Sony FDR-AX100

[Noa Put]

Slashcam, is correctly noting the AX100 does not deliver a cinema look

This thread reminds me of those pointless Mac vs Pc discussions, we are talking about a 2k handicam that can do very sharp 4k and has about every functionality build in we where used to having back when normal "video" camera's still existed. All footage I have seen so far from this camera looks very impressive right out of the box, while most videos (sorry, I mean films), from the black magic pocket "cinema" camera I have seen all have that weird looking color that resembles no filmlook whatsoever, at least based on my experience watching a lot of films that actually find their way to the cinemascreen, instead of youtube or vimeo, only a handfull of users seem to know how to deal with raw footage but then again, give a ax100 to these same users and they probably will do some magic with it as well.

But what is a cinematic look anyway, if I have to believe slashcam it is not digitally sharpened footage, period. Back in the dvx100 days it was 25p, period. Actually "cinematic" footage has nothing to do with the camera, it's just a term to try to separate the amateurs from the wannabe pros, it's a term that creates "elite" groups that look down upon the "video" folks, you know the people that shoot their cats and backyards. One who does cinematic masters the real craft of filmmaking and it all starts with using the term cinema, without that word you are just messing around.

I watch a lot of movies, you know the real ones that make it onto the cinemascreen, I also watch a lot of aspiring filmmakers films online, that don't have the budget to push their way to the big screen, the first thing that comes to mind when I feel I have watched cinema is story, the second is story and the third is story, then comes the talent to visualize it in a way you as a viewer become a part of it. Those are just 2 small parts that make a movie feel like cinema but there is so much more to it.

Saying that less digitally sharpened footage is more like cinema is like holding a steeringwheel in your hand claiming you can build a car, I think we need to put things into perspective and remember we are talking about a handicam here, one, if used right and shown on the right (4k) screen and viewed from the right distance can look like nothing we have seen before.

[Noa Put]

Is he crazy or you too share his tought?

I do own a cx730 and a rx10 and I too have noticed that Sony has traded in some of the excellent features the cx730 had which might have been a design limitation , we"ll never know I guess. The zoom on my cx730, if handled with care can be as smooth as butter and very controllable in terms of speed, with the rx10 the zoomspeed is exceptionally slow, almost up to the point where it becomes unusable in any run and gun environment and I also have noticed small "jitters" in the image when shooting in the standard ois mode, when you use active mode the camera crops a part of the image and it does a better job then to smooth out shake, but not as good as my magic eyeball cx730.

An interesting read on a Sunday :) (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2QZ5Y1...wasThisHelpful) which is the thread with the user review that was refered to, it already shifted to a "Have fun with your 1080 footage" kind of comments, I"m just waiting for "someone" to chime in saying it's not cinematic ;)

[Adriano Moroni]

I understand you.
Can you tell me if is possible to add a Shoulder Strap to AX100?

[Phil Lee]

Hi

Originally Posted by Noa Put

This thread reminds me of those pointless Mac vs Pc discussions, we are talking about a 2k handicam that can do very sharp 4k and has about every functionality build in we where used to having back when normal "video" camera's still existed. All footage I have seen so far from this camera looks very impressive right out of the box, while most videos (sorry, I mean films), from the black magic pocket "cinema" camera I have seen all have that weird looking color that resembles no filmlook whatsoever, at least based on my experience watching a lot of films that actually find their way to the cinemascreen, instead of youtube or vimeo, only a handfull of users seem to know how to deal with raw footage but then again, give a ax100 to these same users and they probably will do some magic with it as well.

But what is a cinematic look anyway, if I have to believe slashcam it is not digitally sharpened footage, period. Back in the dvx100 days it was 25p, period. Actually "cinematic" footage has nothing to do with the camera, it's just a term to try to separate the amateurs from the wannabe pros, it's a term that creates "elite" groups that look down upon the "video" folks, you know the people that shoot their cats and backyards. One who does cinematic masters the real craft of filmmaking and it all starts with using the term cinema, without that word you are just messing around.

I watch a lot of movies, you know the real ones that make it onto the cinemascreen, I also watch a lot of aspiring filmmakers films online, that don't have the budget to push their way to the big screen, the first thing that comes to mind when I feel I have watched cinema is story, the second is story and the third is story, then comes the talent to visualize it in a way you as a viewer become a part of it. Those are just 2 small parts that make a movie feel like cinema but there is so much more to it.

Saying that less digitally sharpened footage is more like cinema is like holding a steeringwheel in your hand claiming you can build a car, I think we need to put things into perspective and remember we are talking about a handicam here, one, if used right and shown on the right (4k) screen and viewed from the right distance can look like nothing we have seen before.

You are right it is about the story, but if that was 100% the case we wouldn't be having a discussion about HD let alone 4K as we would still be watching hand-cranked black and white film, for the story :)

You are also correct about this being a Handicam, it is for consumers and will look stunning, the problem is the discussion has shifted by some people to this particular consumer camcorder being more than the sum of it's parts.

This is more of a professional forum where professional gear is discussed. Yes consumer camcorders often come into play in professional situations, look at how many Go Pro's are used for TV work and look great. Consumer camcorders are smaller, more discrete, cheaper (for multi camera shots) and do produce good enough video in most cases. Do we think Steven Spielberg is going to use all AX100's on his next movie? No. What are most indie productions going to shoot video on? Quite likely the GH4 will be used quite a bit.

I think the cinema/film look is just in reference to the fact that once a camera has made the footage look like video, i.e.sharpness added, you can't undo that, so it always looks like video, so if you wanted to tell a story in the way film does, you couldn't use the AX100. But hey this is okay, this isn't what the AX100 is for.

Regards

Phil

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Phil Lee

I think the cinema/film look is just in reference to the fact that once a camera has made the footage look like video, i.e.sharpness added, you can't undo that, so it always looks like video, so if you wanted to tell a story in the way film does, you couldn't use the AX100. But hey this is okay, this isn't what the AX100 is for.

Regards

Phil

It is clear to me that Sony intended this camera as a consumer camera to support the sale of 4K to the masses and to allow the people who have bought their 4K TV's to create their own movies. The whole point of 4K is to create the " looking through the window" effect. One that I want too. Not a film look. I think that 30P is a technology /cost/marketing issue and if they could it would have been 60P. The AX100 gives this wonderful image, has good depth of field for a consumer and can produce a shallow depth of field when needed. Winner.

Will it appeal to the small number of people who want to control every aspect of recording ( and can't really afford the camera that will do this !!!) NO. For what it does it is not far off the cost that Sony have used for their top consumer Handycam for years, the CX900 is almost exactly in line with previous pricing with both returning to a lot more manual control and LCD indications than in the past 10 years ( since the Hi8 models) .

Ron Evans

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by John McCully

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?

Precisely. It appears because the latest issue of one publication had all/most of its articles related to cinema and cinema cameras and because a poster can name a handful of cinema cameras, that cinema is now 'in'. Never mind the countless non-cinema cameras that are out there, currently being sold and still very popular. Never mind other publications that are not speaking of only cinema. But ok, let's make the assumption that it's true, so what? Does that mean we are all supposed to join the line, rank & file, and follow the 'masses'? Does that mean that the look of 'non-cinema' is now crude, ugly and something to be avoided at all costs? Nonsense.

There's one thing that I've noted time and time again among the cinema crowd and that's a turning down of the nose to anyone pursuing a look that isn't 'cinema'. Where did this condescending, non-tolerant attitude come from? It's there gentlemen and it's undeniable. How do I know? Because I see these same guys taking over and derailing every thread where cameras like the AX100 are discussed. They shower us with endless proselytizing, almost cult-like in manner. Talk about being threatened!!! Just look here! It's happened again.

Here's another example. One of our posters here who owns a BMPCC (and now an AX100), is one of the 'out crowd' that likes the look of reality. He mentioned to me how he fine tuned his BMPCC grading so as to create a video with the 'look of reality', a doc-style appearence from his footage. When he posted an example in one of the forums, the video was immediately met with disdain. "Ugh, it looks like video" was the common refrain. Yet the constantly posted 'cinema look' videos that had inane colors and gradings from Mars were met with 'WOW, that's beautiful'...and so it goes.

Yes, some of us remember having some of our childhood shot on film. So what? Some of us remember B&W TVs with rabbit ears. So what? Does that mean I want to go back to that look? Does that mean I should ditch my plans for a UHD TV this year and search Ebay for an Admiral B&W TV? Technology moves forward and up until recently the yardstick of video technology was how close we could get to that look of reality, the looking through the window image that most of us were seeking. That was the nirvana. The image that some of the cinema cameras create (and yes, I know, we are told you can get whatever image you like from them...uh huh...excuse me while I spend the rest of the day grading...time is money) look to me, shall I say "Retro". Again, if that's what you like, great, but don't tell us why the equipment we're using is any less good because it wasn't designed to produce that kind of imagery. Nonsense.

So personally, I could care less whether cinema is in or out. If you like that look that's great, but please don't look down on us because we prefer the ultra resolution of the AX100 and its through the window look. Just leave this thread and venture to those that you actually want to be a part of.

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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?

I find the wedding & corporate event allusion particularly interesting. We are constantly told how the 'consumer' (meaning we who prefer a look produced by the AX100) prefers the 'video look'. Yet the brides and many in the corporate world, when it comes to video, are those same consumers! So why would these people, who we were just told prefer the look of video, be sold on the soft cinema-look? Is this a 'heads I win tales you lose' kind of thing?

Originally Posted by Noa Put

All footage I have seen so far from this camera looks very impressive right out of the box, while most videos (sorry, I mean films), from the black magic pocket "cinema" camera I have seen all have that weird looking color that resembles no filmlook whatsoever, at least based on my experience watching a lot of films that actually find their way to the cinemascreen, instead of youtube or vimeo, only a handfull of users seem to know how to deal with raw footage but then again, give a ax100 to these same users and they probably will do some magic with it as well.

Precisely! What I find so interesting is that the same guys that preach to us about the difference between sharpness and resolution (as if we didn't already know this) are the same ones that simply can't bring themselves to say that yes, the AX100 is producing the most resolute (NOT over-sharpened) video today. It seems that Slashcam felt that way. You may not like it's 'looking through the window' imagery, but to deny it produces this is just silly. Again, we are seeing resolution, not an overly sharpened picture. The ability to see DETAILS is the result of resolution, not over-sharpening which works exactly the opposite.

One poster couldn't jump on the AX100 fast enough, illustrating the 'definitive proof' of artifacts seen in frame grabs, only to find out later it was an editing error. Oops. We have another guy that's never seen the AX100 output on a large screen UHD TV, yet he is an expert in all of the foibles of this output on 4K and goes from forum to forum saying so. Amazing! I've actually seen the output on a large screen UHD TV as have a few lucky owners and he's wrong. But hey, what does actual experience have to do with anything? Never let the facts get in the way of opinions.

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

It is clear to me that Sony intended this camera as a consumer camera to support the sale of 4K to the masses and to allow the people who have bought their 4K TV's to create their own movies. The whole point of 4K is to create the " looking through the window" effect. One that I want too. Not a film look. I think that 30P is a technology /cost/marketing issue and if they could it would have been 60P. The AX100 gives this wonderful image, has good depth of field for a consumer and can produce a shallow depth of field when needed. Winner.

Ron Evans

Precisely!

Now, I wonder if we "Neanderthals" can get back to actually discussing the AX100 or will the cinema crowd continue to derail this thread?

[Joseph Kitzmiller]

Pardon me if this has already been asked. Have anyone been editing their footage in Adobe Premiere Pro CC? I am editing my 4K footage and I am playing around with the best export settings. I created a project 3840X2160 and I am exporting as 1080P (I don't have 4K TV or monitor yet). My export settings are H.264 Level 5.1 and I am using CBR @ 60Mbs. Does that sound about right? I am playing these files through my network to 1080P TV and also playing them on my Samsung Pro tablet (Looks great).

If anyone would like to suggest other settings for export (Youtube, Vimeo) that would be great.

Thanks in advance!
Joe

[Phil Lee]

Hi

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

It is clear to me that Sony intended this camera as a consumer camera to support the sale of 4K to the masses and to allow the people who have bought their 4K TV's to create their own movies. The whole point of 4K is to create the " looking through the window" effect. One that I want too. Not a film look. I think that 30P is a technology /cost/marketing issue and if they could it would have been 60P. The AX100 gives this wonderful image, has good depth of field for a consumer and can produce a shallow depth of field when needed. Winner.

Will it appeal to the small number of people who want to control every aspect of recording ( and can't really afford the camera that will do this !!!) NO. For what it does it is not far off the cost that Sony have used for their top consumer Handycam for years, the CX900 is almost exactly in line with previous pricing with both returning to a lot more manual control and LCD indications than in the past 10 years ( since the Hi8 models) .

Ron Evans

I couldn't agree more. Technical limitations and getting to market first has given us 24/30fps in 4K, much like 1080P arrived as 60i. I think if H264 Level 5.1 did interlacing these first generation camcorders would be 4K at 60i.

Regards

Phil

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Joseph Kitzmiller

Pardon me if this has already been asked. Have anyone been editing their footage in Adobe Premiere Pro CC? I am editing my 4K footage and I am playing around with the best export settings. I created a project 3840X2160 and I am exporting as 1080P (I don't have 4K TV or monitor yet). My export settings are H.264 Level 5.1 and I am using CBR @ 60Mbs. Does that sound about right? I am playing these files through my network to 1080P TV and also playing them on my Samsung Pro tablet (Looks great).

If anyone would like to suggest other settings for export (Youtube, Vimeo) that would be great.

Thanks in advance!
Joe

Joe, I don't use Adobe, but it's safe to say you don't want to encode your video at a bitrate less than that produced by the AX100. The camera's bitrate is actually somewhat variable and during complex scenes can peak in the 70Mbps range.

[Eric Lagerlof]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Joe, I don't use Adobe, but it's safe to say you don't want to encode your video at a bitrate less than that produced by the AX100

Ken, the camera probably does not have a 2 pass encoding option:-) Joe, Adobe Media Encoder, (which is probably what your using through Premiere), does. So bitrate isn't the only factor. There is an Adobe forum here under "Cross Platform Solutions" ( I believe that's its name) towards the bottom of the forums list page and you might get a better answer there. Also, now that NAB is starting up, info about PPro and 4K XAVC and XAVC-S should start showing up a lot more.

And if you look into the Media Encoder settings, it does have presets for Vimeo, You Tube, etc. Although for 4k release, new presets might have to be created.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Joseph Kitzmiller

Have anyone been editing their footage in Adobe Premiere Pro CC?] My export settings are H.264 Level 5.1 and I am using CBR @ 60Mbs.

After years of not using Premiere Pro I've found it is near perfect for XAVC as there is no time wasting conversion to Proxy or Intermediate files. I'm editing right off the SDXC card.

For 4K exports to YouTube for "professional" purposes YouTube recommends 270Mbps. That's 6X the 50Mbps they recommend for HD. (Which I do use.) Seems crazy high to me, but when I'm testing for quality, I'm going to do as they say. (I also use x264 not Apple's h.264 encoder.)

I also export using ProRes 422 HQ (220Mbps) which they accept. Later I'll drop this to ProRes 422.

YouTube will automatically generate different frame sizes for you so there is no reason not to send them UHD.

BE SURE TO CLICK THE "WATCH ON YOUTUBE" BUTTON AND SELCT "4K" AND TRY "720."

You can find a movie edited with Premiere Pro at:

AX100 edited using Premiere Pro CS6 under OS X - YouTube

There is a longer movie from FCP X that is a test for RS and other artifacts at:

AX100 Rolling Shutter and Motion Judder Test - YouTube

No attempt was made to avoid RS so the amount shown here is about as bad as it gets under normal shooting.

As far as artifacts -- look for motion judder, stutters, twinkling lights, and "vibrating haze" on bushes and tree leaves.

Everything was shot at 24p with a 1/48th shutter.

There's a sample of the AX100's low-rez mp4 at:

Sony AX100's 1280x720p (Dual Record) directly from camera - YouTube

Looks very good, could certainly be uploaded to any internet service.

Are you copying you h.264 back to an SDXC card and playing it your AX100?

[Peter Siamidis]

Originally Posted by Adriano Moroni

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?

I can answer this as I used an NX30 heavily for 2 years (similar to the 760), and just sold it as I'm using the AX100 now. I've only used the AX100 a little and not on any official video shoot yet, but here's my thoughts so far:

1) There's no question that balanced optical steady shot is awesome, I don't think anyone will deny that. It does have two issues though, one is that as far as I know it can only work with small sensors which is why so far it's only on the 760/NX30. Second is that you can't use wide conversion lenses with balanced steady shot enabled, you have to disable it otherwise you get vignetting. Another more minor thing is that balanced steadyshot reduces your field of view a bit.

2) I disagree on his comments about color, in my side to side comparisons I found color more accurate on the AX100, and I found the AX100's white balance to be quicker and more accurate as well.

3) I can't comment on zoom as I never use zoom.

4) The 760/NX30 will focus quicker on a subject, but so far it seems to be more error prone than the AX100. This was an issue I had with the 760/NX30 on many shoots where it had two focus quirks, one is sometimes it would do a complete refocus in the middle of filming so everything got totally blurry then sharp again (never could figure out why it did that), and second sometimes it would ignore the subject in the middle of the screen and instead focus on some object in the background because it had higher contrast. I haven't noticed these two focus quirks yet with the AX100 but I do need more time with the camera to be sure this has been solved.

5) I believe the reason they changed the hot shoe cover is that the old one could cause noise that would get picked up by the mic.


Regarding the "cinema look" etc that seems to keep coming up, I really will never understand why there is a wrong way or a right way to film. It's like looking at a painting that someone made and saying "yeah that's wrong". It's their painting, how can it be wrong? The same with filming, as far as I know it's an art form and people want whatever look they want. If they want green flesh stones and 7fps then so be it. I remember doing lots of research on what was considered "correct" when I started filming ages ago, then quickly noting how I could find countless movies that totally violated all those "rules". That's because it's not about rules, it's about getting a look you want. I don't see how there can be a right or wrong when dealing with an art form.

[Ron Evans]

[QUOTE=Peter Siamidis;1840239
4) The 760/NX30 will focus quicker on a subject, but so far it seems to be more error prone than the AX100. This was an issue I had with the 760/NX30 on many shoots where it had two focus quirks, one is sometimes it would do a complete refocus in the middle of filming so everything got totally blurry then sharp again (never could figure out why it did that), and second sometimes it would ignore the subject in the middle of the screen and instead focus on some object in the background because it had higher contrast. I haven't noticed these two focus quirks yet with the AX100 but I do need more time with the camera to be sure this has been solved.

[/QUOTE]

I find this with my CX700 and NX30 too . For project shoots I use manual focus and use the spot focus feature that is very good and I wish was on my NX5U and AX1. A nice fast way of setting focus on the thing you want in focus. Not mentioned too much but if the AX100 is like all the other Sony's I have then auto exposure is too high and always needs to be offset with - AE shift a little. At least -0.25EV in most cases and for me in the theatre more like -1.0EV with the dark set backgrounds. Even shooting the family with the NX30U ( yes the stabilizer is incredible ) I have AE set at -0.5 most of the time.

Ron Evans

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Peter Siamidis

2) I disagree on his comments about color, in my side to side comparisons I found color more accurate on the AX100, and I found the AX100's white balance to be quicker and more accurate as well.

Pete, I've also been pleasantly surprised by the white balance. I've found it very accurate in a variety of shooting situations. I do think that this is not the typical 'in-your-face' Sony color that appears on many of their cameras. So people looking for that might find the AX100 color just a bit 'tame'.

But I find it saturated where it needs to be and 'tame' where the colors themselves are tame.

As for the OIS, it's better than my RX10, but not as good as the best I've used over the years. I'm finding the autofocus quite good too and better than some of the prior Sonys I've had.

Regarding that review on Amazon, I think most readers would know that's an outlier and does not reflect in any manner, any owner's opinion of the cam on any forum I've visited. There's always someone like that.

[Joseph Kitzmiller]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Are you copying you h.264 back to an SDXC card and playing it your AX100?

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your settings and examples. I have not tried copying the files back to the card and playing on the AX100 itself. I will have to try this.

Joe