Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ron, if you have a display that is capable of doubling or tripling frame rate, this almost becomes a non-issue.

I've tried it with cellphone videos as a test. Played at the normal 30fps on my plasma, it was tough to watch with any rapid movement or panning. However as soon as I implemented the frame doubler (as most modern displays have...especially LED/LCDs), the motion was hard to distinguish from 60fps.I did this same test on my 60" Sharp Elite, local dimming LED display, and the results were the same.

These are the same circuits that result in the dreaded 'SOE', Soap Opera Effect, if used while watching movies. So I would only use that circuit for video.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Modern Internet video delivery has never went beyond 30p, and we are growing up in a generation that only sees 60p/60i from broadcast. 60p also doesn't render well on computers, requiring perfect vertical sync to deliver it properly.

Unless there is actual effort to optimize 60p display on computers, (which none of the video card manufacturers are doing) everyone of the computer-tied generation is going to be watching 30p.

Stage6 back in the day was a DivX codec driven website that allowed you to upload raw DivX encodes without it being re-encoded. Back then, you could actually upload 60p and it would render it relatively well. That no longer exists, and so is the notion of 60p on the internet. Netflix even converts 60i content to 30p, and worse yet, if it's a PAL source but the conversion is sourced from a NTSC DVD that has already had a frame rate conversion, it tries to render 30p for internet delivery, resulting in extreme amounts of strobing and motion artifacting.

Even worse, people would have used the "original file download" feature of certain websites to deliver 60p, but that notion died as well, since that would take massive amounts of bandwidth. Only Vimeo Plus allows you to give away the original file download, and that's $60 a year.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Yeah that's what worries me. To put it in perspective with a real world example, I did a few shoots last week and ended up with about 228gb of data. I archive everything on 3 magnetic hard drives and on optical blurays spread out at two different banks. Yeah I'm paranoid about losing my data :) So that 228gb of video data becomes 912gb of archive data in total for a few days of shoots last week. That's with my Sony NX30 that records at 28mbps. So switching to the AX100's 60mbps means that 912gb of archive will now become 1954gb in size. If I switch to the AX1's 150mbps then that 912gb of archive becomes 4885gb of data. I think I can manage the jump to the AX100, but going to the AX1 would be quite painful. Hence why I was hopeful of h265 becoming a reality in the camera space.


Fortunately that doesn't apply to me :) I have my own websites that people sign up to and watch or download the videos, so it's been all 60fps for me for years now along with lower quality 30fps versions as well. That's also why I'm chomping at the bit to go 4k since many of my customers already have displays > 1920x1080 resolution. Most every computer has been able to play back my high bitrate 1920x1080 60fps videos for years now without issue, but 4k 60fps might challenge some at first. Things move fast though in the computer space, and 4k 30fps shouldn't be an issue for most anyways.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

My issue isn't playback as I have a Sony 240Hz interpolating display. But my Panasonic plasma shows the issue immediately. I want to edit and produce a nice clean smooth 60i SD DVD from the source so need those missing frames/fields that 60i or 60p provide. Yes I feel we are degrading most things in video and audio. We end up listening to mp3 and watching poor 30p video .... Sad.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Ron, your Panny doesn't have a frame doubler? My Samsung plasma does as well as my Sharp LED/LCD. Is this an older Panasonic model?

For me this isn't an issue and I'm really just using the AX100 for my personal use. If your Panasonic doesn't have it, at least for playback you could use your Sony for smooth motion. Of course that won't help in producing 60i SD DVDs.

But that's painful, taking 4K and turning it in to 60i SD. Makes me want to cry. I go through such gyrations to ensure the most lossless end-product just for my own use.

In doing customized training videos for clients, they all want SD since the product winds up, more often than not, on either their intranet or a DVD. So for that I used my trusty Sony VX2100. SD in, SD out.

As for 'degrading', that's surely not what I feel is happening with 4K. Even with the AX100, if the video looks anything like the demo, I'll take that kind of 'degrading' every day of the week. ;)

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I tried to use my NanoFlash on some of my EX1R gigs, but knowing the output was DVD, I know there's no difference between internal 1080p 4:2:0 and external 4:2:2 if it is going to DVD.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

My only interest in 4K is to crop/pan /zoom to 1920x1080 so that I can produce a Bluray and SD output fro the one source both at 60i. And there is a difference between downscaling the AX1 and source from my NX30U or CX700 or even the NX5U. The AX1 is sharper and cleaner with enough light. I would like to get the to point where I can shoot a show wide and edit multicam from the one source or at least have just one other camera for really closeups. So I would like good low light but with large depth of field. The AX1 does not do low light that well so will keep a look out for what comes next but a really large sensor will not really fit the requirements for large depth of field in most cases.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Hey Ron, from your experience, How close can you get zoom wise when cropping AX1 4k fooage down to 1080? Also, typically how far is the camera from your subject when shooting wide with this intention?

I'm wondering how well I could "zoom" on say a Jack Russel Terror from 50 feet away across an Agility field at at dog show, before the picture begins to lose enough quality to render this method unacceptable?

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

UHD is 4 times 1920x1080 so you can zoom in 4:1 without loosing any pixels for 1920x1080. After that you will be interpolating and will loose sharpness. Of course for SD you can go in even more, close to 16:1. I shoot theatre so want to frame actors sensibly in the frame so do not need to go in very much. More like center/crop the frame on the actors so 4:1 is just fine. I did this when HDV first came out using my FX1 to edit to DV and it worked just great and so hope to do the same thing with 4K. It was almost 4 years before I actually used the FX1 in a HD project when I eventually got a couple of AVCHD cams to use with it for multicam.

So far I have shot with the AX1 and backup with CX700 to make sure things actually work but it has worked just fine in this unattended semi auto mode. Fixed focus/white balance/shutter speed and exposure in AE shift just like the CX700.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

There are two issues, one is the resolution of individual frames, which should be fairly good for the pan/crop part of the equation, but the second is the temporal motion of 30 vs. 60 of these sharp frames per second is the part that we'll have to see about when the camera comes out.

Once seeing 60p vs. 60i, you see the advantages of "more frames", but we're talking about a new compression scheme... will 30 be "enough" is the question that remains? The reasoning behind it is obvious, it's effectively the same reason that film went with 24 frames per second many many years ago - the limitations of the medium, vs. the "minimum acceptable" display when it's all said and done.

It'll be interesting once the AX100 releases to see if the compromise is "acceptable" when compared to say the 60p output from this camera (or other 60p cameras). I'm not worried much about "sharp" in general, just motion handling... I'm in the pan/crop "crowd" for general uses of such a camera, but also thinking of "future proofing" some footage.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

60P and 60i have exactly the same temporal motion they both record 60 ( 59.94) exposures a second. 60i records fields, half the vertical resolution, and 60p records the whole frame. Confusion arises over the timecode as 60i is 29.97 fps , since the timecode increments every 2 fields.

As mentioned in a previous post and modern interpolating display like my 240Hz Sony can make 24P, 30P, 60i and 60P all look much the same by filling in the missing information to display progressive frames at the refresh rate of the display. In my case an early true 240hz Sony

For my use 30P will not do it.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I'm perfectly fine with 29.97p. It's my favorite frame rate with my EX1r and FS100 anyway.

I think 29.97 handles motion perfectly fine. (significantly better than 24p)

29.97p video also creates a perfect progressive "look" when it's rendered out to 60i for Blu-ray too. Because both top and bottom fields are sliced from the exact same frame, you get no "comb" effect in 60i. It's a basically 29.97 PSF.

So no 60p on the AX100? No problem for me. I'm more curious to see how assigning only 15Mbp/s for each 1080 quadrant will look. 4 x 1080 = 4K or almost UHD anyway.

XAVC-S at 60Mbp/s? Hmmm.....big question!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

To my eye, 60I and 60p look very different in practice, and 24p "stutters" for want of a better word - looks jerky to me, vs. "smoother" 60p. Philosophically, I want "more data" at the time of capture if possible, with the theory that it gives more to work with later... so the idea of 30 vs. 60 is not appetizing.

BUT for some time I've rendered out to 24p from 60p with good results... there seems to be some secret sauce involved in the processes that is not necessarily expressed in the specifications... as we've discussed a bit here, there are "specs", and there are results.


We all saw the early RX10 "test shots" from STILL CAMERA reviewers that were a little scary at best... now that people who understand that swinging the camera wildly is NOT "technique" are using it, the RX10 is turning out to be a pretty good VIDEO camera, as designed. I guess this is why I'm holding out some hope that 30p 4K may actually turn out to be "useful" or usable... despite the initial reaction that it won't cut it, based on "prior experience".

We will see soon enough, and it'll likely still be pretty impressive for 1080/60p no matter what (OK, so save $500 and buy the CX900?). In that respect, the question is whether if's a step "up" from the CX/PJ7xx series that so many of us know, and use for what they do so well.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I'm fine with 29.97p too. I shoot at 59.97p with my RX10 and when I render off at 29.97 I can't see any difference (vs 60p). Maybe it's my subject matter (or my eyes).

The conversation about different needs is interesting. For what it's worth here is my list.

1 A decent EVF
2. Noise-free sharp colourful 29.97 or 59.97p
3. Long (optical) reach
4. Light weight, compact, highly portable (not necessarily pocketable).
5. High quality image stabilization
6. RX10 quality stills
7. Built in ND filters
8. Perfect auto-focus and auto WB.

I don't need raw, hdmi out, 24p, shallow DOF, low-light capability, XLR audio inputs, touch screen.

Along with my RX10, I think if I get an AX100 and an HX400v I might be set, for now!

Until something better comes along, and it will.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Thanks Ron & Dave for reminding me to look at the numbers. I completely didnt even think about the fact of resolution being 4x bigger than HD. After a while all the numbers start to hurt my short attention span prone brain. hahaha on a more serious note, like many others have mentioned, I'll have to get my hands on a camera and play around to see what will fit my needs and work style.

I'm also following discussions on the AX1 and am keen to find out just how "compatable" the AX1 and AX100 will be with each other as I'm sure others are as well.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Not sure, if this video is shot with a Sony 4K cam, but i don't like the image at 1:20 (the higher speed images).
Or it maybe a crappy conversion.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Another video showing it must have been a long FL lens on it for many of the shots.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I have had my FDR-AX1 since just before Christmas and have mainly shot 60P but a few shoots at 30P 100Mbps for a YouTube video that had no real movement anyway. Most Sony's match each other very well so I expect the FDR-AX1 and FDR-AX100 both at 30P same data rate to match well. I think low light will depend on zoom position for both cameras as the FDR-AX1 full wide is F1.6 but with both zoomed tele they are both F3.4 ( I think ) so in this case the FDR-AX100 will have the advantage.

Set wide for full stage view next to my CX700 the FDR-AX1 performed very similar both going to 21db of gain at times. The difference is when the FDR-AX1 is downconverted to 1920x1080 it seems to have more depth to the image likely because the colour resolution is now closer to 4:2:2 than 4:2:0 of the AVCHD from the CX700. For highlights this seems to add some detail lost in the CX700 image. Big advantage when shooting dance with flashing lights of all colours. For a dance show I left it full wide then cropped in to the stage area as needed and this worked great. Would love it to have better low light but it works for now.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Dave, watching 60i and 60P is totally dependent on the playback chain. 60i deinterlacing is different on different TV's so will look different between manufacturers etc. 60P is native for most flat panel displays in North America so will be more consistent across manufacturers. If from a DVD or Bluray player one has another option involved. Hence 60P is the best choice but of course no spec for discs just as there is no spec for 30P either !! So we are at the point where discs do not playback the two likely choices for people to shoot in !!!! Both have to be converted to 60i or 1280x720P60. I think we will see a new disc spec for 4K that includes both 60P and 30P !!!

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Dangerous to read too much into headline numbers, and that can apply very much to bitrate as well as subsampling, bitdepth etc.

Firstly, is the 60Mbs an average or peak value? I believe the numbers quoted for AVC-HD are peak - the average bitrate is much less than 24Mbs. And a lot depends on the individual coder - all AVC-HD coders don't give anything like the same performance, even at the same bitrate. And here we're talking about X-AVC which *should* give better performance than AVC-HD.

But most of all, it's incorrect to directly scale compressed bitrates up as resolution increases, assuming equivalent quality. As a rule of thumb, the higher the resolution, the higher the compression ratio for equivalent quality (assuming all else - codec etc equal)

So - the question you put is "is 60Mbs good enough"? That can only be really answered when we see real results - but even then, what is "good enough"? That may seem a silly question, but as with HD codecs, it depends on factors such as how much post processing the signal is likely to have. Which is why AVC-HD for HD may be fine for many uses - but is not broadcast approved. The original pictures may be fine - but can't be guaranteed to stand up to the compression/recompression of the broadcast chain.

My gut feeling is that it probably will be OK - bearing in mind we are talking about a consumer camera. (Albeit a quite expensive one, aimed at the top end of "consumer".) Look at it this way. I believe top end cameras (such as the F55) code 4K with XAVC at a rate of 10Mb/frame - so 24fps is 240Mbs, as it's an I-frame only codec.

Here we're talking about a codec a quarter the bitrate - but with the efficiencies that long-GOP brings. The latter may not fully compensate for the extra 4x compression - but we are talking about a consumer codec versus a true pro one.

It may be tempting to think "but 100Mbs could only be better, surely?" Maybe true in terms of quality, but think of the designers job of reconciling design compromises. One of those is GUARANTEEING reliable performance as much as possible with consumer media - which argues in favour of keeping bitrates down. I'm sure Sony could have implemented 100Mbs - but it would have caused problems with guaranteed media etc to a far greater extent than 60Mbs recording. We must never forget it is a consumer camera.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I think so much will depend on what a particular user films and how its used. I'm reminded of the Sony VG900 camera which has been deemed garbage on the internet because one website said it was crap when they tested it filming wide landscapes at f11 and said it lacked detail. Now everyone quotes that review and just repeats the "its garbage" mantra without even really knowing why. Meanwhile I use the VG900 for a website to film narrow portraits clips wide open at T1.5 85mm to get soft dreamy looking shots with extreme subject separation, which the VG900 excels at. So for me the VG900 is a brilliant camera as I'm not looking for sharpness and extreme detail, but I'm looking for a unique soft and dreamy look that lets me film in tight quarters with good low light performance and extremely shallow dof all viewed through its amazing oled viewfinder, and as a bonus not having to deal with dslr issues like overheating, limited clip length, poor ergonomics, crappy viewfinders, etc. So for me the VG900 is brilliant and I make money with it, for others its garbage even though they never even used it.

I think the above will also happen with the AX100. You can bet your bottom dollar someone will use it filming landscapes outdoors with undulating water in the background, changing light, trees swaying in the wind, smoke in the scene with fast camera pans and deem the camera garbage because it's 60mbps couldn't cope with that stressful codec situation. Others will latch onto that and repeat it over and over again on various forums even though they have never even used the camera, but it was garbage for that one user therefore just like the VG900 it must be garbage for everything. Meanwhile my needs to the AX100 are 99% indoor filming with controlled light that doesn't change like outdoor lighting can, no visible smoke or water that tends to stress codecs, mostly static scenes that don't have all sorts of organic matter swaying in the wind, with normal speed pans. In my case 60mbps may do just fine. So for one user 60mbps is garbage, for me 60mbps may work ok.

In the end it really does depend on how people intend to use the camera, for some the 60mbps code may not work but for others it may be just fine. It's not really something looking at pure numbers will tell you, it will depend on how the camera will be used.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

@Peter -

As you point out, a camera that works for one person/job may not be "right" for someone else or a different job!
It's important to remember that there isn't a "one camera fits all" - thus why we all might have a (ahem) "few" cameras...

I have found the RX10 and RX100M2 have put many of my "favorite" cameras up for review for possible sale! I sort of expect the AX100 will complete the "sweep", and cover much of what I will "need" a camera/cameras to do... I'm sure there will still be a couple cameras that will be sticking around, but get used less... it's hard to compete with small, light, "fun" cameras that shoot really good stills/clips...


As far as bitrates - if we rough calculate that 30p would require about "half" the bits of 60p, and current Sony "high end" bitrate for 60p is 28Mbps... at least in theory, I would think that 15Mbps per 1/4 screen in 4K should be able to "match" current 1080/60p in terms of individual frame quality... it'll come down to whether motion looks "right" or not - general opinion is that 28Mbps holds up "OK", but not "great" with higher motion... we'd all like "more" (thus the new higher bitrate 1080/60p in the CX900/AX100 may turn out to be a hidden gem), but there are limits...


As the other David alludes to...
In the end, digital is just 1's and 0's, artfully arranged, with varying degrees of success. Processing capacity and speed, as well as storage capacity and speed govern how much can be done at economical prices - those 1's and 0's have to be juggled and stored somehow, and over time we get more proficient/efficient ways to deal with more of them!

At a $2k price point, you're still talking about HALF of other possible 4K "solutions" announced (presuming you'll have to buy into lenses, etc for a GH4...) or available (AX1)... with the pedigree the sensor and processor are already bringing to the table, this should be a breakout camera in many ways. High price always "feels expensive", but when you break down the features and capabilities, sometimes the price starts to look a lot more "reasonable" (OK, it's still a lot of money... but sometimes you actually do "get what you pay for").

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Sorry Dave, not true, not for interframe codecs anyway, which is what we're talking about here.

It's one thing that a doubling of resolution does not mean a doubling of bitrate for equivalent quality, but doubling framerate most certainly does not mean doubling bitrate.

It takes advantage of there being more redundancy in the higher framerate signal, and normally involves keeping the time interval between I-frames constant - typically every 1/2 second. Hence, for 30p there will be 15 frames in a GOP, for 60p there will be 30 frames. But in terms of size, the I frames are far larger than difference frames - and there is still only one per GOP, or two per second. Yes, about twice as many difference frames - but they are small in comparison, so overall the effect is far less than a doubling of bitrate.
At f11, it's quite likely the lens was beginning to suffer diffraction issues and I don't find it surprising that the images "lacked detail"! The only conclusions that can really be drawn are that you should never film wide landscapes at f11 - and it says more about deficiencies in the testing procedure than anything about the camera.

And that's the problem with most "real world" tests. Unless they are done under controlled conditions, they are frequently meaningless - and often judgements get made on the quality of the photography, the lighting, the editing, and the subject matter! Not the quality of the camera - which is what is supposed to be under test!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I agree with you on all of this. With a long GOP codec, it's very very tough to estimate and translate bitrates and quality between HD and 4K. It's not as simple as just dividing UHD video by a factor of 4 and comparing it to 1080.

To make things even more complex, AVCHD runs on H.264 at a "4.0" level. This means that is does NOT contain all the H.264 tool sets that the h.264 spec has to offer.

On the other hand, XAVC-S runs at "5.2" level. This means that XAVC-S has ALL the possible math and tools that h.264 allows. (5.2 is the most complex specification)

So,...we can assume that bit rate for bit rate and pixel for pixel, XAVC-S will be better looking.

I'm still skeptical but the only way to know for sure is shoot and test. lol

I'm willing to give it a fair chance. I'm hoping it's fairly durable in fast motion, complex scenes and hopefully has fairly clean blacks. If the bitrate is too low, it will show up as heavy quantizing in the shadows first .

Anybody shoot 4k at 60Mbp/s XAVC-S with their AX1?

CT

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Cliff I will try and shoot something this week. I have not shot anything at 60Mbps 30P. It is -10C outside at the moment and just snow etc so not ideal for shooting. You will need some movement to test so indoor static is not of much use but could do a slow pan I suppose.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

All,

Remember we don't know what the proposed final recording bitrate of the camera is yet, it's never been published from Sony.

It's been postulated what it may be based on the codec, current SDXC capabilities and a comparison to the Z100. It's quite possible that it could be higher than 60Mbs but until either the camera comes out or Sony publishes the final specs, we're just guessing.

Thanks.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Not true, no guessing - from the Sony website - Specifications | FDR-AX100E | Handycam Camcorder | Sony and scroll down to the section "Recording"
So 60Mbs long-GOP XAVC for 4K, 50Mbs XAVC for high frame rate HD, plus AVC-HD modes.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Touche.

I was going off of Sony's Press Release blog site and the American store.sony.com which still shows:

Thanks for the correction, I wonder if they've updated that recently. Interestingly I've seen specs quoted wrong between the two sites before, not that I doubt it but it seems odd all things given.

On another note, that's a really funky format/layout they're using on the UK site, almost like someone was afraid of spaces!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I think both sites are probably right. Time will tell.

English specs are for the FDR AX100E, American specs FDR AX100.

Cheers,

Vaughan.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

The video interviews on Youtube also mention about an hour record time for a 32G card which is about correct for 60Mbps taken from my AX1 user manual.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I found this short article (link is below) from a Google search. It sounds like the author has one for testing, but that's not clear. It sounds encouraging, but I'm confused by the statement:

"But I'd go back to shooting in 4K at 150 Mbits per second (there is 100 and 50 Mbits to choose from if you need extra duration)."

Is he referring to a different camcorder in that sentence?

Sony AX100 - better than it should be | Philip Bloom Forum

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I think he may be confusing the specs with the FDR-AX1 which can record 30P at 60 and 100Mbps or 60P at 150Mbps. From all I can see the FDR-AX100 is only 30P at 60Mbps.

Still cold and not very interesting outside but I am uploading a short clip from my FDR-AX1, 30P at 60Mbps. Will post when available.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I tweeted this guy and asked if the 120fps mode was a burst mode and he said that it was.

I really want more footage or hands on reviews!!!

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

It certainly remains to sound interesting. Im sitting here with the BMC 4k, and the damn beautiful image it puts out, but looking practically at the work that i typically do, the Ax100, if it lives up to hype, would get far more work

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

My big ? is can this camera do a good key since the chip is bigger or will it have the same issues as its big
brother camera

Doug

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I found this today

And his blog post translated about it.
Google Translate

Dang that cat is sharp but the jello at the end is scary.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I downloaded this from Vimeo (see link below) and the video looks excellent despite the fact it's only a 1920X1080 .mov file.

I think this video demonstrates, to a large extent (on the downloaded version, not the YouTube version), that both the codec and bitrate are absolutely fine. The swaying branches show no mush whatsoever on the downloaded version even though at 2:19 they do on the YouTube version. Likewise the close ups of the cat, with all the fine detail in the fur, remain absolutely intact as the cat moves. BTW, the detail on the downloaded version is really very impressive.

When I played the downloaded version on Splash Pro, it reported peak bitrates in excess of 90Mbps. So the 60Mbps that Sony states is obviously an average and peaks can run much higher.

I'm very encouraged by this video and anxiously awaiting the AX100's release. I'm not concerned about the 'jello' at the end, simply because it's visible nowhere else and I'm not in the habit of violent pans which are nauseating to watch anyway.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

Cool, looks promising. I hope I pre-ordered early enough to get the first batch shipped out.

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

As you all know I want 60P and was looking at proDAD reSpeeder as a way of interpolating a 60P stream from the 30P from the AX100. My application is a fixed camera of a stage event so no camera movement once set and I thought this may work. So I started to look into how much better in low light the AX100 would be compared to my AX1. These calculation are VERY rough. The sensor of the AX100 is about 9 times larger in area than the AX1. It has 14Mpixel compared to 8Mpixels for the AX1 so each pixel will gather about 5 times the light of the pixels of the AX1. One would think this would give a large advantage but there is a catch. At full wide the lens on the AX1 is F1.6 and on the AX100, which is wider, is F2.8. So for the same field of view the AX100 would have to zoom in a little to compare, ramping the lens to more than F2.8. The difference could be about 4 times more light going into the AX1 as into the AX100 !!! So the real world performance may only be 1/3 to a stop faster than the AX1. Your comments on this simple calculation are welcome. Have I got it all wrong? A big sensor needs a big fast lens which means size and cost. I think the AX100 will be a real winner for Sony but wonder if expectations are too high for performance.

It will be interesting to see the real tests when they appear.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony FDR-AX100
 

I checked my pre-order at B&H and it still shows end of March, but now it comes with a Sandisk Extreme pro card, Extra hi-cap battery, and a case too. I called and he added the free stuff to the order.


Watching this video many times just on my normal 1080p led TV some of the scenes are super sharp and overall the picture quality looks really awesome. I noticed a noticeable amount of shallow DOF.

I still am looking forward to this camera but I really want to see a test of the 120p fps 720p mode.