Sony PXW-X70 Pro's and Con's Review

Fair enough..and difference between transcoded XAVC and AVCHD? Ah..I get now you are agreeing no real difference. Again..maybe it's patrt of the evolution of the cam. Any word from Sony support on your concern?
 
Sparky874 said:
Like you I can't believe you can't record the XAVC 50mbps codec either, and you know what, I have this sad feeling that this will never get sorted, just left behind.
Click to expand...

I think that's putting it a bit strongly. It's certainly true that Sony messed up, but I've been recording XAVC 50 since I got the camera in November, and it works great. Yes NLE support is iffy, but some support it (PP CC? Edius?), and transcoding is possible. So it's not that you "can't record the XAVC 50mbps", you just need to either wait for your NLE to support it, or upgrade, or transcode.

I don't know what you mean by "this will never get sorted, just left behind" -- as far as XAVC is concerned, the camera's done, and works great. It's up to the NLEs to support it -- those that don't already -- and it looks to me like they're getting there.
 
Josh Bass said:
So what happens if you're super old school with your NLE (e.g. FCP7 or Premiere CS6)? Transcode tool?
Click to expand...

Yes. I use CS6, and I transcode. Agreed it's a pain, and it's one reason I'm looking into changing to Edius. (Normally I would just upgrade, but Adobe's new pricing scheme doesn't work for me.)
 
onemanband-videomaker said:
their own vegas supports XAVC in all forms. so it's not the XAVC "per se", it's the XAVC of the X70 that's a joke.
Click to expand...

Well no, the point is that Vegas does NOT support "XAVC in all forms" -- it doesn't support XAVC long GOP. The camera is not at fault. Sony is at fault, for not getting NLE makers on board with XAVC long GOP earlier, and they are BIG TIME at fault for not supporting it in Vegas; but Edius and CC support it, at least.

onemanband-videomaker said:
The fact that edius and catalyst can read it doesn't mean that they read it right: in fact after the reading they both come out identical to AVCHD.
Click to expand...

What basis do you have for saying it's "identical to AVCHD"? "Identical" is a very strong statement. Have you done a signal-to-noise analysis? Or do you just think it doesn't look much better? Have you tested grading? I use XAVC, and for my money, it looks a HECK of a lot better than AVCHD. The 10-bit makes grading much better.

onemanband-videomaker said:
I don't believe that the camera actually outputs 50mbps 10bit 4:2:2.
Click to expand...

What basis do you have for that belief? As I've said, I've used it, and I clearly see the benefit. I can definitely see that 10 bit allows for much more aggressive grading. Video analysis tools show that the files are 4:2:2 10-bit, and it's 50 Mb/s. Just looking at the file size tells me that. So I think you may be wrong there, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

onemanband-videomaker said:
I simply don't believe it. there... I called it... let's see. to start that could explain why we still don't have a valid XAVC. explains a lot, no? because maybe there is no XAVC to begin with.
Click to expand...

The camera outputs XAVC. I've used it. Others have too, in CC, or Edius, or other tools. It's XAVC. It's 4:2:2. It's 10-bit. It's 50Mb/s. If your NLE doesn't support it, and you're having problems transcoding, well I'm sorry about that, and as I've already said, Sony are definitely at fault. But you can't claim that it doesn't exist just based on your bad experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top