Sony FDR-AX100

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Les, why would you not do this in post? If you have multiple cameras, regardless of how you have them white balanced, I would think you'd want to tweak this in the editing process anyway.

The typical color level, sharpness and contrast controls that were on some previous Sonys were pretty crude and certainly not how you'd want to 'balance' multiple cameras.

If all I'm doing is using the camera controls to get as close as I can to two cameras like a handicam, I'd just use manual white balance and then worry about it during editing.

As for the info display, no, it does not turn off unless you want it to. Your choice.

Theoretically maybe but in practice, I've found matching is often difficult between cameras. Worse across brands. You are always better off capturing it as close as possible then fine tune as needed in post. The best results are from tweaking the B camera to look as close as possible to the A camera. That's why.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

Theoretically maybe but in practice, I've found matching is often difficult between cameras. Worse across brands. You are always better off capturing it as close as possible then fine tune as needed in post. The best results are from tweaking the B camera to look as close as possible to the A camera. That's why.

I would simply use MWB to get as close as possible. I can't see the color controls from past Sonys that give you 3 notches plus or minus as being such a help. I guess everyone has their own favorite approach. :)

[Dave Blackhurst]

I'd add that what constitutes "matching" can also be subjective - I'm reminded of a movie (can't recall the name) where the coloration changed to match the "mood" of the main character - so one scene would be "warm" (red/orange) the next "cool" (blue), and then some GREEN (for "unbalanced"?)...

When trying to match cameras between brands, there's usually still a bit of "signature" that's tough to get rid of... not saying impossible, but a lot of work at best. I've fiddled with it, seen others do it, and I can usually spot the "brand differences". Sony has a look I "like", but I won't complain about Canon or Panny... for the most part (there are specific things I "don't like", but they are minor/picky!).

I've had decent luck with staying "brand specific", even across lines like Handycam and Cybershot, the "look" seems to stay "close enough" that minor adjustments will do the trick. Variations in resolution quality are another matter, but aren't AS noticeable (thus my hopes that the AX & RX will match up "ok"). Most importantly, they both seem to have a "pop" to the images, so maybe it'll work until the RX10M2 shows up with 4k enabled!

EDIT:
I favor Ron's approach of using matched preset WB levels, or if you have the time to do the "one press" WB (which gets tricky!). That way if you're using same brand, the WB presets should be "fairly" consistent... I know the WB menus for the RX's can be pretty "deep", and I've never completely figured them out!

[Cliff Totten]

Did some audio tests today with a BeachTech adapter. I'm VERY impressed with the preamps that Sony gave the AX100.

Leaving audio levels on "auto" created very hot levels that will breath and pump under a heavy handed AGC circuit.This circuit tends to peg digital "0" pretty hard with a hard limiter at the top.

Moving it to "manual" appears to kill the AGC completely. It seems to be a "true" manual and not a "quasi" manual control. The top limiter seems to still be there, starting at maybe around -6b or so? (Great job Sony!)

This doesn't seem to be the typical "hissy" audio circuits that Sony has enjoyed placing on "Handycams" in the past. This one is VERY clean. It's actually surprisingly clean and very Beachtech friendly. (Awesome Job Sony!)

I'm pleasantly surprised that Sony allowed this for $2K. In years past, they have always wanted to degrade the bottom market, 1/8 inch audio inputs with tons of high noise floor. This was done to drive more users into XLR handle models.

This AX100 seems to be breaking ALLOT of the old, traditional Sony marketing rules!

Whoever in in charge today at Sony camera design,...I like their new thinking these days. (the RX10 was another "rule breaker" too)

Hmmm,...what would a possible the "pro" sister model add? (besides XLR top handle)

CT

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Whoever in in charge today at Sony camera design,...I like their new thinking these days. (the RX10 was another "rule breaker" too)

CT

Cliff, they probably fired the guy by now! :)

[Dave Blackhurst]

At the risk of starting a "platform war", here's my take on Apple vs. M$... as someone who builds and repairs computers somewhat regularly...

If your computer is "unstable", there may be a hardware issue - make sure that's not the problem first. Then it can be a driver issue... update or roll back as needed. Of course there are poorly programmed programs that crash, either use a different one or report the bug until it gets fixed. Lots of crap gets "downloaded" if you're not careful.. Then there's the dreaded malware/virus, more prevalent on Windows because it's a bigger target... or perhaps worse yet, the many "anti" virus programs that slow a computer down ALL the time, almost as bad as the "disease"!

Plenty of reasons a computer may be "unstable", but all resolvable. I'm sure Apple has bugs and glitches too, but by maintaining a "closed ecosystem" (more on that shortly), they reduce exposure to that.


XP was a pretty decent OS, but of course is outdated. Vista was pretty universally hated, Win7 "fixed" most of the bugs and annoyances, and works pretty well. Win8... not sure what you can say about the Play-Skool interface, but the OS itself is actually faster than W7, and stable - W8.1 broke many things I had working on W8, took a while to sort them all out, I was not amused... and to make W8/8.1 more serviceable, installing "Start Menu 8" (free, downloadable) restores the familiar and usable W7 interface, while retaining the W8 speed underneath. I've forgotten the ugly "metro" interface entirely on a W8.1 Ultrabook with Start Menu 8!

Here's part of the problem, Windows is a reasonably "open" system, lots of hardware and software, and sometimes there are just incompatibilities, so Windows gets the blame for a 3rd party goof... Apple keeps their system relatively closed (no Flash for you because it crashes!), proprietary and most importantly priced accordingly... I don't want to pay 2-3x more for a fruit on my box/lid/cover, but it's fine if others do.


The WORST thing we have today is what I call "OTF" (On The Fly... or... Oh... That's F%#!"d) programming - with the web and apps, programmers no longer thoroughly test code, and all too often, users of today are "Alpha testing" (not even fit for "beta"). Unstable glitchy code is not necessarily the fault of the computer, or the OS, and there's PLENTY of it out there - "pretty" whiz bang interfaces that don't work well, or are slow, or don't work at all - see them every day anymore... but it's the state of "programming", like it or not. Bad code is bad code, AKA "garbage in, garbage out", something that has always been true.

Asking a laptop to do the job of a high powered desktop usually doesn't work out the way one hopes, I'm still fiddling with it, hoping maybe it can happen! But I know that at the same time, I'm spec'ing a new desktop so 4K will be comfortable...

[Dave Blackhurst]

Well, the guy at Sony who inspired the RX series seems to be pushing the envelope, maybe they're figuring out that going bankrupt is not a good option, and creativity is needed!

If you think about it, they HAVE to do something, the consumer market is dead/dying, at least when it comes to the traditional Cybershot and Handycam retail sales. IF there is a market left, it's "enthusiasts" who are far more particular about features, specs, and all the petty details (yeah, here's looking at US, guys...).

I don't want to spend big $$ on a "big" camera... but a smaller camera (with a relatively smaller price tag), with excellent image quality... yeah, if I can produce "professional" looking CONTENT with it, without breaking the bank, sure, I'm interested.


The same old "lines" that ALL the manufacturers were releasing, with little tiny incremental "upgrades", at least as far as the final image results, were not "selling" - no compelling "unique-ness"! Even GREAT cameras just were not that much more interesting to todays consumer to get them to sell. Last years (or the year before, or the year before) model does fine for most people!

Sony broke all the "molds" with the RX100, and it was good... The M2 is incrementally "better", and still good... the RX10 completely changes things as far as hybrid cameras go, and it's VERY good... The AX100 looks to do the same thing for the video camera... Sony is trying to find what WILL sell, as any company must do to survive!

IF I were the other manufacturers, sitting around rehashing the same thing they made 5 years ago, I'd be worried right now - Sony has created entirely NEW market niches with NO directly competing products, even as the old niches slowly dry up and disappear. The only "complaint" seems to be that these new higher performing cameras are "kinda expensive" (yes, yes they are... at least 'til you evaluate what you get in the package). But it certainly makes for good times for the end user!

[Peter Siamidis]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

Asking a laptop to do the job of a high powered desktop usually doesn't work out the way one hopes, I'm still fiddling with it, hoping maybe it can happen! But I know that at the same time, I'm spec'ing a new desktop so 4K will be comfortable...

What's interesting is that my little Mac Air with it's dual core i7 and HD5000 gpu on Windows 8.1 can play the 4k footage from my AX100 camera at full speed no problem, it looks buttery smooth. But *only* if I use Windows Media player to play back the video files. The problem is that most software has limited and/or poor gpu support so like using VLC, Media Player Classic, etc results in choppy playback because they have poor gpu support but Windows Media player fully supports the HD5000 gpu in my laptop hence playback works like a dream, my cpu use is only at 3% when playing the raw 4k files from the AX100 with WMP and they play perfect. Vegas Pro 12 alas seems to also have poor gpu support for the AX100 4k files so the cpu gets pegged at 100% and the result is choppy playback. I'm hoping Vegas 13 will have much better gpu support because the HD5000 gpu clearly can play back 4k video files at full speed as WMP shows, Vegas Pro just needs the proper gpu support.

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

You must be joking! First, I have Windows so I know why I never use it. Still not useable at 8.1. Truly a hated OS.

There's no point in getting into anecdotal comparisons. I mean I can post how when I unplug the thunderbolt to ethernet adapter on my wife's Macbook Pro that it crashes OSX and causes it to reboot whereas Windows 8.1 runs perfectly doing that on the same laptop, or I can say how driver support on OSX is terrible compared to Windows 8.1 from our experience on the same laptop, etc, etc, but what's the point. My experience with OSX is quite frankly that's it's limited and less stable than Windows 8.1 which works like a champ. Mercifully I'm not required to use Apple software for my business which is good because it would be exponentially harder to run my 5 websites on anything other than Vegas Pro since scripting support is an absolute must. But that's my experience, yours will vary.

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I would simply use MWB to get as close as possible. I can't see the color controls from past Sonys that give you 3 notches plus or minus as being such a help. I guess everyone has their own favorite approach. :)

I agree. That's why I asked about the controls in the AX100. The 5DMII and GH3 had enough controls that I could match them across brand to a EX1r. So I'll ask again: Are there no controls on the color of the AX100?

[Derek McCabe]

I have to jump in here and make a simple observation...

Editing 4K video.. on ANY laptop? Seriously? A laptop is the wrong tool for editing video.
Sure, go ahead.. tell us which apps and on which OS work and don't work... but if you are editing 4K video, it should be on a fast workstation with a 30" screen.

I could go on and on about what makes a good workstation... SSD drives, tons or RAM, etc.

But the GPU topic certainly is very important. Maybe some are not aware, but on the latest OS X — there is a new feature that allows apps to take advantage of multiple GPUs. That means the app needs to be written specifically to take advantage of multiple GPUs. The first two apps are Final Cut Pro and Motion.

Jump ahead to the point... there have been many bench tests now available to show even 2 medium quality video cards, like the ATI 5770 (old cards!) will give really good results in Final Cut Pro. By the way, you need a special benchmark app that actually "sees" that you have 2 video cards installed for benchmark tests, there is a testing app called "BruceX Test.xml" Google it, it is found on a popular Final Cut Pro users site...

I don't see Sony Vegas or even Avid moving in this direction yet, although Adobe Premiere has announced they are moving from Nvidia optimized code to the faster OpenCL code on the AMD (ATI) video cards.. and will also make use of seeing dual video cards.

Laptop users please note.. you can't put 2 video cards in a laptop!

The limit is not just 2 cards either... Final Cut Pro and Motion will combine as many cards as you throw at it. It combines the GPUs of all the cards. The limit has been on the motherboards, as Mac Pros only have two 16X PCIe slots.

I see that Sonnet has just announced a 4U rack unit for the newest MacPro... which allows you to ADD PCI slots! This means you can add even more GPU power to a stock MacPro, yes the garbage can model with the "no PCI slots".

If you want to work in real-time for 4K video... it takes a full-blown workstation with multiple video cards. It's expensive. So are lenses.

Someone mentioned that Macs are 2-3 times more costly than the same PC... not true. Get facts correct. Macs tend to be only about 10% more expensive with the exact same motherboards and exact RAM and video card configurations. So for 10% more cost, you can run Windows and OS X smoothly on a Mac. You only get Windows on a PC. There is a Hakintosh OS where you can run Mac apps on a PC, but unless you like to rebuild your system once a month... it's not worth the time in a working environment.

For me, Final Cut Pro is the only game in town for editing. And I like DaVinci Resolve for color grading. So it is a full blow Mac workstation for me. I have been waiting now 2 months for these Sony AX100s to come out... about to purchase 2 of them. I consider them "cheap" B cameras.. I want to see how far I can push them, especially in grading. My first step into 4K files, and the new MacPro is just another expensive I will need to spend to make it all work.

And my last comment... my workflow has previously been to send HDMI signal and record external to SSD to ProRes. Then I just open all files in Final Cut Pro. But I see with these Sony cams, the HDMI out is not useable.. but I am still going to transcode all my 4K footage to ProRes before editing. I will have to wait until Sony comes out with the "pro" HDMI features on the next cam.

[Cliff Totten]

My laptop is a Asus G750J.

i7 Haswell
2 1tb WD Black drives in Raid 0 config
16 gigs of RAM
Nvidia GTX 770
Sony Vegas 12

I thought for sure that I could only edit 4K on my desktop. I was pleasantly wrong! For some crazy reason that I still don't understand, the AX100 Long GOP has been fairly easy! It's nowhere the pain I expected it to be.

Vegas 12, I'm told, doesn't even really support the GTX 770 yet. It's offloading the work to the CPU?

No, it's not as smooth as XDCAM MPEG 2. However, all I can say is that it's much, MUCH better than I expected and certainly workable.

CT

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

I agree. That's why I asked about the controls in the AX100. The 5DMII and GH3 had enough controls that I could match them across brand to a EX1r. So I'll ask again: Are there no controls on the color of the AX100?

There is a cinematone profile that raises color level and changes the gamma a bit as well as presenting a slightly warmer color rendition.

But if you're looking for a 3 click up or down on color level, no, you won't find it on the AX100. I thought that was clear.

There are, of course, the traditional AWB, MWB, indoor, outdoor and fluorescent presets.

You can read the online manual if you'd like to know other details about the camera.

[Peter Siamidis]

Originally Posted by Derek McCabe

Editing 4K video.. on ANY laptop? Seriously? A laptop is the wrong tool for editing video.
Sure, go ahead.. tell us which apps and on which OS work and don't work... but if you are editing 4K video, it should be on a fast workstation with a 30" screen.

I connect my laptop to a 30" screen when I'm working from home, and the laptop lets me disconnect and work anywhere which to me in invaluable. I have a desktop as well that does all my rendering overnight, but for general video work I can't be chained to a desk, I need to be able to work wherever.

Originally Posted by Derek McCabe

If you want to work in real-time for 4K video... it takes a full-blown workstation with multiple video cards. It's expensive.

Nah not really, there's enough gflops and hardware h264 decoding support in many gpu's that they can handle 4k video easily. Like my hd5000 gpu example, that's a very basic ~700 gflops gpu and it can play 4k raw files from my AX100 with ease. The current limitations are on the software side, not the hardware side unless you are stacking multiple 4k streams om top of each other which I'll admit I never do.

Originally Posted by Derek McCabe

For me, Final Cut Pro is the only game in town for editing.

Everyone's mileage will vary. For me proxy files are a no go firstly because it costs me more time, and secondly because it would increase my archiving dramatically as I have to revisit old footage sometimes which means I would have to keep all original source and the proxy files. That kills off any video editor that requires proxy files to work, I'll never touch them. Scripting is 100% required for me as well, that alone saves me countless hours as I've written code to automate all sorts of tasks that I regularly do. I know many other people that run websites that have no idea how I run 5 (soon to be 7) websites all on my own with no help. They all have Mac's and use other editors other than Vegas Pro, so they don't realize how much extra work they are hurting themselves with compared to me that does everything with ease on Vegas Pro. I keep that info a secret, but they wouldn't believe me if I told them anyways as many just don't see Windows as a viable video editing platform, which blows my mind but whatever. Ultimately I'd consider other video editing programs, but with Vegas Pro I have not needed proxy files since 2005 when I started using it, and it's scripting is simply too powerful and useful for me to ever forgo it. It's not for trying, I did try Premiere Pro and estimated that it took me 12x longer to run my business with that app compared to Vegas Pro. But that's me and my needs, everyone's needs will vary.

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

My laptop is a Asus G750J.

i7 Haswell
2 1tb WD Black drives in Raid 0 config
16 gigs of RAM
Nvidia GTX 770
Sony Vegas 12

I thought for sure that I could only edit 4K on my desktop. I was pleasantly wrong! For some crazy reason that I still don't understand, the AX100 Long GOP has been fairly easy! It's nowhere the pain I expected it to be.

Vegas 12, I'm told, doesn't even really support the GTX 770 yet. It's offloading the work to the CPU?

No, it's not as smooth as XDCAM MPEG 2. However, all I can say is that it's much, MUCH better than I expected and certainly workable.

CT

Do you mean it has a 770m gpu? I am thinking of switching to a different ultrabook, hopefully one with a Maxwell based 860m gpu. If your 770m can handle 4k in Vegas Pro then the 860m should be able to as well.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Derek McCabe

I have to jump in here and make a simple observation...

Editing 4K video.. on ANY laptop? Seriously? A laptop is the wrong tool for editing video.
Sure, go ahead.. tell us which apps and on which OS work and don't work... but if you are editing 4K video, it should be on a fast workstation with a 30" screen.

Yes, seriously. As I posted, Premiere Pro works in real-time directly with 4K XAVC. With Mavericks the Intel GPU becomes supported by OpenCL which may make both FCP X and Premiere faster.

FCP X edits in real-time with ProRes proxy. Yes, it takes time to background convert XAVC to proxy, but one can begin editing right away. The conversion occurs in the background.

Really can't ask for more than that. So what's the need for a monster workstation? I have a loaded MB Air with i7 and SSD. I have edited all over the world. FCP X uploads directly to YouTube and Vimeo -- so all I need to "distribute" is a good ISP. The upload of 4K media limitation is the speed of the ISP -- and a workstation won't help that.

Where a workstation would help is with iMovie and Media Composer. Both will play XAVC UHD, but very slowly. So one must wait for a transcode and a super fast CPU would help this. Once transcoded, however, I can use both to edit 4k in real-time on my laptop.

But, even if you have a MacPro with dual GPUs -- neither NLE can use them. In fact Media Composer really doesn't use the GPU much.

So the only place where a workstation would be of benefit is with iMovie and Media Composer. For me the obvious choice is to let the transcoding occur during the night and have a 3# computer.

But, if I were pressed for time, I have the choice of Premiere and FCP X. Both are good NLEs. FCP X using the GPU for all FX gives it an advantage for FX heavy work.

So I find it odd that you say go ahead and post what works, but then say ignore these data and believe your opinion on what one needs. I can't imagine ever again sitting at a desk to use a computer. However, when the next rMBP 13" is released I might upgrade as it is only a half-pound heavier.

PS: I use the Air for grading as well. I use AE and LightPost. But, will soon have Resolve running -- not that I really need it.

But, you are right about the tiny cost difference between Mac and PC -- considering that there are no sexy PCs. hp and Dell are doing so badly in PC sales they just don't bother to try.

[Peter Siamidis]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

But, you are right about the tiny cost difference between Mac and PC -- considering that there are no sexy PCs. hp and Dell are doing so badly in PC sales they just don't bother to try.

There are some, like this one:

The New Razer Blade Ultra-Thin Gaming Laptop - 14" Notebook Display

It's same size and weight as a Macbook Pro but with a higher res 3200x1800 display, better 870m gpu, and touchscreen. There's also this one if you don't need such high resolution:

http://dragonarmy.msi.com/home/weapons/GS70-Stealth-Pro

It supports three ssd's in a very thin case so you can have redundant raid in your ultrabook along with an 870m gpu, or go for speed with 1500MB/sec raid 0.