Sony X70 4K - Lowest bit rate in the industry!

Cliff Totten · July 28th, 2015, 10:43 PM

Notice the lower right palm fron. Compare at the edges.

Mark Watson · July 28th, 2015, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Fair enough. I can understand that....

Did you inspect the color removed images?

I hadn't, (too disturbed by the rule of thirds violation.)

Having done so now, I would say the one on the left makes a better black and white image due to the obvious pixelating of the one on the right. So, I'd guess the one on the left is higher bit rate?

Mark
Note to self: next time I do an A/B test, try to find scantily clad women to film.

Noa Put · July 29th, 2015, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Notice the lower right palm fron. Compare at the edges.

Do you watch all of your films in this way? Take a screen grab and blow up the image? :) Ofcourse there should be a difference between a lower and a higher bitrate where the lower one will display more pixelation due to codec break up in a scene with lots of movement and fine details but no-one will ever see the difference if you playback both side by side without magnifying it and that was just the point of this whole discussion. You are only trying to prove a point we all know but what we never will notice when you watch your footage like it was intended to.

Low bitrate only becomes an issue if you start seeing the difference on moving images like I have seen on the olympus omd-em5 mark 1 which was clearly visible once you moved the camera and it could look very bad in some cases. But if you have an efficient codec and if the hardware behind it fills any gaps then a lower bitrate will only have benefits in terms of storage space.

Cliff Totten · July 29th, 2015, 05:07 AM

No silly,..hehe...I don't watch all my films that way. This is not for fun, it all just in the interest of science! ;-)

Will do a live video side by side this weekend. I think that will be a better indicator of the two modes.

It's funny, my wife is like "HD, 4k, 8k, who cares-K..." She is perfectly happy to grab her old standard def DVD's and play them on our 70 UHD TV. She just doesn't care about resolution, it doesn't "wow" her. Because of people like her, 4k might always have a limited future.To her that is "geek talk" and it more about the "story" than anything.. And actually, she could be right to a certain extent.

I'm saving up for an FS7. She thinks this is a total waste of money and that even my EX1r was too expensive and not necessary several years back. "Why do you want that FS7 thing?...your EX-whatever looks OK and there is nothing wrong with it..." Oddly enough, we went form a 50inch 1080 TV to a 70inch UHD TV last month and shes DOES think that is nice. (The viewing size increase is nice bit not the resolution increase...go figure?)

So yeah, there are BILLIONS of people just like her. I'm not one of them.

Yes, this is a just a "science experiment". The "artist" in me doesn't care at all but the "nerd" in me is having a blast with it. ;-)

Ron Evans · July 29th, 2015, 06:35 AM

Cliff, as Noa says we all know the difference but like your wife we are more concerned about how the video looks. My wife is much the same. Playing back SD DVD's from my Bluray player to our 240Hz Sony TV she sees no difference to the Bluray of the same show. I can point out the detail in the coloured areas etc all I want but she says there is no difference as far as she is concerned. I may point out to you that if you shot the same scene at 30P 100Mbps and 60P at 150Mbps you would see a difference too as I do. Halving the frame rate when things move has more of an effect to my eyes than bit rate. However you may need to watch the video moving in this case not a still though that too may show an improvement.

Ron Evans

Cliff Totten · July 29th, 2015, 07:57 AM

I'm certainly not suggesting that the difference between 60 and 100mbp/s SHOULD matter to everybody. That is a question for each individual. You as the content creator are the only one that can make that call. There is a HUGE population that of shooters that say "4k is a total waste of time. I'm never going to 4k...why?...what for?" Non of these 4k "haters" would care anything about my little 4k 60/100Mbp/s bit rate debate. To them, pointing out these differences is all a waste of time.

Does XDCAM 4:2:2 look better than HDV? Many say: "nope,..they dont see it" Does YouTube or Netflix 4k look great? Some swear it's awesome while others say it's terrible!

This stuff matters at all different levels with different consumers. If 100% of the population on the planet were like my wife, Hollywood would never have a need to shoot anything in 24p raw 4k. They could just take an FS100 and shoot in common AVCHD and save a ton of cash. It's the people that are ridiculously passionate about visual science that drive it forward and improve it constantly.

I'm not expecting my little X70 to have the same quality as an FS7. I just want it to match the codec of its Handycam and Alpha siblings.

GEEK ALLERT!!...motion testing between the two Camara on Saturday...no screen shots this time. A real world test for any that find this interesting. I know,..I know...it's iust a bunch of nerdy hot air for all the others! (Like my wife)

If anybody finds inspecting compression artifacts to be disturbing or emotionally upsetting, I certainly don't recommended that you watch. It will prolly make your stomach turn.

CT :-)

Dave Blackhurst · July 29th, 2015, 02:30 PM

I shot a little test footage with the AX100 before and after the firmware update (from 60 to 100), and I saw a little bit of difference in the two... was it huge? Nope... was it significant to ME? Well, the 100 looked better, so I guess... yup...

In the end, while you can obsess over specs and such, in the end it's what you're shooting (content), and how well your tool does the job.

The simple fact is that most people don't "see" what those of us here do - unless the bride is a sickly color of green, or 21:9 from a 4:3 original, or the screen is blank, or the audio is all noise... it'll probably "pass". What for us might be an audio/visual atrocity is prolly "good enough" for the "average" viewer!

Yes, it's painful to feel like somehow you COULD be getting better quality because "this" or "that" spec looks better on paper, in the end if the results look GOOD, then they are. There are a lot of nice 4K capture devices that really do look amazing, and some that are pretty 'blah' - the Sony 1" class sensor output is definitely in the former, whatever the bitrate.

The other aspect here is that the "untrained" eye may not see the differences, but after a little training, it's hard to "unsee" many of the "little things"... IF it happens to matter to the viewer (in most cases they really don't CARE!).

David Heath · July 29th, 2015, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Can you tell which set comes from the 60Mbps frame grab and which set comes from the 100Mbps? ..........

This one is not easy. Jody, Noah, David, Ron, Craig and anybody else, what do y'all think?

Image 1 looks less compressed, image 2 more so. So I'd assume image 1 is 100Mbs, image 2 60Mbs?

I previously said "For the record, my bet on such as this is that the 100Mbs sample is likely to be better - but not such a night and day difference as might be first expected. The question then is whether any difference is worth the extra overhead."

What you show seems to bear that out - but the last sentence still stands...... :-)

Cliff Totten · July 29th, 2015, 05:53 PM

Dave and David, I could not agree more with your last posts.

I'm already shooting in BOTH 60Mbp/s and 100Mb/s on my AX100 and RX10-II. When the A7sII hits the streets, I'm sure I'll do the same with that as well.

With h.264 compression, the "law of diminishing returns" kicks in at some point. In 1080, 29.97p, 8bit 4:2:2 CABAC on, image quality improves significantly as you go up. But once you hit the 20Mbp/s mark, the higher you go, the less you get back. I have done tests between 20 and 30Mbp/s and the results are very minor.

Bit rates are very much a bell curve in quality return.

I'm looking forward to this test to put an end to the debate. I'm not thinking it will change anybody's mind but it may give us a good example of just how much is really gained or lost. This way you can choose the bit rate that really works best for you.

Again, I have met MANY people that have told me: "HDV looks fine to me, I don't see why anybody needs XDCAM 4:2:2" or "It's not like to need to chroma key everyday." Call me crazy but I'll take XDCAM 4:2:2 over HDV any day.I know...more weird talk from me again.

Personally I LOVE 4k...even when all my customers only want 1080. And for my friends that say 4K is just a waste of space?...what can I say to that?

As far as Sony goes? Cheap cameras should NEVER have better 4K bit rate options than upper "pro" cameras. I believe this on principle alone. I think Sony agrees too.

Craig Seeman · July 29th, 2015, 06:17 PM

I would not assume the x70 encoder is the same as the AX100.
Looking at the AX100 at 60mbps and 100mbps may not be relevant to the x70 at 60mbps.

I'd really like to see an x70 and AX100 comparison in MediaInfo in addition to seeing moving video. Seeing single frames doesn't tell the story either because the encoders may handle temporal compression differently.

Piotr Wozniacki · July 30th, 2015, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

I would not assume the x70 encoder is the same as the AX100.
Looking at the AX100 at 60mbps and 100mbps may not be relevant to the x70 at 60mbps.

An extremely valid point, Craig!

Piotr

Andy Wason · July 30th, 2015, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

I would not assume the x70 encoder is the same as the AX100.
Looking at the AX100 at 60mbps and 100mbps may not be relevant to the x70 at 60mbps.

I'd really like to see an x70 and AX100 comparison in MediaInfo in addition to seeing moving video. Seeing single frames doesn't tell the story either because the encoders may handle temporal compression differently.

Hi Craig, Cliff already posted the mediainfo results in post 138. They do indeed appear to be different codecs.

Cliff Totten · July 30th, 2015, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

An extremely valid point, Craig!

Piotr

It's certainly easy to see that the "container" is radically different. The meta data is spread out differently as well. However, the H.264 CODEC inside could easily be the same. The long GOP structure, 8bit, 4:2:0 with high profile, CABC could easily be 100% identical.

Remember, XAVC-x is not a "CODEC" in itself. XAVC-x is a "container format" and it's "CODEC" is 100% H.264 MPEG library compliant. I expect that Sony has all the MPEG h.264 available tool sets turned "on". (something that other manufactures don't always do)

I think we often tend to think of XAVC as a "special" CODEC. It's really not. It's a "special container" format that employs MPEG's generic h.264 CODEC library.

Craig Seeman · July 30th, 2015, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Wason

Hi Craig, Cliff already posted the mediainfo results in post 138. They do indeed appear to be different codecs.

Thanks. Had a look. Seems there's some info I'm not seeing that I'd expect to be there. The AX100 is CABAC and High Profile. No M and N number. That info isn't there at all in the x70 file.

The codecs would be the same but the encoding parameters (libraries?) may be different. They're certainly not visible in the x70 and the GOP is not expressed in either.

Jody Eldred · August 4th, 2015, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

It's certainly easy to see that the "container" is radically different. The meta data is spread out differently as well. However, the H.264 CODEC inside could easily be the same. The long GOP structure, 8bit, 4:2:0 with high profile, CABC could easily be 100% identical.

Remember, XAVC-x is not a "CODEC" in itself. XAVC-x is a "container format" and it's "CODEC" is 100% H.264 MPEG library compliant. I expect that Sony has all the MPEG h.264 available tool sets turned "on". (something that other manufactures don't always do)

I think we often tend to think of XAVC as a "special" CODEC. It's really not. It's a "special container" format that employs MPEG's generic h.264 CODEC library.

Some may know that I did some tests comparing/contrasting the AX100 4K 100 mbps XAVC-S and the X70 4K 60 mbps XAVC-L. These tests were of virtually the same footage shot at the same time and projected in 4K onto a 15-foot screen in a high-end 4K color grading suite here in Los Angeles. In the opinion of two cameramen and two colorists present (one of them the senior colorist), while both cameras looked excellent, the X70 images looked slightly superior. They definitely graded better.

There have been various discussions about why Sony didn't put 100 mbps in their professional camera but did so in the consumer version. Briefly, the two codecs are significantly different and the professional codec performs better.

I just received this word from Sony's X70 product manager regarding possible future 100 mbps in the X70: "We are working on that, but have not clarified whether or not whether it is technically feasible to incorporate 100Mbps. It is different from those of consumer FDR-AX100 and other models."

July 28th, 2015, 10:43 PM	#166
Cliff Totten Trustee Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 1,197	Re: Sony X70 4K - Lowest bit rate in the industry! Notice the lower right palm fron. Compare at the edges.

July 29th, 2015, 05:07 AM	#169
Cliff Totten Trustee Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 1,197	Re: Sony X70 4K - Lowest bit rate in the industry! No silly,..hehe...I don't watch all my films that way. This is not for fun, it all just in the interest of science! ;-) Will do a live video side by side this weekend. I think that will be a better indicator of the two modes. It's funny, my wife is like "HD, 4k, 8k, who cares-K..." She is perfectly happy to grab her old standard def DVD's and play them on our 70 UHD TV. She just doesn't care about resolution, it doesn't "wow" her. Because of people like her, 4k might always have a limited future.To her that is "geek talk" and it more about the "story" than anything.. And actually, she could be right to a certain extent. I'm saving up for an FS7. She thinks this is a total waste of money and that even my EX1r was too expensive and not necessary several years back. "Why do you want that FS7 thing?...your EX-whatever looks OK and there is nothing wrong with it..." Oddly enough, we went form a 50inch 1080 TV to a 70inch UHD TV last month and shes DOES think that is nice. (The viewing size increase is nice bit not the resolution increase...go figure?) So yeah, there are BILLIONS of people just like her. I'm not one of them. Yes, this is a just a "science experiment". The "artist" in me doesn't care at all but the "nerd" in me is having a blast with it. ;-)

July 29th, 2015, 06:35 AM	#170
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,220	Re: Sony X70 4K - Lowest bit rate in the industry! Cliff, as Noa says we all know the difference but like your wife we are more concerned about how the video looks. My wife is much the same. Playing back SD DVD's from my Bluray player to our 240Hz Sony TV she sees no difference to the Bluray of the same show. I can point out the detail in the coloured areas etc all I want but she says there is no difference as far as she is concerned. I may point out to you that if you shot the same scene at 30P 100Mbps and 60P at 150Mbps you would see a difference too as I do. Halving the frame rate when things move has more of an effect to my eyes than bit rate. However you may need to watch the video moving in this case not a still though that too may show an improvement. Ron Evans

July 29th, 2015, 07:57 AM	#171
Cliff Totten Trustee Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 1,197	Re: Sony X70 4K - Lowest bit rate in the industry! I'm certainly not suggesting that the difference between 60 and 100mbp/s SHOULD matter to everybody. That is a question for each individual. You as the content creator are the only one that can make that call. There is a HUGE population that of shooters that say "4k is a total waste of time. I'm never going to 4k...why?...what for?" Non of these 4k "haters" would care anything about my little 4k 60/100Mbp/s bit rate debate. To them, pointing out these differences is all a waste of time. Does XDCAM 4:2:2 look better than HDV? Many say: "nope,..they dont see it" Does YouTube or Netflix 4k look great? Some swear it's awesome while others say it's terrible! This stuff matters at all different levels with different consumers. If 100% of the population on the planet were like my wife, Hollywood would never have a need to shoot anything in 24p raw 4k. They could just take an FS100 and shoot in common AVCHD and save a ton of cash. It's the people that are ridiculously passionate about visual science that drive it forward and improve it constantly. I'm not expecting my little X70 to have the same quality as an FS7. I just want it to match the codec of its Handycam and Alpha siblings. GEEK ALLERT!!...motion testing between the two Camara on Saturday...no screen shots this time. A real world test for any that find this interesting. I know,..I know...it's iust a bunch of nerdy hot air for all the others! (Like my wife) If anybody finds inspecting compression artifacts to be disturbing or emotionally upsetting, I certainly don't recommended that you watch. It will prolly make your stomach turn. CT :-) Last edited by Cliff Totten; July 29th, 2015 at 08:35 AM.

July 29th, 2015, 02:30 PM	#172
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Re: Sony X70 4K - Lowest bit rate in the industry! I shot a little test footage with the AX100 before and after the firmware update (from 60 to 100), and I saw a little bit of difference in the two... was it huge? Nope... was it significant to ME? Well, the 100 looked better, so I guess... yup... In the end, while you can obsess over specs and such, in the end it's what you're shooting (content), and how well your tool does the job. The simple fact is that most people don't "see" what those of us here do - unless the bride is a sickly color of green, or 21:9 from a 4:3 original, or the screen is blank, or the audio is all noise... it'll probably "pass". What for us might be an audio/visual atrocity is prolly "good enough" for the "average" viewer! Yes, it's painful to feel like somehow you COULD be getting better quality because "this" or "that" spec looks better on paper, in the end if the results look GOOD, then they are. There are a lot of nice 4K capture devices that really do look amazing, and some that are pretty 'blah' - the Sony 1" class sensor output is definitely in the former, whatever the bitrate. The other aspect here is that the "untrained" eye may not see the differences, but after a little training, it's hard to "unsee" many of the "little things"... IF it happens to matter to the viewer (in most cases they really don't CARE!).

July 29th, 2015, 05:53 PM	#174
Cliff Totten Trustee Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 1,197	Re: Sony X70 4K - Lowest bit rate in the industry! Dave and David, I could not agree more with your last posts. I'm already shooting in BOTH 60Mbp/s and 100Mb/s on my AX100 and RX10-II. When the A7sII hits the streets, I'm sure I'll do the same with that as well. With h.264 compression, the "law of diminishing returns" kicks in at some point. In 1080, 29.97p, 8bit 4:2:2 CABAC on, image quality improves significantly as you go up. But once you hit the 20Mbp/s mark, the higher you go, the less you get back. I have done tests between 20 and 30Mbp/s and the results are very minor. Bit rates are very much a bell curve in quality return. I'm looking forward to this test to put an end to the debate. I'm not thinking it will change anybody's mind but it may give us a good example of just how much is really gained or lost. This way you can choose the bit rate that really works best for you. Again, I have met MANY people that have told me: "HDV looks fine to me, I don't see why anybody needs XDCAM 4:2:2" or "It's not like to need to chroma key everyday." Call me crazy but I'll take XDCAM 4:2:2 over HDV any day.I know...more weird talk from me again. Personally I LOVE 4k...even when all my customers only want 1080. And for my friends that say 4K is just a waste of space?...what can I say to that? As far as Sony goes? Cheap cameras should NEVER have better 4K bit rate options than upper "pro" cameras. I believe this on principle alone. I think Sony agrees too.

July 29th, 2015, 06:17 PM	#175
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	Re: Sony X70 4K - Lowest bit rate in the industry! I would not assume the x70 encoder is the same as the AX100. Looking at the AX100 at 60mbps and 100mbps may not be relevant to the x70 at 60mbps. I'd really like to see an x70 and AX100 comparison in MediaInfo in addition to seeing moving video. Seeing single frames doesn't tell the story either because the encoders may handle temporal compression differently.