Sony's FDR-AX100 4K Handycam ships in March for $2,000 (hands-on)

jdv said:
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.

I don't want it for grading. I want it to shoot 4K, period. I love the resolution. Just speaking for myself.

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.

Or, you just want to shoot 4K video because it looks awesome.

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.

Again, consumer camera. I don't expect much. Just 4K goodness.

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).

Bingo!

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.

No, I want it for 4K. I already have a pro 10-bit, 4:2:2 camera for professional work. But that would be a good bonus for this camera.

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.

I don't see why the AX100 couldn't be as good a camera as the AF100 for shooting a film. Resolution is more desirable to me than tight depth of field, although I admit some would feel otherwise.

After seeing 4K displays compared to regular HD, I AM doing flips! It is freakin' awesome!
Click to expand...

I see your points, but i still like a cheap (relatively speaking) 4K acquisition tool.
 
Nate Haustein said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah, isn't part of the appeal of this camera is the ability to plug it directly in to your 4K TV set - via HDMI - and watch your home-cookin' 4K videos? HDMI ports can certainly transport 4K video.

And if JVC were smart, they'd re-design the HMQ10 to have one SD card for recording and one HDMI port for downloading video. But that would mean a new codec, wouldn't it?
 
NorBro said:
No one's ever tried to grade footage from a 5DmkII or dozens of other low bitrate, 8bit 420 cameras in the world?
Click to expand...


I'm sure they have, but...this is a consumer camera. Again, don't expect miracles. You might be disappointed in the results. Or not, we'll see. My FS100 is 8-bit, 4:2:0, and I don't expect much from post grading.

Not that you can't get professional level of video out of the camera, I'm sure. I made enough money from my old VG10 to pay for itself in a few months. It was definitely a consumer camera, but i managed to eke out a meager living with it.

Put it like this: if you remove the 4K capability from this camera, what do you have? An HD consumer camera. The body, the menu, the audio, all scream "Consumer." And that's OK, it's what it was built for. And there are consumers more than rich enough to buy this camera and a 4K monitor. BTW, does anyone know if the audio levels can be manually adjusted in this camera?

But I grant you, this camera does come close to a prosumer cam, like the AX1. 4K does put it in its own little niche. If you down-sample the 4K video and can get HD 4:2:2 from this camera, that is amazing. Not sure you can.

I'm not trying to single you or anybody out, but some people in this thread seem to be expecting a lot from this little camera, and I'm afraid it may not live up to some of the high expectations. (And I could be completely wrong about this, it may wow us all.)
I see it as an introductory 4K camera for some of us professionals, an inexpensive means to get our toes wet before we take a big-budget jump into 4K. For me, it's similar to buying the VG10 so I could get used to shooting with a large sensor camera, before I bought the FS100. Sure, the AX100 may have artifacts, and yes, it may fall apart under heavy grading (or not). But oh, well. It's 4K for $2,000. Isn't that, by itself, something to celebrate?

Why do I want this camera? Because I've seen 4K and it is incredible! Breathtaking, just amazing. I'd love to shoot my own 4K. But I don't have a 4K monitor, and I don't see me getting one anytime soon, so I doubt I'll be an early adopter of the AX100. But, someday...
Unless there is an advantage to down-sampling 4K to HD?
 
My NEX-5N is famous for its badly implemented H.264 codec: if the frame has lots of motion, the image can break down pretty badly. But if you don't move the camera like a maniac, it doesn't have that issue, and then the codec is pretty solid. This is my strongest grade to date. So I would say: if the image is not broken to begin with, it holds up pretty well.

I know that a better codec would preserve a lot more shadow detail, and would hold up even better, but this is not a deal breaker, by far.

For lazy people: graded clip, and original image as it came out of camera:


00019.MTS_snapshot_00.12_[2013.11.27_20.19.10].jpg
 
Last edited:
vanvideo said:
BTW, does anyone know if the audio levels can be manually adjusted in this camera?
Click to expand...

Don't konw if you can do that natively on this camera BUT you can get the Sony XLR-K1M Adapter and Microphone Kit

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892383-REG/Sony_xlr_k1m_XLR_Adapter_Microphone_Kit.html
 
Nate Haustein said:
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?
Click to expand...

It most definitely does on 4K playback. I think the question was more related to the live output from the HDMI.
 
jdv said:
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).
Click to expand...

For me the answer is pretty simple, I want the AX100 for fun. If initially I must watch the down rez'd, 1080p, I'll be fine with that, certainly based on how good I thought the heavily compressed YouTube AX100 demo looked at 1080p.

Massive storage problems? For most 4K yes, for the Sony AX100 codec, no. More than typical AVCHD for sure, but at today's storage costs, no biggie.

And of course there is the valid 'archiving in 4K' argument, which to me makes all the sense in the world. When I get a 4K display, I'll have my footage in 4K. :)
 
To me the camera has other things going for it other than the headline 4K
1.) The sensor size is much bigger than a typical "consumer" cam
2.) The recording options for 1080 are more extensive
3.) Built in ND filter with 3 levels
4.) 120 fps slow motion mode
5.) Very nice OLED VF

Even minus the 4K, it should be a very nice camera to use and produce good footage.
 
Samuel H said:
My NEX-5N is famous for its badly implemented H.264 codec: if the frame has lots of motion, the image can break down pretty badly. But if you don't move the camera like a maniac, it doesn't have that issue, and then the codec is pretty solid. This is my strongest grade to date.
Click to expand...

Acaso es la estación del norte? ;) Good looking - but grading towards a darker appearance is always more forgiving. The other way around, when getting brighter grades from dark images things start to become difficult.

pulpfiction007 said:
To me the camera has other things going for it other than the headline 4K
1.) The sensor size is much bigger than a typical "consumer" cam
2.) The recording options for 1080 are more extensive
3.) Built in ND filter with 3 levels
4.) 120 fps slow motion mode
5.) Very nice OLED VF

Even minus the 4K, it should be a very nice camera to use and produce good footage.
Click to expand...

Not really - you could save 500 dollars buying the HDR-CX900 - same camera, but "only" 50mbit/s HD codec. A really interesting camera.
For me the question is, is the AX-100's 60mbit/s 4K codec worth the extra money using it for 4:4:4 HD?
Said all that I was at the point to buy a RX10 but the better codecs of both of those new cameras made me wait, even though maybe the most seducing argument in favor of the RX10 is the lens it has.
 
Last edited:
jdv said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that and it depends on the persons case of course.

In my case I own some websites and plan to launch two more, and was thinking of going 4k for the two new websites. Going back to 2005 when I started my first paid website I went with an HD camera at the time and people thought I was crazy as most of my competition was still filming in SD back then. Fast forward 8 years later and I an now boast a mountain of all HD content, my gamble back then paid off big time. So future proofing is part of it, going with 4k now for my new websites may pay off big in the future. I also take all me screen grabs directly from the video footage. I don't do separate photo shoots, etc, all pictures are from the videos. Going with 4k should help improve my picture galleries quite a bit compared to what they are now. Like most anyone else I want improved picture quality as well. Currently I film in 1080p 60fps 28mbps avchd with my Sony NX30 and it works ok for my needs, but naturally I'd like better. It looks like the AX100 should improve on that, I'll find out when I get it.

Regarding the other stuff you mention, storage can definitely be a problem which is why 600mbps video cameras are of no use to me, I have no way of handling archiving of all that footage but at 60mbps the AX100 should be manageable for me. I don't understand what you mean by the problems of editing, but I always presume that's a Mac thing. I've read many times from others that mostly seem to edit on Mac's that it's much more complicated there because it handles less formats, you need to make proxy files, etc, so I guess for them I can see why it's a nightmare. But I've always been on PC, I jsut drag my raw video files right from the camera to the Vegas Pro timelime and everything works perfect at full frame rate, even with effects piled on. So to me editing has never been an issue. I don't have any problems delivering either, 99% of my clientele watches my content on their phones, tablets, laptops or pc's and I post multiple versions of each video file from high bitrate 1920x1080 all the way down to cell phone friendly low resolution low bitrate versions. Again being on pc has made this a cakewalk for me, I've written many scripts for Vegas Pro so I don't have to do anything anymore. I literally press a button and presto 5 encoded versions of all videos in an entire project pop out, all named properly, all in the right folders, all done automatically. I just drag those folders to my webserver and done, couldn't possible be easier. So deliver is a non issue, it's simple. Likewise for the problems of viewing, there are no problems in my particular business. This might affect you guys more than me because you guys I guess are more dependent on your viewers watching things on their tv. My customers primarily use tablets, ultrabooks, etc many of which are already far past 1920x1080 resolution and more and more already 4k. So likewise there are no viewing issues at all for me.

But of course that's my situation, yours may be the polar opposite. Everyone will have their specifics. To me it looks like the AX100 fits my needs almost perfectly in that it's 4k, very small so I can actually film with it, has a manageable codec for archiving, and works with all my existing accessories. So it's not that I just want one, but more that it happens to fit into my business plan almost perfectly. I'm not filming the next Tom Cruise movie so I don't need Red quality like you guys do, for my filming and websites it seems like this camera should do nicely and at a very nice price point where I could get a backup one if needed.
 
Last edited:
joe 1008 said:
But how much is due to YouTube compression? Have a look at the clouds: These two clips seem to be originated by exactly the same footage.
Click to expand...
They could have used a dual camera mount and shot that scene at the same time using the CX900 and AX100. Do you think a 1080p camera should be just as sharp as a 4K camera ?
 
These two cameras use the same sensor. While the CX900 donwnscales the 4K footage before compression using the whole image information, the AX100 footage doesn't go through that process upfront. It was uploaded to YouTube with full 4K resolution. Now comparing YouTube 1080p footage to YouTube 4K footage the 4K footage should win, even downscaled on your computer. There's simply much more data and you can see that. On my 1080p laptop the 1440p version looks totally clean and sharp while the 4K footage tends to stutter but that's my laptop's fault. So, coming back to your question, I think everything being equal, both cameras should look very similar at 1080p. The 50mbit/s codec of the CX900 should do well and the downscaled 4K footage of the AX100 should not have more information at first sight. It might be different when it comes to grading because theoretically the 4:4:4 HD footage you can derive from the 4K footage should hold up better.
 
joe 1008 said:
Acaso es la estación del norte? ;) Good looking - but grading towards a darker appearance is always more forgiving. The other way around, when getting brighter grades from dark images things start to become difficult.



Not really - you could save 500 dollars buying the HDR-CX900 - same camera, but "only" 50mbit/s HD codec. A really interesting camera.
For me the question is, is the AX-100's 60mbit/s 4K codec worth the extra money using it for 4:4:4 HD?
Said all that I was at the point to buy a RX10 but the better codecs of both of those new cameras made me wait, even though maybe the most seducing argument in favor of the RX10 is the lens it has.
Click to expand...

My point was that it's not just a 4K camera. It's a pretty well thought out camera all around, and if one wants to save and get the CX900, that's cool too. At the same time, a person could get the AX-100 and use the HD for some projects and the 4K for their most ambitious work. I'm not a huge Sony fan in this price range(usually like the Canon camcorders) but I really like what Sony did with this one.
 
Yes, you're right. Just waiting for a real world comparison between RX10, CX900 and AX100 to define what the incremental steps are you get for your money. If these cameras are as advertised there is really something interesting going on. I would love tho carry a compact and efficient low to medium budget camera with me.
 
joe 1008 said:
Acaso es la estación del norte? ;) Good looking - but grading towards a darker appearance is always more forgiving. The other way around, when getting brighter grades from dark images things start to become difficult.
Click to expand...

Abandoned hospital out of the city (la guardia civil nos desalojó al cabo de un rato). Yes, I know going darker is always easier, but that's an insane amount of contrast that I added to those images, and still I see no issues with macroblocking, banding, etc.
 
joe 1008 said:
But how much is due to YouTube compression? Have a look at the clouds: These two clips seem to be originated by exactly the same footage.
Click to expand...

That could be, but they are both compromised by YouTube. So it doesn't give the AX100 any advantage at all. The HD clip softness is due to the fact that it pales by comparison to the 4K footage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top