline.

Hell,...it's working. Even I'm tempted to save up for one, even though I don't need intraframe or 10 bit....only because Sony has nothing else waiting for me.

On the PXW-X70 professional market "XDCAM" camera with lower than consumer grade 60Mbp/s codec? I think the Canon XC-10 might be it's biggest competitor. Canon 1inch type sensor but slower lens....oh and it has 305Mbp/s intra with C-Log

While the promise of eventual 4K in the X70 is "interesting"... as a practical matter, anyone who got the AX100 is happily shooting away, with higher bitrate thanks to the FW upgrade... not sure why Sony is taking so long, and while I suspect they will go with a higher bitrate when they finally get the X70 FW update, I am glad I went with the camera that was fully cooked!

I know I'd like to see a FW update to the RX10, but I am happy with the camera for what it DOES do, whether it ever shoots 4K or not... the AX100 has been doing what I expect it to do... if FW comes out to "upgrade", that's great too, but if they are releasing "half cooked" products into the retail channel, I don't really know what to say!


There's more to the equation than bitrate and codecs, the sensor and lens in these cameras is in an entirely different class than "grandma's AX33". Image quality is night and day, having compared the cameras firsthand. All "4K" is not equal by any means. Even "HD" from my RX10's looks closer to 4k than the small chip cameras, when A/B'd into HDMI on a 4K screen.



Not saying you don't have a legitimate question - Sony should have the FW "cooked" by now, especially if they will be charging for it (AX100 and RX series FW has been free to download and install...). The specs for the update should be accurate AND competitive... but this IS Sony we are talking about, and sometimes they aren't the best at "customer service" OR communication (experience speaking). I've sought answers to questions, gotten answers that were completely wrong from Sony, and have found it better to rely on other users experience than Sony US "tech support"...

Honestly, I'm no particular fan of .MXF.

I would have actually been much happier if the X70 used the AX100's .mp4 wrapped container and used it's same file structure.

Everything understands h.264 inside .mp4.

MXF?...well that is hit or miss.

Sadly, not even Sony Vegas Pro 13 (current build 444) can play the X70's .mxf files! It's hard to believe but totally true!

Although we have yet to see images from it, the DVX200 is likely to offer a decent (enough) step into 4K without breaking the bank. Still wish it did 150Mbps in 4K though, not 100Mbps, although I like the idea of 200Mbps for HD, when needed. 120 fps in HD could be useful for some slomo effects too. The X70 is now off my list with its lowly 60Mbps 4K codec limit.

I need to edit the above information as I forgot that the specs on the DVX200 indicate that it WILL do 150Mbps in 4K mode... at 50p or 59.94p (MP4/MOV Long GOP with LPCM audio).

It's 'normal' 4K at 25p (or 29.97p or 23.98p) is at 100Mbps.

The HD at 200Mbps will be All-Intra, by the way.

I'm glad someone brought up the issue of noise. By all accounts 60Mbps is low for 4K, and I am not trying to bail out Sony here, but consider a different camera with potentially more noise than the X70, maybe now you NEED a higher bitrate codec to encode that noise without destroying the rest of the image? I suspect a cleaner source should compress more cleanly, even at a lower bitrate.

well? The X70 certainly can produce as much noise as any other camera at high gain levels.

60Mbp/s was not good enough for ANY 4K Canon, Panasonic, JVC or ANY other 4k Sony model. EVERYbody gave their 4k models 100Mbp/s or higher.

Now with this PXW-X70 professional "XDCAM" branded camera, Sony might have said: "Ehh...lets go WAY below the rest of the industry and hold it at 60Mbp/s". However. while they doing this they also made darn sure to get 100Mbp/s in the X70's baby brother, the consumer Handycam AX100. (because 60Mbp/s was just not good enough for this cheaper model)

Baffling. Shocking. Strange. Weird.

I cant find any logic in this decision.

Noise or no noise....60Mbp/s is WAY below even the lowest and cheapest consumer model on the planet.

This is not my "opinion"...this just an odd mathematical fact.

I'm not even asking or expecting Sony to give the PXW-X70 professional "XDCAM" camcorder at "professional" bit rate like 150Mbp/s, 8bit long GOP.

I'm only asking the PXW-X7- professional "XDCAM" camcorder to be given a BASIC CONSUMER-LEVEL codec bit rate of 100Mbp/s so that it "matches" all of the cheapest 4K consumer cameras in the world.

CT

I asked question to a Sony rep at an AbelCine regarding the 4K codec and he said something about heat related issues. I find that hard to believe given their consumer cameras size and 4K data rate.

Unless Sony does some PR claiming their 60mbps 4K codec is better than their consumer codec or their competitors higher bit rate codecs, they're going to lose credibility.

Since there haven't been any reports (at least any I've heard of) of AX100 and heat related issues, I'd say that's bunk...

There have been some reports of upcoming still cameras being delayed because of heat/4K issues, which wouldn't surprise me. Sony has hit this before where the smaller size bodies simply cannot dissipate the heat produced as the sensors and processors are "pushed" harder for more bits or more pixel resolution... physics has it's limits...

And on a completely different note, Sony had a debacle over the last couple days where they (or someone) posted ridiculously low prices on several higher end still cameras, once again proving that you can't always trust everything you see on the internet....and that Sony makes some whopper mistakes.

Until there is a final release FW, there's really no way of knowing what is going to (or not going to) be in it...

I was pleasantly surprised when AX100 and RX10 FW updates popped up to update features/capabilities, but I wouldn't buy an X70 with fingers crossed on a future paid upgrade....

I asked question to a Sony rep at an AbelCine regarding the 4K codec and he said something about heat related issues. I find that hard to believe given their consumer cameras size and 4K data rate.

Unless Sony does some PR claiming their 60mbps 4K codec is better than their consumer codec or their competitors higher bit rate codecs, they're going to lose credibility.

Really Sony? Heat?

Sony Handycam AX100:

The consumer-grade Handycam AX100 handles 100Mbp/s perfectly fine. Mine does not even get "warm" on long shoots. Did you remove these great AX100 heat sinks on the PMW X70 professional market "XDCAM" Camcorder? The X70 has a much larger right handle side. It's got even more body space for larger heat sinks. If the answer is "yes",...why would you "downgrade" the X70's heat dissipation ability from the AX100?.

Sony Handycam AX33:

VERY tiny entry level consumer Handycam. It's got a very small body with a servo stabilized lens and sensor track. It has even LESS room for heat dissipation than the professional XDCAM PXW-X70....yet it STILL handles 100Mbp/s with no problem.

Sony 4K Action Cam:

Extremely tiny body that is weather sealed with no cracks for vents. Does it have a massive copper heat sync or active cooling fan? Nope,...yet it STILL accomplishes 100Mbp/s perfectly fine without burning up.

Heat? C'mon Sony. No way.

Sony, Panasonic, JVC and Canon are all doing 100Mbp/s without heat problems on even their very lowest and cheapest models. JVC is doing 150Mbp/s on their direct X70 competitor. In fact, Canon is doing 305 Mbhp/s with a 1 inch type and a body that is smaller than your X70.

Sony, please don't play the "heat" thing. You do it with MUCH smaller cameras just fine. If you decide not to give it 100Mbp/s just say it's for "marketing reasons".

CT

The consumer cameras use the Bionz processor but I expect the X70 uses the pro processor used in the PXW-Z100 and the FDR-AX1 that do get hot and have a fan !!! Since they want to use MXF wrapper and SDI output I expect only this pro processor can do that !!! They are different divisions and one wonders if they are different design teams. It may well be a real problem without a fan. The handle is big enough for a fan not sure why they didn't do that and also then have 60P. That would have made the X70 a nice competitive camera. They just announced the HXR-NX100 that is yet another HD camera without 4K. Really not sure what Sony are doing !!!

Ron Evans

I admittedly have no idea if the PMW-X70 has a BionzX processor or not. However it would seem to me that Sony has used the BionzX in so many products that I can't imagine why they would have it on cheaper models and cut it out on higher models.

I believe the Z100 pre-dates BoinzX. So, BoinzX showed up in products a while after the Z100 hit the market.

With 30 frames per second sensor scanning at the "jell-O" causing, slow clock speed that the X70 has, I strongly suspect the X70 can do 100Mbp/s if Sony has stated that they will do 60Mbp/s with it.

The X70 could have more CPU overhead than the AX100 though. The X70 will have that new "live streaming" firmware and dual recording. (something the AX100 does not have)

If this turns out to be the case, Sony can just simply disable some of the "fluff" options when shooting in 100Mbp/s and make those features unavailable.

Without a good codec, what good is having "4K" in the first place? Having a BELOW CONSUMER level bitrate is just bad.

I suspect the decision will be based much more on Sony "marketing politics" and customer pressure than any other factor.

The heat issue does make sense to me. The X70 will no doubt be taxing its processor more than consumer cams due to the extra features it has.

And, the processor itself may indeed be different than what is in the consumer line.

I would find it horribly ironic that Sony would put a slower processor in it's professional XDCAM PXW-X70 than it does on it's Handycam AX100.

It would be especially embarrassing for Sony if they designed and marketed this camera as "4K upgradable" while not giving the camera the hardware to "properly" handle this future 4K feature from day one.

I just hope that the X70's "below-consumer" grade, "PAID" codec upgrade is just a stepping stone to a higher bit rate....one that eventually leads it matching entry-level consumer 4K camcorder bit rates.

If it turns out that PXW-X70 professional XDCAM's hardware just can't match all the other lowley 4k models in the industry?...wow,..that would be a dismal failure on Sony's part.

Let's hope all this is not true.

The heat issue does make sense to me. The X70 will no doubt be taxing its processor more than consumer cams due to the extra features it has.

And, the processor itself may indeed be different than what is in the consumer line.

In terms of "heat", I don't claim to be an expert on Sony codecs or sensor heat sinks.

With that being said, camcorders that shoot 4k, 60p seem to need fans. Most cameras that shoot at 30p don't seem to need fans.

It's not so much the codec chip that is getting hot. The ActionCam has very little heat sinks and doesn't get hot at 100Mbp/s at all.

I think it's the amount of pixels being scanned, the scan clock speed and the amount of full scans per second that generate the most heat.

The PXW-X70 in 4k only scans 30 frames a second and at a relatively slow cycle speed. (hence the rolling shutter skew) When a camera needs to scan at 60p, it is scanning twice the mount of pixels, twice the amount of data and if the scan clock is faster,...allot more heat. (twice as much heat?...maybe. More than twice as much?...maybe) The sensor just cant dissipate or cool down in between cycles the way a 30hz scan does.

30p seems to run cool at slow scan speeds and it's not the codec chip that is overheating at 100Mbps. Again,..all cheap consumer 4k cameras do 100Mbp/s with no problem.

If the X70's main CPU is overwhelmed?...that would be just plan sad and clearly, it was poorly designed form the get go.

I don't think "heat" or "CPU" is the problem. Odd company "politics" is my suspicion.

Heat can come from the sensor, the buffer memory, cpu and the circuits to write to the cards plus other stuff I am sure. Certainly in my FDR-AX1 lots gets hot writing 60P at 150Mbps to XQD cards. The fan is small and unless I put my ear next to it I cannot hear it. Why didn't they put a fan in the X70 as it has a big enough handle. The X70 has two cards slots to write to as well as processing for SDI etc so there could be a lot more places that get hot. But I agree at 30P it should at least do 100Mbps.

Ron Evans

Curious why SONY chose to do this. I would have thought they could at least match the AX100. Im not sure I can see a good reason why.

As previously noted, when I asked a Sony rep at a recent appearance they told me the low bit rate was due to heat related issue. That they are charging $500 for a bit rate exceeding for their own less expensive consumer cameras is a serious business mistake.

And to rub salt into the 60mbps wound, it looks like our friends in China get the update for free!

From the FW update page.......

Contents of update :
1.) Recording/playing back/outputting in 4K (QFHD) (“CBKZ-X70FX” (sold separately) is necessary)
*For China, CBKZ-X70FX will not be sold. 4K activation will be available at the local service centre.

Another win for Sony marketing!

This my first venture into Sony, previously use Panasonic. While the X70 is great, Im totally bemused by the lack of coordination and supreme lack of marketing skills that parts of Sony show. Do they just want to p**s people off or are they just stupid?
Now I've got that ability to load straight into FCPX, I'll live with the idiotic white balance controls and I'll forgo 4K until they come to their senses.
Still a great price for such a highly specced camera. Can't say the same for marketing. (Should we really call it marketing? wouldn't 'screwing up' be a better phrase?)

Yes, Canon and Sony are leaving the middle ground wide open at the moment and that's where JVC with the LS300 and (I think especially) Panasonic with the DVX200 will gain significant sales in the next 12 months.

I was all set to buy either a "cheap" 4K camera (initially I thought the X70, then I leaned towards the JVC HM200) and "dabble with 4K" - or go the whole hog and buy a C300MkII…. but more and more I'm getting close to pre-ordering the DVX200 as it meets so many of my needs for the type of shooting I do. I also feel uncomfortable about paying the high price tag of the C300MkII when it still has a few compromises from my perspective and the 4K camera landscape is changing so very fast.

Although we have yet to see images from it, the DVX200 is likely to offer a decent (enough) step into 4K without breaking the bank. Still wish it did 150Mbps in 4K though, not 100Mbps, although I like the idea of 200Mbps for HD, when needed. 120 fps in HD could be useful for some slomo effects too. The X70 is now off my list with its lowly 60Mbps 4K codec limit.

Sounds like good reasoning to me. The Elephant in The Room question is not weather the C300MkII is a great camera, its about value. Is it worth an "added 10K" over other cameras like the AJA or Black Magic or the JVC etc. TEN THOUSAND MORE .... seriously ??

In your example, the pending DVX200 is not the same kind of camera per se, but its a 4k image with a single sensor and a built-in V-log profile with a gamma curve that mirrors the Panasonic VeriCam 35 for more then 10,000 less then the Canon. You cant afford not to look seriously at it.

Im sure there is a Delete button here somewhere - LOL

I took that to mean the upgrade will not be sold *online* and user installed. For some reason in China it will require physically bringing the camera into a service center for the 4K upgrade.

In another thread (covering the firmware 2.0 update), it's been stated that one cannot record 4K internally while sending a 4K signal out via HDMI for external recording. I cannot confirm that myself. But if true, that's another strike against the X70's 4K solution.

After reading the 2.0 update guide, there's a decent set of features not available when recording 4K (e.g. S&Q motion)

It really does seem that the unit is being completely "maxed out" when having to deal with 4K footage. Look at all the features one loses if wanting to record at that resolution.

I'm very glad I decided to stick to HD for a few years to come. I'm finding the X70 to be a very capable cam for 1080p especially for its price.

So really, all of the 1080 features work as normal with the firmware and paid 4K upgrade.

Sony disabled some features to open up CPU headroom room for 4K tasks. I'm perfectly fine with this! If Sony gives the X70 at 4K, 100Mbp/s in the future, I'd GLADLY disable "Face Tracking", IP streaming, WiFi, Android control and a few other features I wont use. If I need that stuff, I'd drop back down to 1080.

Oh,..the 4k to 1080 live down convert on the SDI...if it will save CPU for 100Mbp/s?...disable the SDI completely and I'll be fine. It's only 3 gig anyway and cant do 4K.

What I really care about is having "good" 4k. as both, an AX100 and X70 ownner. There is a HUGE difference between 60Mbp/s and 100Mbp/s when color grading both bit rates.

The PXW-X70 needs 100Mbp/s badly. Sony can leave all the other fun fluffware features untouched in 1080 mode.

Buy the way, the AX100 today will not let you record internally at 4k and HDMI at the same time either. (you get one or the other, not both)

Ok guys - I'm trying to get a handle on genuinely how bad 60mbps actually is from those far more in the know than I.......

Am I correct in assuming that 4K 25p will in theory be a slightly higher bitrate per pixel than the AVCHD 1080/50p at 28mbps (28mbps divide by 2 to account for fps times by 4 = 56mbps)??

Ok guys - I'm trying to get a handle on genuinely how bad 60mbps actually is from those far more in the know than I.......

Am I correct in assuming that 4K 25p will in theory be a slightly higher bitrate per pixel than the AVCHD 1080/50p at 28mbps (28mbps divide by 2 to account for fps times by 4 = 56mbps)??

Kind of. The frames per second doesn't change the bit-rate though. But it will change the compression ratio. i.e. at 28 Mbps, 25p footage would be half as compressed as 50p footage.

Edit: Hmm.. I think I see where you were going with your calculation though. Assuming the 28 Mbps 50p footage looks decent, then 60 Mbps 4K 25p footage should not contain any more compression artifacts.

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.


For comparrison sake, 10-bit 4:2:2 XAVC footage seems to have these compression ratios (assuming my math is correct):

25p: 20:1
30p: 24:1
60p: 47:1

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.

Where can I buy this 4K upgrade? I clicked the Sony link in the firmware 2.0 download section and it took me to Service Plus homepage, can't find where to purchase the damn thing.

I am arranging a demo HM200 with JVC, so would like to put the 2 cameras up against each other possibly.

Paul