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

Samuel H said:
If the codec is weak, it will fall apart as soon as there's a moving subject or some camera motion.
Click to expand...
Maybe - but it depends on how the bitrate gets allocated between the I-frames and difference frames.

You're assuming the I-frames get allocated quite a lot of the bitrate, leaving the difference frames relatively light. If so, then yes - it will look great on static scenes but show problems with high levels of movement.

But it's possible to reallocate the data - same codec, same overall bitrate - to give more to the difference frames at the expense of the I-frames. That will mean more robustness with motion, but a lower performance with static frames. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

There's evidence that certainly early implementations of AVC-HD did exactly this. They stood up to high levels of motion well (better than HDV, say) but showed noticeably more artifacting on static scenes. (It was visible on such as uniform gradients as a form of "noise", but which changed at GOP rate (every 1/2 sec) rather than frame rate, as normal video noise.
 
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that *if* the codec is weak it will fall apart with camera motion. It may not be weak. My NEX-5N shoots H.264 at 24 Mbps and it falls apart with fast camera motion, the FS100 shoots H.264 at 24 Mbps and it doesn't fall apart (AFAIK). Both made by Sony at around the same time. It all depends on how the codec is implemented. That's why we'd need to see a sample video with realistic camera motion.
 
Samuel H said:
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that *if* the codec is weak it will fall apart with camera motion. It may not be weak. My NEX-5N shoots H.264 at 24 Mbps and it falls apart with fast camera motion, the FS100 shoots H.264 at 24 Mbps and it doesn't fall apart (AFAIK). Both made by Sony at around the same time.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, especially if you use the 1080p50 mode on the FS100. Though I haven't used the FS100 but the FS700. I shot some scenes with fire and they broke up beautifully! Macroblocks galore :)

In 25p it looked way better luckily.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I was referring to the 24p bitrate. My NEX breaks at any fps if you move it too much (which you shouldn't do anyway because the rolling shutter is really slow on this one).
 
Sheldon Charron said:
Several people made comments about the sample video being static and suggesting the footage might fall apart with movement and action. Can someone explain how or why that could be a problem?
Click to expand...

Moving imagery requires more data and high compression cannot hold the same of amount of detail.

Expecting high quality 4K on a $2000 is unrealistic.
Cameras from this line show potential for very good 1080p.

Very good sensor, optics and external recorders solve the compression issue.
 
Horses for courses and all that, so it depends on what you're doing what tools will work best. Maybe it's just the grading or the shooters so far, but I like a cinematic look. So far all I've seen from the AX-100 is a very pretty HD video look and nothing particularly cinematic. Everything from the black magic 4k looks like a dream by comparison and the AX-100 looks like a soccer game.

 
Personally, the Sony samples have had that Discovery Channel look as opposed to the "cinematic" look...but that comes down to a choice by Sony to reveal spectacular detail and colors that pop instead of trying to make the image look like a movie. We should hold off and see what can be done with a different style of shooting and grading.
 
Is there really a debate going on here about a cinematic look from a $2,000 handycam? It is a handicam. Yes it should look like Discovery channel and it is quite amazing that it does look like the discovery channel for $2,000!

Sorry to be blunt here but it seems like a big ask for a consumer up to prosumer camera.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Is there really a debate going on here about a cinematic look from a $2,000 handycam? It is a handicam. Yes it should look like Discovery channel and it is quite amazing that it does look like the discovery channel for $2,000!

Sorry to be blunt here but it seems like a big ask for a consumer up to prosumer camera.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's bad that it looks like Discovery, in fact i'm saying that it's probably capable of very many things, depending on how it's shot and graded. We've all seen "cinematic" stuff on a DVX100, so why wouldn't one be able to accomplish that on this Sony.
 
John Caballero said:
Can you describe , in your opinion, what is a cinematic look?
Click to expand...

Cinematic looks like what I would see in a narrative piece, especially fictional work of all genres, as opposed to a documentary or sporting event, or reality TV. It's most often seen in productions for the big screen, but also in productions made for the small screen like an HBO series or something like the Walking Dead.

We used to compare video to film, with film being cinematic and video not cinematic. Now, that is no longer the case since the cinematic look has been achieved with digital cameras. Today it's more about a pretty HD look, compared to a cinematic look, both being produced digitally.

Some of it has to do with DR, some is frame rate like 24p versus 60i, some is roll off of highlights, lack of moire and aliasing, not being to sharp or contrasty, some is just the special sauce a particular sensor might have.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I'm not saying it's bad that it looks like Discovery, in fact i'm saying that it's probably capable of very many things, depending on how it's shot and graded. We've all seen "cinematic" stuff on a DVX100, so why wouldn't one be able to accomplish that on this Sony.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. With enough recorded info the "look" of the camera is pretty much up to the user. My comment was more directed to Gillvane's post though. No worries as the camera space has really hotted up recently. Who knew prices would fall with the introduction of 4k?
 
Gillvane said:
We used to compare video to film, with film being cinematic and video not cinematic. Now, that is no longer the case since the cinematic look has been achieved with digital cameras. Today it's more about a pretty HD look, compared to a cinematic look, both being produced digitally.

Some of it has to do with DR, some is frame rate like 24p versus 60i, some is roll off of highlights, lack of moire and aliasing, not being to sharp or contrasty, some is just the special sauce a particular sensor might have.
Click to expand...
That does make the assumption that "pretty HD look"="cinematic"......... Well, maybe. But to play Devils Advocate, a lot depends on what the camera is being used for, and for a lot of work "cinematic" may not be what's desired at all.

And this is a consumer camera, albeit quite an expensive one, and by all accounts a very good one. But it's my suspicion that for this market, the full "cinematic" look may not be the most appropriate.

In the past, the "look" was fundamentally built in to all but the most high end cameras. That's changed now, with even relatively cheap cameras offering a range of adjustments, to give a range of looks, that was just not possible only a few years ago. But...... this is a consumer camera. It's unrealistic to expect it to have the tweakability of more professional models - both on cost grounds, and because that may serve to confuse the target market rather than be of real use.
 
Some of it has to do with DR, some is frame rate like 24p versus 60i, some is roll off of highlights, lack of moire and aliasing, not being to sharp or contrasty, some is just the special sauce a particular sensor might have.
Click to expand...

Well, reality is that film is film and video is video. Now what digital video cameras are doing is emulating the look of film. Trying to achieve the look of film as close as possible. In the Sony samples so far it looks that they were shot 60i or 29.97i while the Production Camera is usually shooting 24P, so you can't make a so called "Cinematic" judgement at all. And BTW documentaries have been widely shot on film for all eternity. Thus they should look "Cinematic" too.
 
John Caballero said:
Well, reality is that film is film and video is video. Now what digital video cameras are doing is emulating the look of film. Trying to achieve the look of film as close as possible. In the Sony samples so far it looks that they were shot 60i or 29.97i while the Production Camera is usually shooting 24P, so you can't make a so called "Cinematic" judgement at all. And BTW documentaries have been widely shot on film for all eternity. Thus they should look "Cinematic" too.
Click to expand...

I believe all the samples I've seen from the AX100 thus far are shot 4K @30p.

As for the look, I actually prefer the 'video look' to the 'cinematic look' since it gives me the presence I so love in HD (or now, 4K). Film generally presents a 'softer look' which for me is meant to detach the viewer from reality. The video look is much closer to reality and it's what I've always loved about HD and now, 4K.
 
I believe all the samples I've seen from the AX100 thus far are shot 4K @30p.

As for the look, I actually prefer the 'video look' to the 'cinematic look' since it gives me the presence I so love in HD (or now, 4K). Film generally presents a 'softer look' which for me is meant to detach the viewer from reality. The video look is much closer to reality and it's what I've always loved about HD and now, 4K.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And the new generation of kids are growing up more in a "video look" environment. They don't even know what film is at all. I find both looks wonderful especially in 4K!
 
IMO modern digital cameras with high resolution and broad DR are a new medium that will evolve its own aesthetics over time. New breed all around. You can emulate just about any aesthetic look or style you want with modern post tools and these cameras. None of them look like film though. They just don't, even with tools like Film Convert.
 
Razz16mm said:
IMO modern digital cameras with high resolution and broad DR are a new medium that will evolve its own aesthetics over time. New breed all around. You can emulate just about any aesthetic look or style you want with modern post tools and these cameras. None of them look like film though. They just don't, even with tools like Film Convert.
Click to expand...
And they should- that what art is all about. The whole idea about going backwards and trying to achieve "film look" was rather silly to begin with. In visual arts there isn't right or wrong. Yes, they are basic rules (like lighting or framing), but honestly people should spend way more energy on exploring the new possibilities digital cameras brought to the masses, instead copying what was already done in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top