joe1946
Veteran
I have not seen that XLR kit without mic.
Sony's FDR-AX100 4K Handycam ships in March for $2,000 (hands-on)
- Thread starter joe1946
- Start date
joe1946
Veteran
joe 1008
Veteran
It was mentioned here on various threads that theoretically a 4K 8bit 4:2:0 image, if clean enough, can be transformed into a 10bit 4:4:4 HD image. I wonder how far one could go with the 4K codec of this camera and if it would result in better HD footage than shooting with the internal 50 Mbps HD codec.
joe1946
Veteran
Wow I can't believe I missed this thread! This camera looks like a dream to me, perfect for my needs. I currently use an NX30 camera for most of my websites because I have to manage and archive all the footage myself since everything I film is for my business and not to be handed off to anyone else, plus I have to have the camera be small just due to the nature of what I film. I've been contemplating 4k but the huge camera's so far are simply not feasible for my particular needs, and the massive 150mbps+ codecs likewise would make archiving for me a total nightmare. I already have many terabytes to archive on optical and magnetic storage with the 28mbps avchd codec, going to 150mbps+ would simply kill me. At 60mbps though this camera will double my archiving which will hurt but I think I can manage it, and it's small size is excellent for my needs. Plus all my accessories work, I already have their xlr kit that I use with the vg900 and looks like I can use it here as well and my existing large fv100 batteries work on it. This is perfect, I pre-ordered one. Thanks for the links and videos Joe!
Bassman2003
Veteran
The second video does look very nice especially for a $2,000 camera.
joe1946
Veteran
I pre-ordered it from B&H as soon as I seen it on January 6th since I like the fact it has a much larger 1" sensor in a smaller body than the Sony AX1 or Z100 4K camcorders with 1/2.3" sensors and uses low cost SDXC cards like my VG900 along with the same batteries.
joe 1008
Veteran
I had been watching the RX10 release closely and now this camera and its HD sibling show up. As I'm not so interested in 4K as a delivery format I would love to see a shootout between the RX10, the HDR900 and the AX100,with the final footage in HD so one can judge the quality of three different codecs and two different kinds of lenses.
Same here Joe 1008. Can't wait to see HD footage from the Ax100.
Any idea when we can see some videos of regular people playing around with this camera? There has to be a few people out there soon that will have there hands on a demo model.
Even though it is not listed as a professional camera, I would think it looks close to providing professional looking footage. Any thoughts.
Any idea when we can see some videos of regular people playing around with this camera? There has to be a few people out there soon that will have there hands on a demo model.
Even though it is not listed as a professional camera, I would think it looks close to providing professional looking footage. Any thoughts.
joe 1008
Veteran
One thought I can come up with without holding one of those cameras is about lens comparison:
People refer to the 12x zoom lens of the AX100 as slow, as it reaches f4,5 at the long end, but I think the case is a bit more complicated. Though the RX10 has a beautiful zoom with constant f2,8 aperture, its zoom range goes from 25mm to 200mm in 35mm terms, which is a 8,3x zoom. As the AX100 lens is less wide, it goes from 29mm to 348mm (there are slightly different numbers out there, I took this one from the Cinema5D article). So to equal the 200mm of the RX10, the AX100 has to zoom in about 7 times, just a bit more than half its possible zoom range. At that point, the aperture won't be above f4,0, maybe less. In the range of a standard zoom, for argument's sake let's say 3x, the AX100 probably won't exceed f3,5, just half a stop above the RX10 and well within the possible limits of codec and processing improvements. So it's a tighter race than it seems to be at first sight.
People refer to the 12x zoom lens of the AX100 as slow, as it reaches f4,5 at the long end, but I think the case is a bit more complicated. Though the RX10 has a beautiful zoom with constant f2,8 aperture, its zoom range goes from 25mm to 200mm in 35mm terms, which is a 8,3x zoom. As the AX100 lens is less wide, it goes from 29mm to 348mm (there are slightly different numbers out there, I took this one from the Cinema5D article). So to equal the 200mm of the RX10, the AX100 has to zoom in about 7 times, just a bit more than half its possible zoom range. At that point, the aperture won't be above f4,0, maybe less. In the range of a standard zoom, for argument's sake let's say 3x, the AX100 probably won't exceed f3,5, just half a stop above the RX10 and well within the possible limits of codec and processing improvements. So it's a tighter race than it seems to be at first sight.
NorBro
Major Contributor
joe 1008
Veteran
Extremely sharp, static YouTube footage on my old 1080p notebook. First I tried to reproduce it @ 4K but movements started to stutter while sharpness seemed even stronger and it came to some aliasing in the skyscrapers of the first movie due to the scaling of my notebook. But if these cameras & their codecs hold up this way under more difficult conditions like handheld and low light they are winners.
Darren Levine
Veteran
and at least for the moment it looks like no 4k output from the hdmi for an external option, don't be too hopeful that that will change. it is again a more consumer camera than not
Nate Haustein
Well-known member
Did you hear this somewhere? Why wouldn't the HDMI out carry a 4k signal?
Sony's "consumer" HDR-AX1 camcorder outputs 3840×2160P or 1920×1080P from the HDMI port. If Sony is pushing 4K across the board, don't people need an easy way to get their ultra-high definition soccer games and christmas pageants into their 80" television sets?
And yet, isn't that the main appeal to 99% of all the people here? Certainly this camera is not for larger budget shows who would expect a theatrical showing. 4K cameras are certainly not for showing your product to consumers now, as even most people here don't have the ability to view 4K footage natively. I doubt if even .05 percent of all Americans could. Watching footage on youtube means, for the vast majority of clips, viewing at 480 or less.
SO if you're not shooting for grading, for consumer demand - either in the home movie theater or real theater, or youtube - why are you shooting 4K at all? The only two even semi-logical choices are A) you're shooting something that's entirely on green screen, or B) you're future proofing.
For an all or mostly green screen production, I can see it. But future proofing? Unless you seriously think your flick has a chance for immortality, what exactly would you be future proofing it for? No corporate shooter or commercial director needs to worry 'bout that. Ditto that a producer/director of shorts or music videos - the half-life for shorts is about as long as they are. Ditto that most full length features, even if produced for $100 million by Hollywood. And by most I mean anything other than 1 or 2 movies a year.
That leaves one, realistic reason to but any consumer 4K camera - or any 4K camera at all - it's 'cause you want one. You're willing to deal the massive storage problems, the problems with editing, the problems of viewing, the hassles of delivery, problems of early adoption, yada. SO yeah, the fact that 4K is usually gonna be 4:2:2 and 10 bit is a huge selling point - and if you follow my argument, the only practical one (outside of shooting heavy SFX or punching in).
That's why most - if I may be so bold - of the people here clamour not for 4K camera, but rather for a true HD cam that delivers 4:2:2 colour space in a true 10 or 12 bit output. True, 10 years from now it will likely be a different story - heck maybe even 5 years from now. But forgive me for thinking that this 4k hub-bub is nothing more than 3D with different make-up. 2 years ago we were told that it HAD to be 3D or it wasn't good enough. Obviously, that was bunk. Perhaps more to the point is that if the story is good, people (generally) don't care how it looks - two of the most influential horror movies of the last 20 years have been BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and 28 DAYS LATER, both primarily shot on consumer DV cameras. There are scores of other examples of successful indie flicks made with less than state of the art cameras.
NOW don't get me wrong - if you want 4K, go get it. All I'm (trying) to point out is that it's purely a personal, and/or artistic decision, as it has virtually no effect on whether or not the final product will sell, or be a quality flick. Of course, the upcoming NAB expo might change things up, yet as of right now, it's awfully hard for me to see why shooting with a Sony AX100 - or any budget 4K camera - is going to make a better movie than a Panny AF100. Again, your mileage might vary. Maybe your gimmick is that everything you make is in 4K (after all, it might just mean something to buyers someday). Maybe you're shooting a scifi movie. Maybe you just got Chris Pine to say yes to your drama that actually does have a chance at being the next RAGING BULL. So while 4K is an interesting development, it's not one I'm doing flips for....
Yet.
The AF100 doesn't even resolve 720p! I think it was tested at 680 lines. If you look at the AX100 demo footage, it's clearly resolving more than 1600 lines. So anyone who wants a lot of detail in their images -- like me -- is going to be all over the AX100. Anyway, the AF100 and AX100 aren't really in the same market even though the AX100 has some desirable features (largish sensor, built-in NDs, pro audio accessory). But if that demo footage is a realistic representation of what the AX100 can do, it's image quality will completely dominate all existing consumer camcorders less than $2k.
The Irish TRex
Well-known member
Sony just adjusted their site and I can now pre-order this baby for 25% off!... (family member works for Sony)... At $1500 seems like a great buy. Plus, I'd get 40% off the XLR adapter so that makes everything come in under $2k for a nice little pro-ish-setup. Only wonder if people would stare at me funny if I roll into one of my paid shoots with this little smaller "handycam" in my hands. I know that's dumb considering people shoot with DSLRs but the smaller "handycam" still screams "Uncle Bob" to me.
REALLY curious if it can output video to a recorder or a live switch. That might seal the deal for me. Seems that little detail is still unknown. Who knows, I may pick a couple of these cams up and sell them new for less if I don't use them.
On the same hand, I have a feeling Panasonic is gonna put this camera in it's place when they release the info on their GH4 or whatever they got coming. Guess we'll see.
REALLY curious if it can output video to a recorder or a live switch. That might seal the deal for me. Seems that little detail is still unknown. Who knows, I may pick a couple of these cams up and sell them new for less if I don't use them.
On the same hand, I have a feeling Panasonic is gonna put this camera in it's place when they release the info on their GH4 or whatever they got coming. Guess we'll see.
Last edited: