Sony FDR-AX100

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Phil Lee

Hi

Panasonic are recommending UHS I class III memory cards, these support in excess of 200Mbps. Bit-rates on memory cards are already fast enough to support 60fps in 4K, the problem is the processing power to encode that in real-time at 4K resolutions with enough quality.


Storage probably isn't so much a problem given the size of hard discs theses days.

Regards

Phil

Yes I think it is the processing for realtime recording that results in my AX1 having a fan and consuming a NP-F970 battery in about 1 hour compared to my NX5U that will run for over 4 hours on the same battery. ( I really do mean the same battery !!! I have one that came with the AX1 and one for my NX5U and used both shooting for just over 2 hours with the AX1 ) As to space on hard drives I do not think that is the problem it is more the archive that will be the concern. At 60P the AX1 file size is about 6 times the file size of the NX5U for the same time period. An act of a play of just over an hour is 11G for the NX5U 1920x1080 60i 24Mbps and 62G for the AX1 60P at 150Mbps.

Ron Evans

[Dave Blackhurst]

From a "consumer" standpoint, those fast cards will be "expensive", and a SIGNIFICANT investment - 128G cards if you want to shoot very much... and what's the average HDD size... seems like 4Tb drives are at the higher end, though I see 6Tb listed... and SSD's aren't that large yet!

Certainly from a "content creator" standpoint, these are all necessary evils, but the costs of storage media will have to come down, and the sizes go up (like 1/2 the cost and twice the size, or both) in order to come even close to "consumer friendly". Not sure that the "traditional" computing market is operating under those metrics and expectations anymore...

I hate to say it, but with most consumers using phones and tablets, 30p lower bitrate 4k may become a practical "standard" fairly quickly, and the step up may be MUCH harder to sell...

[Ron Evans]

For archive I now use LTO3 data tape which is fine for AVCHD and finished projects but I am now thinking of upgrading to maybe LTO5 ( to get some backwards compatibility with the lots of LTO3 tapes I have ). I still have no vision of 4K output it is still for cropping, that is my interest, so will be normal 1920x1080 or DVD !!! . WIll be interested to see what comes in the next few months. Downscaled AX1 is better than any of my current cameras and reminds me completely of the introduction of HDV.

Ron Evans

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

For a fair amount of applications, 30p seems to be "good enough" - the additional processing and storage for 4K/60p at higher bitrates are going to be an issue for a while...................
I suspect the processing side of the equation is partially offset by newer, more efficient CODECs, but so far at least, I don't think you can beat the file size problem, either in the sense of requiring LARGER storage, and faster write/read times...

Dave - as far as different framerates go, it can't be said too many times that as far as storage goes the key fact is that it depends whether you're talking about interframe or intraframe codecs.

If it's interframe, then datarates and file sizes do NOT scale up proportionally with framerate. Compared to 30p, the filesize for 60p is not twice as big (as may be supposed) - a more likely figure is somewhere around 10-20% larger. (Keeping quality and all else equal.)

The reason is that it's typical to keep the TIME INTERVAL between I frames constant, which may be typically 1/2 sec. Hence, for 30p, you'll get 14 difference frames between the I frames, for 60p you'll get 29. But the I frames are far larger in file size than difference frames - and you still only get two per second - hence the overall increase in coded data rate is much less than the doubling that may be expected.

(The above is oversimplified, but it illustrates the reasoning.)

That's why, for AVC-HD, 30p gets coded at 24Mbs, 60p gets coded at 28Mbs for equivalent quality - not the 48Mbs that may be thought.

Move into the high end world, such as XAVC with intra-frame compression, and that's when you have to consider a fixed amount of data per frame. So with intra-frame compression, then yes, double the framerate and you will double the file size.

[Dave Blackhurst]

I think that's the thing that's amazing - how much better the AX100 looks, even downsampled compared to other video cameras. The RX10 looked (and still does look) very very good... yet the AX100 bests it. I don't think any of us were quite expecting that much difference...

It's similar to the SD to HDV transition, that was about 4x plus or minus increase in resolution, and we're going 4x over that (scary to think that 4K is 16x more pixels than good ol' SD!). And it DOES look good, which is why I suspect the adoption curve will be faster than HD. The effect of "looking through a window" is more addictive and attractive than one might expect.

I think that's where DVi needs a couple new forum areas, both under the "4K" banner, one for those of us using (or at least trying to) these new toys, and another area for the post "issues" and how to deal with the workflows!


My new "cheap" smartphone has a noticeably sharper and better screen than my "last years model"... consumers are going to expect better and better screens with higher resolutions (yep, even the "tiny" screens are going high rez), I know my old eyes certainly appreciate the improved resolutions!

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

So what are they saying here, cinematic is less sharp?

Here we have a camera capable of delivering very sharp looking through glass images, yet it's not good enough, because it's too sharp and because of that it's not cinematic.

That's what they are saying and they are correct. That's because they understand the difference between SHARPNESS and DETAIL.

Pro camcorders often have two controls: Sharpness and Detail. The Sharpness control adds/subtracts to mid-frequency signal strength -- in other words the EDGES of objects. The Detail control adds/subtracts to high-frequency signal strength -- in other words object detail such as hair.

Since ACTUAL 4K resolution will not be visible at typical viewing distances, but your UHD buyer expects to see a significant increase in resolution -- the solution is to boost both Sharpness and Detail in a 4K consumer cameras. The reason to boost detail is a prosumer lens doesn't have enough MTF at the highest frequencies, so an electronic boost is used to compensate. Nothing new here -- this is SOP in the consumer world. (Like boom-boxes with upper bass boosted so buyers will think they offer real low-bass reproduction.)

Film and digital cinema cameras are exactly the opposite. Because of lens quality, sensor, and electronics design -- they deliver a smooth frequency response through the mid-range and into the high-frequencies.

CLARITY is close to what we mean when we talk about RESOLUTION. A picture is CLEAR when it shows reality without artificial enhancement AND WITHOUT ARTIFACTS -- things that should not be in the picture.

Artifacts come from both spatial and temporal aliasing. The latter are called motion judder and the wagon wheel effect. The former includes Moiré and ordinary aliasing. A flickering artifact -- dynamic spatial aliasing -- can occur when very fine detail is in motion as detail moves from one photocite to photocite.

Normally, a well designed OLPF prevents spatial aliasing. However, when a camera also takes photos the OLPF is set very high so photo resolution isn't compromised. But designers often set the OLPF too high because they know that many viewers will see the false detail as real detail. It makes the camera look like it has more resolution than it does. Obviously, this trick is used by consumer cameras. And, just as obviously, they should not be used by digital cinema cameras.

So just as digital cinema cameras don't add enhancements, they also take great pains to avoid introducing spatial artifacts. But, what about 24fps.

Our eyes sense motion judder on the basis of object edge hardness. When a camera applies edge enhancement there is no way to avoid visible motion judder. Thus, the "sharper" the camera the more visible judder. Digital cinema cameras -- and film -- don't have edge enhancement so motion judder is far less visible.

Of course, to some this makes their images seem soft. And, the first generation of DSLRs were to my eyes, painfully soft. Digital cinema cameras, both high-end and low-end, have overcome this problem. (Perhaps so will the new Sony and Panasonic DSLRs.)

Bottom-line you have a choice to make. What is the look you want. Slashcam, is correctly noting the AX100 does not deliver a cinema look. For those who don't want that look -- no problem. But, you should at least understand why you are getting the look you like. And, be aware that -- as I posted much earlier -- the cinema look is becoming the reference look for cameras.

[Ken Ross]

And here we have another AX100 video, with just loads of real detail and no artifacts. Superb 'clarity'. ;)

As opposed to most AX100 videos, Billy Chiu shot this in a somewhat different setting. Very nice.

Be sure to choose the highest resolution:

YouTube (Short URL)

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Since ACTUAL 4K resolution will not be visible at typical viewing distances, but your UHD buyer expects to see a significant increase in resolution -- the solution is to boost both Sharpness and Detail in a 4K consumer cameras.

Not entirely true. Actual observed 4K resolution is dependent on BOTH viewing distance and screen size. It's impossible to talk about one without the other. Larger screen sizes require a lesser viewing distance to see ACTUAL 4K detail. We need to state both to be accurate. So an 85" screen, viewed at typical viewing distances, will show actual 4K resolution. Smaller screens will require a closer viewing distance. A 55" UHD screen viewed at a typical viewing distance won't show true 4K resolution. Of course we can throw in the other variable, visual acuity.

What's obvious when you see the comparative videos between the AX100 and more expensive 4K cameras, is you're seeing more real DETAIL with the AX100. The legibility of things such as writing and fine details will not be made more legible by increasing 'apparent sharpness', but only by increasing the actual resolution of the camera. That's quite obvious in the comparison videos I've seen. So I don't really care what anyone calls it, but when one sees more DETAIL, that means the acquisition equipment has more resolution. It's really that simple.

I fully understand the difference between apparent sharpness & resolution and the AX100 is delivering more resolution, no matter what one thinks is happening to apparent sharpness.

[Dave Blackhurst]

This is what somewhat baffles me... I was reading another "preview" of the AX100, and the mention was made that the audio was somehow enhanced (sort of like the video is somehow "enhanced"...). The immediately following notation was that listeners thought it sounded better than similar samples from a (presumably) un-enhanced camera....

SO, if most viewers are seeing what they only IMAGINE is better detail and hearing what they only imagine is better audio (because apparently the manufacturer found some fairy dust that tricks people into seeing and hearing things), this somehow disqualifies the camera from "serious" use or consideration??

<insert head scratch here>

I realize there are "tricks" and enhancements, but either the sound is better or it's worse, either you can see small, finer details, of they are fuzzy... it's either one or the other.

I do respect that if there is undesirable image or audio degradation due to "enhancement", that is a bad thing, but I'm not seeing or hearing that... and I'm pretty sure my eyes haven't got fairy dust in them! I could use a system upgrade to 4K, but my 1080 is not "bad"... and artifacts shouldn't just magically vanish with downrezzing, right?

If sharp images are "bad" because we aren't used to them, OK, I'll buy that they border on "jarring", which may not be the desired artistic "effect", but can't one just back off to the 1080/60p/60mbps setting if you want it a little softer? Just a thought...

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

I realize there are "tricks" and enhancements, but either the sound is better or it's worse, either you can see small, finer details, of they are fuzzy... it's either one or the other.

Exactly. That's why I referenced the comparison videos. The ability to read a word that's legible in an AX100 clip and not being able to read it in a more expensive 4K 'cinema' camera clip (despite the fact that the framing on the cinema camera was tighter) shows the AX100 has greater resolving ability.

I too don't think this is the result of fairy dust, nor does this kind of picture quality disqualify it from serious use. Anyone that does disqualify it out of hand and glosses over its quality by dismissively calling it a 'nice consumer cam', does it at their own 'risk'. Some have reported that several movie studios have bought a bunch of these. So if that's the case, these studios are not naive enough to have dismissed it due to the 'Handicam' monicker. No, I don't expect they'll shoot a Hollywood blockbuster with them, but they may have some special use for this type of 4K cam. Hollywood is very innovative.

I learned a long time ago not to be brand loyal nor to dismiss any type of camera because of preconceived notions (or price, high or low). Unfortunately it seems that some can't get past the Handicam name. :)

Don't get me wrong, regardless of how stellar the AX100's picture, there are aspects of its flexibility and feature set (or lack thereof) that might disqualify it for the intended purposes of some.

I am so glad I don't fall in that category! :)

[Steve Mullen]

"<insert head scratch here>

I realize there are "tricks" and enhancements, but either the sound is better or it's worse, either you can see small, finer details, of they are fuzzy... it's either one or the other.

I do respect that if there is undesirable image or audio degradation due to "enhancement", that is a bad thing, but I'm not seeing or hearing that... and I'm pretty sure my eyes haven't got fairy dust in them! I could use a system upgrade to 4K, but my 1080 is not "bad"... and artifacts shouldn't just magically vanish with downrezzing, right?

If sharp images are "bad" because we aren't used to them, OK, I'll buy that they border on "jarring", which may not be the desired artistic "effect", but can't one just back off to the 1080/60p/60mbps setting if you want it a little softer? Just a thought..."


Better or worse are judgements made by actual experience or looking at measurements. Since folks have different likes and dislikes it should not be a surprise to find different reports in different reviews. Of course, some individuals are hired because there is respect for their opinions. (Your grandmother would not be a good person to ask about, for example, "red-push.")

What is good and bad tend to change over time -- opinion makers in the industry change how people think. Cinema is now in -- in part because companies are releasing lots of cinema products. And, as I posted, publications have a major role to play because they decide what is written about. But, sometimes individuals develop different tastes with experience.


Some artifacts only appear when provoked. That's why negative reports typically aren't worth much. You won't see RS if there is no motion.

Spatial artifacts do indeed disappear when an image downscaled. A filter is used that can removes tiny artifacts. Downscaling can also generate artifacts -- especially aliasing. HD to SD images tend to be full of aliasing unless done very well.

Compression data rate is not the way sharpness/detail is reduced. The circuits controlling the image look often are variable. Slashcom notes the AX100 does not have a Sharpness control. Sony wants the look to be the look. (They know pros often buy a cheaper camera and dial down Sharpness -- so they protect more expensive products.)

Every camera has fairy dust -- but at the high-end most produce universally accepted great images so they differ only in what might be called shooter taste. Moreover, there are dozens of adjustments that let a DP define a set of perfect -- for a project -- look. Lenses are also chosen by shooter taste.

[John McCully]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Cinema is now in...

Steve, this is indeed a jaw-dropping statement and judging by your posts in this thread I conclude your complete fabrication is based on this wild assertion. What exactly do you mean? I remember when miniskirts were now in and we all knew they were in because ever female of child-bearing age was suddenly wearing one; it was an in-your-face phenomenon. Is everyone (forget the child-bearing age female cohort) doing cinema?

And to say cinema is 'now' in is to imply that 'just before' it wasn't. In my opinion this is quite misleading. Seems to me that cinema was in since the beginning of cinema with a small percentage of the population of people on the planet, and it continues to be so perhaps. When it comes to moving pictures my gut feel is that TV is more 'in' than cinema and has been for quite a while, but I don't know for sure.

But let me put a word in your mouth - you mean surely that the so-called cinema 'look' is in. (Sorry to be so pedantic but seeking to understand and learn is what I'm on about here and there is a lot of lose talk going on here). Steve, the cinema look craze was taken to new highs by Panasonic with the introduction of the DVX100 and the huge promotion that went with it. I imagine you remember that. But it was only in with a very small number of folks, wanna-be film makers particularly, that chased that rainbow. I will agree that there are one or two camera operator smooth talkers self-promoting on the Internet who push the cinematic look, the 'filmic' if you can bring yourself to utter that non-word, and yes, some magazines make a point of following fashion even if the fashion is limited to a very small segment of the moving pictures creation world. They have to talk about something and the more obscure, ephemeral and impossible to define the better. Poetic help as does pretentious phraseology.

Now, if in fact you have data to support your claim then please share it with us. That would be 'awesome' (which just happens to be a word that is also in...and with a little bit of luck will soon be out, totally).

By the way, in the event you haven't noticed miniskirts are still in, which sometimes is a bad thing, and sometimes a very good thing indeed. I apologize; I have no data supporting that assertion but I do notice these things. Your mileage may differ :-).

Another minor observation, data-free of course, is that the FDR-AX100 look is becoming 'in' so fast it makes heads spin. Did you notice?

[Steve Mullen]

If you don't read publications and newsletters or go to NAB -- and are completely unaware of Blackmagic cameras, Digital Bolex, Kinefinity, and every high-end camera from Sony and Panasonic, you might not have noticed what's been going on for the last 5-years. I suspect you aren't aware because I posted the contents of the last issue of DV magazine and all features were on "cinema cameras." If you are still thinking of the DVX100 and film look -- you are way behind.

Cinema cameras shoot at 24fps and record RAW (Digital Negative) -- they don't capture video any more than a DSLR captures video photographs. They don't turn video into something that looks like film -- they capture a series of digital photographs just like DSLRs capture images that look like images captured from SLRs. The photographs are captured at 24fps.

Why is this so important? Because film captures the highest possible image quality. Period. But, film is very expensive -- way too expensive for the prosumer market. But, the new low-end cinema cameras start at $1000. They are now in our price range. Anyone can obtain film quality. That's why cinema -- in the context of video products -- is "in." As long as you think cinema cameras are for those few who want to make movies, you'll miss the point. Cinema cameras are for those who want to capture the highest quality media. That means those who shoot corporate events, weddings, commercials, CEO announcements, and PSAs, etc. Any time you are in bidding for a job. And, why not for your own home movies. My childhood was captured on film. Why is the idea that we can return to that practice so fought against?

Another point, because there's sure to be someone who posts "but I don't like the look from brand X cinema camera." These cameras capture RGB sensor data so they don't really have a specific look until YOU grade the data into an image you want. So when you see samples you are seeing someone's creation -- which I agree is almost always horrible. But really no worse than the look of movies created by Hollywood. The kids are copying the crapy look of what they see. But, that's no reason not too have the freedom to create.

I don't see how anyone who keeps-up with the industry doesn't know this. And, if you don't know, perhaps you should keep-up. In any case -- everyone is free to chose the video look -- even 8 megapixels of video-look.

And, there is another point that is missing. When people talk about 4K production they are not talking about 4K video cameras -- except in the ENG market where they don't yet exist -- they are talking about the 4K digital cinema cameras.

But to lash-out because others want to have their work have the quality of film is being way way defensive. To deny this revolution is happening is exactly what those who owned studios full of Beta SP equipment did when DV arrived. They ranted and raved that BetaSP was better and would be used for years. But, within a short while Beta SP stopped being covered as a news story. No more ads appeared. Beta and then Digital Beta were in a corner at NAB -- and then one year, it all simply went missing and no one noticed or cared.

I suppose at some point someone claimed of HD, "... here are one or two camera operator smooth talkers self-promoting on the Internet who push the cinematic look, the 'filmic' if you can bring yourself to utter that non-word, and yes, some magazines make a point of following fashion even if the fashion is limited to a very small segment of the moving pictures creation world. They have to talk about something and the more obscure, ephemeral and impossible to define the better. Poetic help as does pretentious phraseology."

Yet, today HD is norm. Strange how fast some folks forget history. You really should attend NAB and see for yourself what's going on in the industry. In fact, since the NAB press releases come-out on Monday I'm not going to bother with this topic anymore because anyone who is open minded can learn everything for themselves.

[Matt Davis]

Just a little note about the audio - I did mention this when I had some time to compare the AX100 with the Z100 and a few other cameras (I threw in my EX1 as a 'ringer' too).

The audio from the AX100 seems to have a little EQ and compression applied to it, whereas the Z100 and EX1 sounded very neutral.

This was using the XLR bridge, and my Sanken COS-11 wired up to the talent. Sankens have a reputation for being quite 'flat', and that's what I heard on the EX1 and Z100. Interviews are often given a little EQ and compression to thicken up the sound, and this is exactly what I heard from the AX100's recorded audio.

The video was for Sony's internal training so I'm pretty sure I can't post it here.

[Adriano Moroni]

1) Can you tell me if is possible to add to AX100 a Shoulder Strap?

2) I have just read this reviews about AX100:

"Just received the Sony FDRX100b 4K 2014 camcorder and it is HORRIBLE. Compared to Sony's excellent and newest (2012) Balanced Optical Steadyshot (used in my 2012 Sony HRD CX760v), the regular, OLDER Optical Steadyshot which the $2000 FDRX100b uses stinks and is inferior technology that does not work well. Sony's own info says regular Optical Steady shot is 13 times MORE SHAKY than their newer (2012), Balanced Optical Steadyshot. The shake is horrible compared to my Sony HRD CX760v, which utilizes the newer Balanced Optical Steadyshot. The color is also off compared to the 760, the zoom is much slower and less controllable, it has trouble focusing where the 760 does not. I just compared the 2 set on auto and the issues mentioned are clearly obvious. This 1st generation 4k is not ready for prime time. I'm very disappointed and surprised with Sony about this. I also don't understand why Sony changed the hot shoe door from a slide in body to a fold over (also on the 760) which is waiting to snap off or cut your fingers. Back this $2000 brick goes to Amazon. Waste of money".

Is he crazy or you too share his tought?