March 10th, 2014, 05:22 PM | #466 |
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,197
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
When watching low bitrate stuff like this, it's hard to seperate what the camera is really recording and what the highly compressed YouTube codec is showing.
The official Sony demo, if you rip it from YouTube is h.264 - high level at a 5.2 profile. But here is the kicker...it's only 15 mega bits per second!!! It looks realy damn good at 15Mbp/s...better than I ever dreamed imaginable for 4k so low. The Cat video is nice but the official Sony demo has almost non of the problems that the cat video displays. I can find literally nothing at all wrong with the Sony demo. (I hope it really was an AX100) I'm going to hold all judgement untill I can see a raw AX100 60 Mbp/s clip straight from the SD card. |
March 10th, 2014, 05:34 PM | #467 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
I should also note that we're assuming the 60Mbps is a constant data rate and not a variable one.
Now granted this video was edited, but I observed data rates going into the mid 90Mpbs area during the complex scenes. So if this actually occurred during the original recording, we have a variable encoding bitrate and not a constant one. So who knows? |
March 10th, 2014, 05:40 PM | #468 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Garden Grove CA
Posts: 239
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
A new youtube video
|
March 10th, 2014, 06:14 PM | #469 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Looks good except for all the camera movement. Looks like the shooter thought this was an 'artistic effect'.
|
March 10th, 2014, 06:56 PM | #470 |
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,197
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Not bad! No real Jell-O to speak of. I feel better now. We can all see the macro blocking in the high detail, fast moving scenes but then again, this is highly re compressed for the web.
It's still a bad idea to judge from this internet streaming stuff. It's nowhere close to the original camera bitrate. The camera work was gritty and artistically shaky but that was good to see because that would have revealed vertical skew like crazy if the AX100 was prone to it. I think it held up well in that regard. What do we have? 1 more week to wait? I'm also waiting for the Sony Pro sister to this camera to be announced any day now. CT |
March 10th, 2014, 09:49 PM | #471 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Cliff, this is why I think some are way too quick to find flaws with this camera based on very poor 'evidence'. I saw the same thing prior to the RX10 release.
Based on that insane camera 'Shake & bake' at the end of the cat video, some were condemning the camera as useless because of the jello. I said the 'test' was ridiculous and it proved nothing. This latest video, although I didn't care for the shooter's style, shows this is not the issue that some claimed. I totally agree that the very obvious macro blocking was due to the YouTube compression. It had that signature throughout. Prior to the release of some cameras, there always appear to be a few that almost hope these cameras fail. I see it time and time again. Very weird. |
March 11th, 2014, 12:17 AM | #472 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Richmond, BC, Canada
Posts: 52
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Man, I have to say that this is also a Sony promotion. They have some very badass guys to do the post processes and never mentioned anything about it when posting the videos. I believe that they also paid Google to have advanced codec compressing to make the stream bigger for the users watching the video, the waves of sea are much clearer that what I have posted onto Youtube. The actual picture quality into customers' hands are not going to be like this good, and possibly never will be. I also noticed there are some jelly parts in scenes involving fast movements (like on public transit), plus they also intentionally evaded some high contrast part and low light circumstances. At 0:47 when the sunshine comes in the colour noise just becomes way too outrageous, with jellies.
The bottom line is that, if you complain to Sony that you can't do this or that with a camera, they will show that the camera is fully capable to do it and it's just the user's fault. Not to mention what expensive stuff (including post processing filters) and how much time they have used to make it. Sort of like a 'buyers beware' but true. |
March 11th, 2014, 01:34 AM | #473 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Apple Valley CA
Posts: 4,874
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Consumer malfunction, AKA user error, is a common failure mode for high tech and even many low tech items... If you've ever worked retail or repair in a tech environment, you just laughed...
As Ken stated, the RX10 was criticized for video issues, based on horrible reviewer camera "technique"... it's turned out to be a winner. Not "perfect", but not bad for most purposes once you get to know it... We'll have to see how the AX100 turns out when released into the "real world". I'm sure there will still be "complaints" (see above), there always are. I'm just fascinated by all the "tinfoil hats" popping up of late... I'm not surprised that a manufacturer will put their gear in the best light, and it's not surprising that they use pros that make the most of it... not even surprised that it might take some extra effort or expense to get "closer" to that level of results... not even shocked that next year, they might have improved performance! |
March 11th, 2014, 02:29 AM | #474 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Richmond, BC, Canada
Posts: 52
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
After taking some much closer look on the Retina screen of MBP 15" I just feel that Youtube video's terrible to watch in details. Similar area of colours are jellied everywhere, of course it's a problem of compressed codec. It may feel good under 720p or 1080p size, but meh. Maybe I am too much of a perfectionist, but I do have the advantage being a programmer, and know exactly what's caused by the codec or the camera itself. Maybe it's better to post it onto Vimeo and set to downloadable to get better quality, but Sony would never do so. At 0:40 it shows its weakness of DF. Too much detail could expose more. Smile. And to me this colour is 4:2:0 instead of 4:2:2. meh. I would't pick it up once I get into the world of latter.
|
March 11th, 2014, 02:55 AM | #475 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 329
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Quote:
They are literally trying to resume playing with us like it used to be before the D90. Now let me be clear : which camera can compete against a GH2? Enough now. I did what I had to do for the good of my people. I believe that my message was loud and clear. |
|
March 11th, 2014, 03:59 AM | #476 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: College Park, Maryland
Posts: 913
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Ok im scratching my head here at the last few pages in this thread. We're talking about a 4K consumer camcorder at $2,000. It has a 1" sensor and a 10x zoom. Yes 2.8-4 isnt optimal but what other camcorder is out there that can do what this camcorder can?
The GH4 is a great tool on paper but the samples of videos I've seen have not impressed me at all. Very few scenes where you can see fine detail. The AX100 on the other hand is just so detailed down-sampled its unreal for the price of $2k. There is still a great need for camcorders with fixed lens for some applications. The ease of shooting home videos or family events with a fixed lens cmera means I don't have to lug my FS700 around. 60Mbps for 4k will have its issues as others have stated but again this is Sony and i highly doubt they want to have the headache of customer after customer calling saying their class 6 card won't record 4k. They're just not going to deal with it. If a better 4k bitrate is needed wait for the pro-version and see if it works best. I have no problem with the problems that have been pointed out and for $2k Sony is getting my money. |
March 11th, 2014, 04:10 AM | #477 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: POOLE, UK
Posts: 158
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Looking at that new video, the one thing that stands out to me is how good the lens seems to be, Yes poor camera work but lots of everyday situations -poor light, backlight and flair and the lens seems to cope with it all very well, way better than the CX700 series- can't see any purple fringing to worry about or soft edges.
I am really not getting stressed about the YouTube codec as I saw the main promo video at CES on quite a few monitors large and small and to me it looked amazing. I'm more than sold, roll on delivery day. |
March 11th, 2014, 08:30 AM | #478 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Quote:
* What evidence do you have that Sony 'paid Google' to have 'advanced codec compressing'? * What specifically are you referring to as 'also a Sony promotion'? Are you referring to the last posted video or the original true Sony promo launched a while ago? * If you were referring to the last video just posted, and it was the Sony 'badass guys' doing the post production, then they should hire some new 'badass guys'. It wasn't particularly good. * You say they 'intentionally evaded' some high contrast and low light circumstances. Evidence please? Additionally how do you know this last video was a Sony promo? Because of the logo in the lower right? That can be duplicated. To be honest, I never got the feeling this was actually produced by Sony. * You say the waves of sea are so much cleaner than what you posted? What does this even refer to? Did you download the original YouTube video than re-upload it? If so, did you really expect it to look as good as the original? Lots of accusations without any evidence...again. I don't know guys, my head is spinning. I'm thinking it's time to talk about the elephant in the room. As long as I've been on these forums, I've seen many Sony haters out there. I don't know how they became that way, but it's very clear they exist and to deny it is just silly. Yes, there are also Sony lovers out there that think Sony can do no wrong, but that's not what I'm talking about lately with the AX100. It appears that lately the Sony haters have come out of the woodwork with accusation after baseless accusation. This always seems to happen when a Sony camera gets particular notoriety just prior to release. This is kind of like swatting at bees, they attack. To be very honest, I noticed this among some BMPCC owners prior to the RX10's release. Many of the attacks seemed to come from that group. It seems some don't like anything 'stealing' the notoriety of their particular gem. This is not limited to just cameras, I see the same behavior when discussion turns to video displays in the different forums. I guess it's human nature. But human nature not withstanding, it does a disservice to those looking for factual information. Now to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying this is the behavior that Meng Li is exhibiting, but this is the internet where anyone can make any claim against anyone or any company and have no basis in fact to support it. So I see nothing wrong with calling people out when they make claims that are not supported. |
|
March 11th, 2014, 08:48 AM | #479 | |||
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Would this be the ideal cam for action & sports shooting? Probably not, but even there I'll wait to see how it actually performs under those conditions before condemning it. The only thing I can state definitively, without pixel peeping, is that for the most part, I like what I'm seeing in the video samples released to date. |
|||
March 11th, 2014, 08:52 AM | #480 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Re: Sony FDR-AX100
Quote:
That's why this pixel peeping stuff drives me nuts. Rather than watch a moving video from a traditional viewing distance, some would rather do a frame grab of an edited and re-encoded video and 'prove' that the camera has severe limitations. |
|
| ||||||
|
|