|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
with difficulty! but, as I'd filmed at 33dB by mistake early on ( left on iA!), it did something, but at that level it was very easy to get a plastic look, The shots were static, no real motion, Thai monks walking very slowly, not your level of action! but it helped. Not used it since on lower gains
The difficulty was that the image was very 'busy'- no large area of pure noise, too many objects in the image. Neat works best when the is large area of pure noise that it can calculate from, then is does a good job |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Quote:
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Quote:
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
This may be of some use. What is Lux: Shedding Some Light on Low Light Cameras | Videomaker.com But generally unless cameras are tested side by side and one can see the quality of the image then the ratings only mean much if they come from the same manufacturer in the same division !!! For instance my NX5U has low light rating of 1.5 lux 1/30 shutter and auto gain ( which means gain will go to 18db at which point the image is not usable !!!) My NX30U is quoted at 6 lux at 1/60 shutter auto so gain is about 27db and is much more usable than the NX5U at 12 db !! I did a test a little while back of NX5U, X70, NX30U and FDR-AX1 in the same room set to get about the same framing and image quality. NX5U F1.7 9db, X70 F2.8 24db, NX30U, F1.7, 18db, AX1 F1.7 24db.
Ron Evans |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Quote:
F12@2000 is the current high point for 60Hz (f13 for 50Hz) HD broadcast cameras. My old Panasonic SPX800 was f13@2000 (f14 in PAL), but it was standard def from the 2005 era. I really wish they would make some sweet super low light 1080P 3 chip cameras that focus on bigger pixels rather than packing a 10 billion super duper megapixel sensor into stuff that doesn't need it. the smaller each pixel is, the less photons will be able to strike it sending a "light" signal to the recorder. Paul |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Okay. So basically the digital zoom exacerbates any noise issues related to poor lighting conditions? So sunny day/brightly lit room = okay, muddy room = not so okay.
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Exactly. The ClearImage zoom is the same as any other digital zoom, except you get a little better performance due to the 20.9MP's worth of pixels.
Paul |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Paul, I understood the ClearImage Zoom to be a crop of the 20 Mega pixel sensor, and therefore not like a digital zoom, but more like the GH4 with tele zoom, are you saying that is not the case?
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Either way, sounds like in bad conditions = bad image.
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
I'm not 100% sure about the X70 but on my AX100 and CX900, identical cameras optically speaking, the Clear Image Zoom reduces the image detail noticeably. The more I zoom in the more it becomes noticeable. On the AX100, this CIZ is limited to 18x in 4K mode and 24x which is the same as the CIZ on the CX900 in 1080p mode. What makes me believe the CIZ is just a cropped-and-scaled up of either the raw 4K and HD image frame is that this CIZ feature is always activated whenever I select the Steadyshot in Active mode. In the standard Steadyshot mode when the lens is stabilized only optically, I can't use CIZ and it's the same vice versa.
The easiest thing to do is try zooming in on a very detailed scene or chart at the full tele at both the normal 12x and CIZ at 24x. I'm sure you will see the difference. |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Ron / Paul - Re-sensitivity: Thanks so much. That's clarified things immensely and given me a bit more reading to do.
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
1 Attachment(s)
I know for a lot of you have had issues decoding and converting the Sony XAVC-L 422 10-bit long GOP that comes with the X70 and some of the other PXW cameras. Well there is a bit of light on the horizon.
I have been dealing with a guy named David on the Acrovid support team. Acrovid are the authors of FootageStudio4K. I sent him an XAVC-L clip a while back. The upshot is that he has got back to me with a download link for a trial version of FootageStudio4K that actually handles this codec beautifully. It can batch convert to many different codecs / wrappers etc, including many 'professional' codecs. This really opens up a new avenue for those of us stuck with nothing able to decode these files. Early days so far but I am having great success in converting these XAVC-L clips to ProRes. What I see I like. Unlike some ProRes conversions FootageStudio4K appears to be maintaining the correct IRE and gamma levels of the original source footage. I've attached a JPG of the interface GUI. This is the gist of David's reply to me: =================== "I just uploaded a new update with support for Sony XAVC format, your sample file is processed fine, when processing you can also remove the empty audio tracks by unchecking them in the audio tab or in the trimming dialog. you can download the new update 1.0.76 from Acrovid web or directly from here: http://www.acrovid.com/downloads/fs4k64t_setup.exe Please note that actual version implements most filters in 8 bits, so if both input and output videos are in 10-bit, the video is converted to 8 bits for processing. The 16 bits conversions actually implemented are the direct transcoding, and video resample, this is, if you activate the video resample and both input and output videos are in 10-bit, then the resampling is done in 16 bits keeping all the quality. We are developing the full 16 bit processing version and I think will be ready in about 1 month, and of course it will be a free update for registered users." =================== Give it a go folks. I would love to hear your experiences with it. Use the link David supplied as the website still has the previous version which couldn't open the XAVC files. Look forward to some feedback. Chris Young CYV Productions Sydney |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
That's an awesome responsiveness from the software developer. Credit where due.
Andrew |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Quote:
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Quote:
Check out this for a reasonable test of the optical vs the 24x Clear Image. As the gain goes up so does the noise but I've shot overnight news with pure optical with more noise than the 18dB setting on the x70 so it really comes down to how important is it to get the shot. If it's a controlled production shoot lit properly you won't be using gain. There again most likely you wouldn't be using 24x either. Chris Young CYV Productions Sydney |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Quote:
Chris Young CYV Productions Sydney |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Quote:
Just heard back from David at Acrovid he said a number of things relating mainly to the development of the 16-bit processing version and possible H.264 10-bit processing plus a PRO version with RAW processing plus some other items but what you would be interested in is the following: "We plan to release a Mac version, the software is developed to be portable, but I cannot say a release date." Well it looks like it will be coming but no release date just yet :( Chris Young CYV Productions Sydney |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Thanks Chris
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
thanks. how have you users been feeling about the 12x zoom, if you dont use the digital zoom? what i mean is do you feel too limited by the 12x range? ive used the hpx170 with its 13x and the ex1 with its 14x. especially with the ex1 found it to be just fine. theoretically the difference between 12x and 14x is very little. practically? i would have to see them side by side.
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
For me it hasn't been a drama as most of my work I use the x70 on is corporate so the wider end is more important to me. Over the Xmas period we used a couple of these x70s on half a dozen concerts and in the venues we worked in the 12x optical was totally suitable.
I tried the 24x out of curiosity and it was way too long at 24 x for the venues we were in but anywhere up to 12dB and it seems to hold a pretty decent image without too much noise. At 0dB outside most people unless you point it out to them don't even pick the fact that its a Clear Image zoom. The only thing you will notice and just notice is that if you do a flat out zoom wide to max there is an almost imperceptible step as it goes from optical to Clear Image. Slow to normal speed type zooms and I don't see the transition. Chris Young CYV Productions Sydney |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
what about the much discussed "muddiness" or lack of fine detail? someone in another forum keeps harping on that. frankly i dont see what they mean in the stills or video samples ive seen.
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Chris -
With regard to this quote: Quote:
"portable" - to mean for use with different editing applications? cams? or ..? Being an FCPX user I'm looking for a cam where numerous clips can be imported at at time, not just one at a time. I know the day is coming when this will happen but don't know when or by whom (Sony or Apple). Not that it matters by whom, just want it done. JVCs new cams will be totally X friendly and Canon is quiet. My current work backlog is holding me back from pursuing another cam at the moment but the light is at the end of the tunnel (I think). |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
John ~
David is meaning that the code base being written is able to be 'ported' to Apple. Very much like when in 1998 Macromedia's QuickTime based NLE for Windows which was called Final Cut was 'ported' to Apple and became the ubiquitous Final Cut Pro we all know about. We just have to wait. In the meantime I'm waiting on a response as to whether a purchaser of the Win version could eventually transfer that licence to a Mac version in due course. Currently the Win version does a nice job of batch conversion along with a host of options like De-noise and a host of filters like: Enhance Add Motion Blur Remove artifacts Add grain Convert PC/TV output levels (This is a great option to have) Color space conversion Convert to grayscale Flip video Swap chroma channels I'm about to check out FS4K's Overcrank / Slow Motion capabilities which have a number of motion processing modes including pre-processing. Should be interesting. Chris Young CYV Productions Sydney |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Has anyone had a chance to try Content Browser Mobile with the PXW-X70 for remote control from an iPad etc. I can think of a few useful scenarios, simplest being just as a second larger monitor. The one review I found on the iTunes site said the app would not connect to the X-70.
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Terence - when using Content Browser Mobile, the LCD blacks out with a message that the camera is being controlled by CBM, so you can't use it as a second monitor. I've connected with both iPad2 and iPhone 4S. I ran into a snag trying to make the WiFi connection until I read in the manual that you have to establish the connection first in Settings, then open the App. The app isn't fully developed yet. In future you will be able to browse your card on the iPad or iPhone (Android as well, I imagine), and review clips. Streaming and file transfer will become available with a future firmware update (from the brochure).
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Out of curiosity I tried it with with my Samsung S4. I got it to hook up and had access to stop start, zoom, iris etc and then it dropped out. Tried again and had full connection strength again then a few seconds later it would say disconnected slow connection or something to that effect. A few moments later it would show a full strength connection... and then it would drop out again. Gave up after half a dozen goes at it. Totally useless with my S4. Not that I see much use for it. It was a bit laggy when it did connect. Others may have better luck. If they do would be interested to hear their experiences.
Chris Young CYV Productions Sydney |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Have you tried with a device that has "Sony" written on it? :-P
Andrew |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
No actually I haven't. Now who do I know who has one?
Chris Young CYV Productions Sydney |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
I had a X70 demo for a day and tried with my Xperia T cell phone and it worked just fine. Did not run for a long time as I was only checking what worked. Seemed to operate in much the same way it does with my Sony Action camera HDR-AS30V
Ron Evans |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Quote:
I then asked the question if someone purchased the Windows version can they then transfer the licence to the Mac version when it comes out. The answer was an emphatic "Yes." If you buy a Windows version you just have to email them and register for the Mac version. David's exact quote was: "... we can offer a free license transfer to the mac version for the Windows version purchasers before it is available, just email me after purchasing and I will add the customer to the database with the free license transfer rights." Chris Young CYV Productions Sydney |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
My goal is a flatter image for adjustment in post, and as I haven't seen anything about this online I thought I'd post some tests I finally got around to.
I'm doing the expected thing of raising blacks as much as possible, desaturating, etc., but kept running into interesting results with a flatter Knee. I've found that using the lowest setting for both Point and Slope causes what I would call posterization of highlights. Subtle variation is lost and at times there is even an odd color shift. I found this to be worse using Cinematone1 than with ITU709, maybe because Cine1 already has some flattening of its gamma curve built in. So, in this video I'm trying to find settings I like. I limited my testing to Cine1 and ITU709, because this is a very contrasty camera and the other options just couldn't get the grayish blacks I was looking for in-camera. I did use Paul Anderegg's color correction settings posted here, including the latest update. However, I did a white balance for the Cine1 tests and forgot to re-balance for ITU709. So, don't consider this a color test. I did include a couple of plastic bottles that had a round highlight reflection of the light fixture above, and there you can easily see the highlight crunching that happens if you get too extreme with settings. Which do I like? I'm still deciding. ITU709 seems capable of a slightly flatter look, but Cine1 does seem to have a little more subtlety after grading. |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
David, could you recommend what you think would work best for keeping faces from blowing out at night while still keeping some detail in the dark areas? I shoot everything at night, and as you know faces are the first thing to go. The camera will produce luminance on a histogram all the way to 108 or so, but I found anything going past my 95IRE zebra is just a puddle of cartoon color, total lack of any discernable detail. I am currently using Christophers knee settings. I have played around with underexposing and bringing up the mids or highlights in post, but all this seems to do is increase noise dramatically. I've turned to shooting SOT's at 27-30db with my LED dimmed down. The background gets brighter, and the soft diffused light tends to flatten the highlights, best I can do at the moment. For those times that isn't an option, I would love to get a peck of zebra on the nose or forehead without loosing all the under 95 stuff on a face.
Paul |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Paul,
I think we've learned now that the Knee settings on this camera require great care, and underexposure is not our friend. We simply can't use truly low Point *and* Slope in combination, and even a 10-bit codec doesn't allow much exposure raising in post. But I don't shoot for a finished look. For the flat looks in that video I aimed to get the mid-range pretty close using the Histogram, but the highlights topped out (as seen later in FCPX) at about 82-85 IRE and the blacks were about 10-13. Putting those at 100 and 0 or wherever I want them later takes only a few seconds and doesn't add noise IMO. So far I can't decide whether I like low Point and medium Slope or low slope and medium Point better. But for a finished look in-camera at night in a contrasty setting, which I hasten to add I have not tested, I think you're right to maintain the highlights first. I'd set up a test - start with Point at 92.5 and Slope at 0, then experiment with lowering each of them a few steps (but not both of them) to see at what level you can get the highs to ramp like you want. Luckily, you can make all these changes while shooting for later study, and the blacks are super flexible. They can be adjusted once you see where they stand when the highs are bright but controlled. For what it's worth, in the video, for both Cine1 and 709 a medium slope and low point seem to retain a bit more sparkle in the highs than with a low slope and medium point. Is a medium slope less steep, thus retaining more gradations? I'm just guessing here, please do not mistake me for someone who really knows what he's talking about :-) |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Just seen this quick test clip that was posted today by an owner, currently filming in India.
Some VERY nice clips in this (and sure, one or two where highlights are a bit blown out). But bearing in mind the price of this cam, I think it's pretty impressive for grab and go footage. And we've yet to see what 4K "flavours"/bit rate of XAVC Sony bless the PXW-X70 with this March - when the new firmware is supposed to come out. Take a look and see what you think. |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Quote:
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
My X70 requires me to rethink how I shoot highlights. On my JVC HM790 at work, my standard practice is to set zebra to 100IRE, then allow a bit of zebra to pop up, then run a broadcast safe filter in FCP X. That camera will still have highlight detail way above 100IRE, and the broadcast safe filter basically acts like an NLE knee and curves the 100-108IRE down to 100IRE so it doesn't clip when it goes to air. It was a bit of a surprise to me to see the X70 produce the same 108IRE levels on the histogram, yet it is unable to resolve any detail above 95IRE. Yikes, wake up call!
I am guessing I don't need to apply a broadcast safe filter to X70 footage, as the highlight clipping in camera is well above where it would clip on air? Paul |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Paul, this is what I was trying to articulate, re: highlight concerns, in the other thread, but you've done it so well, and put numbers to it! And since I haven't bought the cam YET (Sony!) ... Thank you.
Sony, are you paying attention? This highlight thing might discourage buyers. Even consumer cams with small sensors have had smoother highlights for years and years. Like my uncle Jim's old Toshiba SK-F200 VHS camcorder that I carried around on my shoulder as a scrawny 12-year-old back in 1992. Yes, it was VHS, but it had smoother highlights than the X70! (Nostalgia moment.) Look forward to learning what you guys find out about squeezing more detail out of the highlights ... is it possible? Meanwhile, can we push Sony for a firmware fix, or is this problem physically inherent in the sensor or AD converter? Surely there is some curve somewhere that could be adjusted in the firmware to get detail all the way up to 100IRE at least. |
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
I just shot some SOT's at a police pursuit scene a few minutes ago, using Christopher's knee settings, as well as a 90IRE zebra to ensure i don't blow anything out. Looks pretty good, as long as you recognize the cameras 95IRE clip level. I intentionally left the opening of the SOT in to show how much or how little it takes to blow out details.
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
As a side note, I keep the facial recognition on, and whenever I see the orange box, I turn off the A/F to lock the sucker. You can actually see the detail come and go from the faces in the SOT's as I toggle A/F on and off, it is dramatically apparent, almost looks like a severe bitrate reduction when the orange box pops up! Seriously, watch the wrinkle on the guys head VANISH as the A/F finds lock!
|
Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
Sheesh. Wow! Thanks, Paul, again!
Interesting about the face detection. Saw this concern somewhere else as well. Looking forward to seeing your new settings on some more bright scenes with flashing lights, etc. Or, are those so bright that keeping them around 95IRE would make everything else go black? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:16 PM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network