RX10: Internal AVCHD vs External Recorder.

szimmer said:
I was looking at the Odyssey 7 last night. It seems to not be out yet until March 2014. I also read it only works with the SSD's from Convergent Design. They are pricey at ~$400 for 250GB.

I am about 99% certain I will get the Sony RX this week. Still debating whether it is worth it to get Ninja 2 or wait for Odyssey 7.

I do videos for our water non-profit organization in Colombia. I need a run and gun and use Avid Media Composer. Therefore the Ninja 2 sounds great except it can not capture 1080 60p. My final output will be for vimeo or presentations from my laptop. Will the quality of 1080 60p be so much better than the internal codec?

Simon
Click to expand...

The RX10 AVCHD codec looks great as is and holds up very well in post. Maybe you should hold off on the external recorder until it becomes a necessity?
 
Hello Dan,

Having watched your videos, you make a strong case. Maybe that would be the wise-decision. Thanks for your input.

Simon
 
In any event, the Odyssey 7 will not do 1080 60P through the HDMI input - it tops out at 30P. It does 1080 60P through the SDI input.
 
All I can tell you is I got this info straight from Convergent's Dan Keaton last month at Band Pro's expo in L.A. Dan said explicitely that the HDMI chip in the Odyssey 7 was not able to do 1080 60P. He said that would require a different product. I admit, their spec sheet sure sounds like it can do it, but maybe it's an error in the copy.
 
Wesley Byram said:
No problem. Speaking of further evaluations, I did do a few tests shots with the RX10 on the Flycam, sans Hyperdeck. Nothing fancy, I just flew the camera around the yard for a few minutes, then did some minor corrections in post: slightly lifted the shadows, nudged up the saturation just a pinch, and added a tiny bit of sharpening. Slow, floating camera movements hold up just fine, but there is visible macroblocking on sudden movements, like whip pans. Fast pans can sometimes look pixelated, instead of smoothly blurred like they should. That could probably be smoothed over in post, but it's something to note.
Click to expand...

Wes, if you're typically recording at 24p, I would think whip pans would look pretty ugly to begin with (external recorder or not). That's why I tend to use 60p, reduced fear of motion stutter with fast action.
 
Here is some RX10 footage I found that displays fast motion, auto-focus use, interview situation, and different lighting situations.

 
Ken7 said:
Wes, if you're typically recording at 24p, I would think whip pans would look pretty ugly to begin with (external recorder or not). That's why I tend to use 60p, reduced fear of motion stutter with fast action.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that fast pans should be avoided at 24p as a rule. In fact, I can't think of a time I ever used one in anything serious. I just wanted to note for the sake of thoroughness that the codec sometimes seems to have some trouble with such shots.

As an aside, whip pans, if used sparingly and appropriately, are a valid technique. If the camera pans fast enough, you don't notice the 24p judder and just see a blur. Of course, CMOS cameras don't handle whip pans very well because of the rolling shutter, although the RX10 is better than most in that respect.
 
I feel the need to add some perspective to my tests, before I give the wrong impression. The other day, I did a bunch of more controlled shots with the RX10 and Hyperdeck. In none of the shots could I spot any appreciable difference between uncompressed and AVCHD. That's the way it is more often than not. Where there is noticable breakup, it's typically in shots that would be rejected anyway for other reasons. So, I don't make the case that the internal AVCHD is bad. It's just that if you go looking for issues, you can find them.

When I say that I wouldn't trust the internal codec for heavy action shots, I just mean that I, personally, would feel more comfortable recording such shots externally. It is possible to break the codec in really stressful situations, so knowing that, I'd use the Hyperdeck just to be safe. Most time, I wouldn't bother with it.
 
Thanks for the clarification Wes. I think you were pretty clear that the AVCHD codec holds together nicely for most purposes. I think your approach to go with an external recorder for really demanding situations, which many of us may rarely, if ever encounter, makes sense. :)
 
my thoughts on external recordings have always come down to size: someone needs to make a recorder that favors size over everything else. if someone made an SD recorder the size of the the atomos connect, i'd use it all the time. but adding in a ninja or hyperdeck completely ruins the diminutive size of such cameras, which is the reason i got my rx in the first place.

i've been looking around for anything that could achieve this, and the only other market with potential is portable video game recorders. but trying to convince them to make changes to their products is as likely as doing the same with atomos or bm
 
I still use my BMCC for green screen and interview situations where I want some depth of field.
But using the BMCC outside on a sunny day is a real exercise in frustration.
I have a video I am still working on where 95% of it was shot with the BMCC….
Next week we have some b-roll shots to shoot and I am using the RX10.
Will be interesting to see the results.
But I am still on the fence about getting an external recorder
for the RX10…..now if Black Magic design could develop
a camera like the RX10 that shoots RAW…...
 
RX10 codec too weak? How about XAVC-S 50Mbps for a few hundred dollars more?

RX10 codec too weak? How about XAVC-S 50Mbps for a few hundred dollars more?

While my post may be off-topic, it seems Sony have answered our pleas for a better codec... sort of. They just announced the CX900, which is basically an RX10 in home camcorder form. It features the same 1" sensor as the RX10 and a 12x F2.8 lens (although not constant aperture but hopefully still close to F2.8 at 8x), same OLED viewfinder, same 20mp stills, same ND filter and trustingly the same outstanding image quality.

It can record video using Sony's pro codec, XAVC-S, at 50Mbps, what seems like a happy compromise between quality and file size. Although certainly not a solution for existing RX10 owners (unless Sony adds XAVC recording in a firmware update), for anyone who was considering purchasing the RX10 primarily for video the CX900 looks like a God send. The ergonomics are a million times better, including a classic full size zoom rocker, buttons / sliders / switches to control for GAIN, ND Filter, focus etc

Although a bit large for a consumer class camcorder, in my opinion, it is still small enough for stealth shooting, and won't attract too much attention to itself. There will probably be no RAW stills though, as this is first and foremost a video camera, so that's one major advantage for the RX10. Judging from Sony's track record, when they released video cameras based on their Nex or Alpha photo technology (VG series and NA50) they've always removed RAW still functions.

Personally, I was saving up for the RX10, and thankfully I hadn't plunged for one yet. The March release date means I'll have plently of time to pre-order the CX900. There's also the AX100, Sony's new flagship model, with similar specs, but able to record in Ultra-HD 4K. It reminds me of the Sony HDV-A1, the camcorder which introduced proper HD to the masses. For my needs the CX900 will suffice as I'm in no hurry to jump on the 4k bandwagon, and at $1.5k my budget is already stretched beyond the limits!

We sure are living in exciting times!

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sony-handycam-hdr-cx900/4505-6501_7-35833812.html
http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/sony-handycam/
http://www.thephoblographer.com/201...4k-ax100-handcam-hdr-as100v-action-camcorder/
 
Last edited:
Interesting new cameras. B&H show the max aperture at the long end (348 35mm equivalent) as f4.5 for both the CX900 and AX100. The RX10's constant f2.8 has spoiled me, so I will stick with it for now.
 
Last edited:
Well Wesley, constant F2.8 would certainly have been better, but we can't have it all can we? Considering the RX10 is an 8x zoom lens while the CX900 and AX100 lenses are 12x, their aperture might still be fully open at f2.8 when zoomed to 8x and would close gradually to f4.5 when zooming all the way to 12x. If the design is based on the RX10 lens it might be a possiblity. I'm sure many more details will be known in the coming days. The new camcorders have certainly caused quite a frenzy, that's for sure.

Going back to the RX10 though, from your earlier post I understand the external recorder might be rarely (if ever) needed, expecially if the camera is used on a tripod or slider, rather then handheld, minimizing the changes in between frames. Would you agree, or am I oversimplifying the issue? So far, I have certainly been extremely impressed with the sample footage posted here.
 
Last edited:
tull_power said:
...but we can't have it all can we?
Click to expand...

Huh? Says who?! :grin:

tull_power said:
Considering the RX10 is an 8x zoom lens while the CX900 and AX100 lenses are 12x, their aperture might still be fully open at f2.8 when zoomed to 8x and would close gradually to f4.5 when zooming all the way to 12x...
Click to expand...

A similar thought has crossed my mind as well. It will be very interesting to see how the new lens performs.

tull_power said:
Going back to the RX10 though, from your earlier post I understand the external recorder might be rarely (if ever) needed, expecially if the camera is used on a tripod or slider, rather then handheld, minimizing the changes in between frames. Would you agree, or am I oversimplifying the issue? So far, I have certainly been extremely impressed with the sample footage posted here.
Click to expand...

I think that's basically true. There's some great footage from this cam on Vimeo which was recorded internally that is testament to what the RX10 can achieve with only the AVCHD. Keep your camera movements slow and smooth and under control and it's generally ok. That said, the opening post shows how far it potentially CAN fall if you really push it. If you're in the middle of the woods, with all that detailed foliage, and you're going for that obnoxious "shakycam" style that's so popular with Hollywood action movies these days, the RX10's codec probably won't cut it, and you'll get a blocky, mushy mess.

To add, sometimes you can see differences between AVCHD and uncompressed/lightly compressed after extensive grading. If you shoot in a wysiwyg fashion, then you are less likely to need a recorder. That applies to any AVCHD camera, not just to the RX10.

So, the AVCHD usually fine, except once in a while it's not. I think the OP shows that there is theorecially some room for improvement in the RX10's implementation, even within the constraints of h.264 at 24Mbps.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm.....

Here's a shot from a quick test floating the RX10 on the Flycam. There was a lot of detail in the frame, namely trees and fallen leaves. Camera motion was pretty smooth. The shadows were lifted slightly and a pinch of sharpening applied. Unfortunately, I was only recording internally (Hyperdeck with the mounting plate is a bit much for the Flycam), so I don't have an uncompressed shot for comparison.

1:1 Crop:

0697.jpg

There's some artifacting, in spite of the relatively tame camera movement, but it's not terrible. Could be better, though.

...but just a few frames before that:

0690.jpg

Ouch! Terrible macroblocking. So what happened? Well, in this case the sun hit the lens and caused a bit of flaring for a moment. I kind of liked the flare effect and J.J. Abrams would certainly approve, but the RX10's codec did not. To be honest, I was not expecting to see this much breakup in a shot like this, even if it only lasted a few frames.

So, I've now found an example of an otherwise ok shot that the codec couldn't handle.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Wesley for taking the time to perform these tests, again they're extremely appreciated! Yours are some of the best evaluations I've seen of this camera anywhere, and that includes 'professional' review sites and blogs. It does rule out the RX10 for run n'gun events for me, as having the quality suddenly degrade so drastically would be unacceptable even for free work. A pity as the RX10's features would have otherwise made it an event videographer's best friend.

Also, nice remark about flares and JJ Abrams, you're spot on that one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top