Sony FDR-AX100

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

Dang, I see a "best extended shooting undergarments" thread developing...


@Anthony -

I know my post was long, but it gives the keys - careful pans, frame a bit wide/crop/pan in post if needed, and find the "right" shutter speed to allow just the right amount of motion blur, without hitting that "stutter" point. If 1/125 is working for you, that's fine, but experimenting in either direction may be worth the effort.

The AX100 is NOT an "auto" camera, and since it's right on that "consumer/professional" border, it's not surprising that there are a few users who will not be "happy", but for now, it's the most economical current solution. Hard to match the bang for the buck. Destined to become a classic.


@Bruce -
Which OS? IIRC there's an "advanced" settings in the Screen resolution (rt clik on desktop), and that allowed successful entry of custom settings on one NVIDIA laptop. FWIW, the OS and drivers seem to be a little twitchy/particular. I'm on W8.1, I think W8 was a tad better... Had to fiddle with getting the "right" Intel driver for the integrated graphics too... life on the bleeding edge!

A couple "tricks" on setup that seemed to help my Seiki look better - the backlight on mine was CRANKED at 100%, I pulled it back to 35... Sharpness was also set high, and I zeroed it - 4k IS sharp already...that helped with "shimmer". Not sure if you'll be calibrating, but I have found that "color" also is typically "hot" (couldn't calibrate at the stock "50", 35 works OK) and still fiddling with contrast and brightness - trying to balance what looks good for video (brighter) and what looks good for general computer use (darker, unless you need to work on that "monitor tan"). Still, good bang/buck, and it's certainly a joy to have such a big desktop to work on (except for when you can't find your mouse pointer!).

(FWIW, that ebay seller that was at $360 for the Seiki 39, is now at $340... tempting to buy another at that price!)

The Seiki is now $329 at Amazon, with free shipping. Time to order two more!

Amazon.com: Seiki SE39UY04 39-Inch 4K Ultra HD 120Hz LED TV: Electronics

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Anthony Lelli

so you don't pan at all?
ever?

really?

I mean... how's that possible?
maybe you could try just for this community here and test the AX100 against the GH4 panning a little, for us... could you do that?

you have the cameras, right? so...

Anthony, I know with the AX100 and I'm sure with the GH4, panning does not necessarily equal RS.

Most people pan at a slow to moderate speed (unless you're doing sports...know anyone like that?). But for most others, good camera techniques will generally not involve whip pans unless... But the point is that with the type of pans most of us do, you simply won't have a RS issue.

[Peter Siamidis]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Anthony, I know with the AX100 and I'm sure with the GH4, panning does not necessarily equal RS.

Most people pan at a slow to moderate speed (unless you're doing sports...know anyone like that?). But for most others, good camera techniques will generally not involve whip pans unless... But the point is that with the type of pans most of us do, you simply won't have a RS issue.

Yeah I do controlled pans and since I film indoors the shutter tends to be around 60-125 range, so I haven't noticed rolling shutter at all on my AX100. I also only film with the camera fully wide at 29mm which reduces the amount of panning I have to do, but I always control my pans anyways otherwise the viewer will get nauseated. For sporting type events where one will be filming outside from long distance I probably would not recommend the AX100, just because at full telephoto with fast shutter I imaging rolling shutter would be a big issue with the camera panning around trying to follow the action.

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

These days graphics card is key to editing and playback performance. You can stick as fast a CPU in the machine as you like and it will make very little difference. Stick an up to date graphics card with at least 2GB (preferably 4GB for 4K) of fast video ram and you'll see a night and day improvement over a card like the GT440 which is way below what's really needed for 4K. The minimum is something like a GTX580 or the newer GTX760.

I actually edit my AX100 footage on a Macbook Pro with Windows 8.1, Vegas Pro 13 on it's NVidia 750m gpu. It can play the raw 4k footage at full 30fps on the timeline with no problem, so I can do all my editing full speed. With color corrector though fps definitely drops, and I presume multi track would as well. I don't do multi track though and color tweaks are the last step anyways so it's been no biggie for me so far. There's also the faster 870m gpu's out there which I presume would be somewhat better, but I value battery life so the 750m based Macbook Pro has worked really nice for me for 4k work. Being able to edit the footage wherever I am has proved invaluable.

For those wondering about stability when holding the camera, I strongly recommend using something like this:

Amazon.com : Opteka X-GRIP Professional Camera / Camcorder Action Stabilizing Handle- Black : Professional Video Stabilizers : Camera & Photo

That's what I use and aside from letting me hold the AX100 in lots of interesting positions, it also helps dramatically with stability. Rather than one shaky hand in the middle of the camera twitching every which way, I keep my left hand under the base of that scorpion mount to support part of the weight and my other hand on the handle does the steering. Works really nicely for me, I don't get as tired since two hands are now supporting the camera and with one hand on each end of it reduces typical twitches people can have when one handing the camera.

[Anthony Lelli]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Anthony, I know with the AX100 and I'm sure with the GH4, panning does not necessarily equal RS.

Most people pan at a slow to moderate speed (unless you're doing sports...know anyone like that?). But for most others, good camera techniques will generally not involve whip pans unless... But the point is that with the type of pans most of us do, you simply won't have a RS issue.

Ken
I know. Yesterday I did a real coverage of a soccer practice at night with the AX100 on a good tripod and stabilization turned OFF and the panning was good, not perfect like @1080 but pretty good.
I was shooting 30p 1/125 4K
about the AX100 I had lots of problems with the AF actually (I didn't expect that). It was again at night and the lighting was poor but the AF was easily fooled jumping from one player to another and then giving up. I did the firmware update before the shoot. I'm worried now that Sony did listen to the idiotic complaints about the AF being slow because many are coming from still cameras and used to the instant AF. In video the AF shouldn't be too fast because we don't shoot stills! Unfortunately the speed of the AF on the AX100 can't be changed.

The purpose of the shoot of yesterday was to check the panning in 4K so I didn't pay much attention to the AF to be honest, but reviewing the footage I had that result (NOT expected). Again I'll do now more tests just for the AF and I'll report back tonight.

I wish I didn't update the firmware because now I don't know if the problem is with the camera or the new firmware.

[Alister Chapman]

Filming at night, with poor lighting, following fast moving action is a recipe for an autofocus disaster. Very few cameras will be able to do a decent job in those conditions. Especially with a larger sensor with shallower DoF where focus becomes more critical. I'd suggest you use manual focus if you want consistent results.

[Anthony Lelli]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Filming at night, with poor lighting, following fast moving action is a recipe for an autofocus disaster. Very few cameras will be able to do a decent job in those conditions. Especially with a larger sensor with shallower DoF where focus becomes more critical. I'd suggest you use manual focus if you want consistent results.

Yes definitely, that's why I'll run another test. I'm sorry for bringing this up without a solid test performed. but the lighting was just a little less than the usual (it was a practice and probably they didn't light like they do for a real game). Again the purpose was to check on the panning in 4k so I didn't pay attention to the AF at all while shooting.
But
Under much worse conditions (raining for example) I only had similar problems with the XL1 long time ago. FX1, EX1, EX1r , XA10 never had any problem. The XA20 sometimes jumps for no reason, but rarely. All had a AF speed adjustment feature that I usually set to medium.
let's don't jump to conclusions now. Let me run another test tonight.

[Bruce Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

These days graphics card is key to editing and playback performance. You can stick as fast a CPU in the machine as you like and it will make very little difference. Stick an up to date graphics card with at least 2GB (preferably 4GB for 4K) of fast video ram and you'll see a night and day improvement over a card like the GT440 which is way below what's really needed for 4K. The minimum is something like a GTX580 or the newer GTX760.

Ok ordered the GTX760
Found a used i7 980 for a little more than the video card and have ordered a water cooler
I think I've got a 4k beast now

So to summarize the upgrade to 4k shooting, viewing and editing came to 2500 not bad

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

These days graphics card is key to editing and playback performance.

I don't have that experience with Edius, Edius only benefits from a faster card if you use it's own gpu accelerated effects but I don't use any so a superfast gaming card or no card at all (using the onboard gpu on the motherboard) doesn't provide any speed differences. Edius does provide twice realtime speed rendering to H.264 formats from 4K formats using the onboard gpu only. On my I7 3770 with 8Gb of ram I can edit one layer of 100mbs 4K from a GH4 without much issue and output twice as fast as the length of the file. At this moment I have included 4K footage combined with 1080p footage from my other camera's and eventhough I notice the 4K file does require more handling power it's still quite easy to edit and add effects to it in realtime. Once I plan to add a second 4K camera in the mix and use it in a multicam sequence then I should be looking out for a faster pc but one stream of 4K my system can handle quite easy.

[Aaron Holmes]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

Any "field reports" on the 2.0 firmware upgrade?

I've been fine with what I presume is 1.0... just wondering if the upgrade is a big or at least noticeable improvement... haven't gotten around to trying to "install" it yet!

Well, anecdotally, the sharpness of 1080p seems vastly improved. If I could reinstall 1.0 and do a scientific test, I would. With 1.0, I found the 1080p60 out of the camera to be dreadfully soft. Now, whether because of the 2.0 update, or because of some other setting I twiddled (I doubt it), the 1080p60 is razor sharp. Perhaps this is a side-effect of the autofocus improvements? Who knows. Whatever the cause, I'm jazzed!

[Anthony Lelli]

yes 1080 looks great , side by side against a canon XA20 and the AX100 @1080 could pass for 4K in comparison . And it's not just "sharpness".
Well done to Sony abut that

but the AF is now a disaster. It moves too soon when the original target is lost, and hunts for new contrast from the next available target, again too fast too soon. Result: lots of "hunting" on low light moving targets. For sports at night is a disaster.

Please Sony make it like it was before or put it selectable (fast,medium, slow) : this is a camcorder, not a still camera

what happened?
this is my idea of what originated this disaster: impostors complaining about features on a camera that don't even have., still shooters confusing this AX100 with their still camera. Idiotic complaints coming for tests in the house shooting AA batteries, dolls and kitchenware. since so many (impostors and dolls shooters) moved the same complaint that the "cut and paste" fanatics posted everywhere then Sony (marketing department) ordered to the engineers to treat the camera as a still camera .

This forum is one of the most important and we must stop the nonsense: isolate the impostors (whoever doesn't have a particular camera can't possibly teach others how to use it because they don't know squat about it, cut and paste posters from the internet or other forums should be immediately isolated by the other members of the cvommunity with a warning,. They can create confusion and a disaster like this new firmware for the AX100

I believe that this spreading BS over the internet forums should be regulated.

iN my case I have to give up on a beautiful camera because I cant use it for what I do (sports at night) thanks to the impostors and the dolls shooters.

unbelievable.


@Dave and others with the old firmware: please wait before installing the 2.0 . maybe Sony will put the AF speed in the menu and let us select the speed or simply reverse to the old firmware the entire AF code.

@Alister Chapman : did the tests and as you can imagine from this post it was a disaster

[Aaron Holmes]

Originally Posted by Anthony Lelli

yes 1080 looks great <snip> And it's not just "sharpness".

That would be grand. Haven't gotten around to fiddling with the footage much. The 1080p from the 1.0 firmware sharpened up decently in Premiere, but you're right that this appears to be more than sharpness -- as if the sampling or scaling has been changed to gather or retain additional detail. It's a bit odd that this escaped mention in the release notes. I did a bit more shooting just this evening and the difference is pretty amazing.

Originally Posted by Anthony Lelli

but the AF is now a disaster. It moves too soon when the original target is lost, and hunts for new contrast from the next available target, again too fast too soon. Result: lots of "hunting" on low light moving targets. For sports at night is a disaster.

Haven't noticed this yet, but I did shoot a marathon last week, and I may have benefited from the original "sluggish" AF as folks ran past the camera. Will be interesting to see how the next one goes.

[Ken Ross]

I'm a bit confused here Anthony. Did you try the AF under the identical lighting conditions, at the same location, PRIOR to the new firmware? I don't recall a prior post stating that.

If not, you can't claim your issues are the result of the new firmware and, frankly, that would be doing a great disservice to those contemplating updating their firmware. Personally I've seen no difference in AF under less than ideal lighting.

Beyond that, I don't see how one can reasonably expect an AF on a 4K camcorder to accurately track fast moving sports action in a dimly lit environment. You must use MF for reliable focusing under those conditions. But then again, I'm not sure I'd use an AX100 for sports shooting anyway.

As for your theory about why Sony implemented the firmware update as they did, I think calling that a stretch is being kind. :)

[Anthony Lelli]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I'm a bit confused here Anthony. Did you try the AF under the identical lighting conditions, at the same location, PRIOR to the new firmware? I don't recall a prior post stating that.

If not, you can't claim your issues are the result of the new firmware and, frankly, that would be doing a great disservice to those contemplating updating their firmware. Personally I've seen no difference in AF under less than ideal lighting.

Beyond that, I don't see how one can reasonably expect an AF on a 4K camcorder to accurately track fast moving sports action in a dimly lit environment. You must use MF for reliable focusing under those conditions. But then again, I'm not sure I'd use an AX100 for sports shooting anyway.

As for your theory about why Sony implemented the firmware update as they did, I think calling that a stretch is being kind. :)

Ken,
that's ok. I'm done explaining. The 30p vs. 60p gave me a clear idea of the useless inputs based on stuff heard on the internet instead of field experience. 30p gets even more light than 60p by the way. But I'm done.
You don't have to believe me
just "tracking" is not the issue Ken. it's the opposite! oh my.. a video tool doesn't have to track anything unless I ask to do so. Again this is a VIDEO CAMERA, not a still camera for pete's sake. Before with the old firmware it took its due time to switch from one point to a new one, and for a reason. that's exactly what a video gear should do. Otherwise it will be hunting ad libitum.
But you don't have to believe me
believe to noa put who doesn't even have the camera, I'm sure that posters like him will keep explaining in details how the camera works. If it's ok with you guys then it's fine with me.

But I want to add something, this time to the tech guys at SONY's : they can't say it but I can .. "see? We told you so!" . to the marketing guys.

/ I'm done with this

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Aaron Holmes

Well, anecdotally, the sharpness of 1080p seems vastly improved. If I could reinstall 1.0 and do a scientific test, I would. With 1.0, I found the 1080p60 out of the camera to be dreadfully soft.

Are you sure it was not a wrong setting in camera before? I saw in Alistar's review he says the HD images are one of the best he has seen and I don't have seen any other complaints about this so could it be you had it in a manual setting where the iris was completely closed causing diffraction and a softer image?

Ken; does the autofocus not pump in normal light conditions? I think I have seen some reports about the autofocus pumping but that very well could have been under less then ideal light conditions where you can't expect a autofocus to function right. I also remember from shooting back in my xh-a1 days that 25p as opposed to 50i also showed bigger difference in how accurate the autofocus was, an explanation given then was that in 50i there are more frames per second the camera could use to judge focus from and since in 4K we all are shooting either 24,25 or 30p that might be a reason why the autofocus gets fooled easier compared to shooting in 1080p 50p, maybe Alister knows if this is the case?

I know my cx730 holds autofocus pretty well but if it looses it it can go lost completely and has a hard time recovering, I use manual focus whenever I can but during run and gun I often let the camera decide, what matters most to me is that under normal light and when you are shooting wider the autofocus doesn't hunt or starts pumping, does the ax100 perform well under such conditions?

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Anthony Lelli

Ken,
that's ok. I'm done explaining. The 30p vs. 60p gave me a clear idea of the useless inputs based on stuff heard on the internet instead of field experience. 30p gets even more light than 60p by the way. But I'm done.
You don't have to believe me
just "tracking" is not the issue Ken. it's the opposite! oh my.. a video tool doesn't have to track anything unless I ask to do so. Again this is a VIDEO CAMERA, not a still camera for pete's sake. Before with the old firmware it took its due time to switch from one point to a new one, and for a reason. that's exactly what a video gear should do. Otherwise it will be hunting ad libitum.
But you don't have to believe me
believe to noa put who doesn't even have the camera, I'm sure that posters like him will keep explaining in details how the camera works. If it's ok with you guys then it's fine with me.

But I want to add something, this time to the tech guys at SONY's : they can't say it but I can .. "see? We told you so!" . to the marketing guys.

/ I'm done with this

You totally, 100%, missed my point. You made a claim that the firmware update screwed up the focusing in low light. If you approach this scientifically, as you should, that claim would only be valid if you shot at the same location, under the same lighting conditions, with the original firmware and had no issues.

Otherwise it's just pure conjecture. I haven't heard of others noting this same deterioration under low light conditions, after the update. Is it possible? Of course, but I prefer a more scientific approach.

As for tracking focus, I'm sure you know that that's something that can be turned on or off. So yes, the camera won't do that 'unless you ask it to'.