Sony Launches Professional PXW-Z100 4K XDCAM Camcorder - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 Old 09-04-2013, 04:13 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,019
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Pro version of the 4K Handycam :
Quote:
PARK RIDGE, N.J., Sept. 4, 2013 -– Sony is expanding its line of professional 4K technologies with the new PXW-Z100 4K handheld XDCAM camcorder. The new model broadens professional 4K capabilities to markets and applications beyond motion picture or high-end TV production – including houses of worship, education, corporate, and live events. The camcorder’s affordable price of less than $6,500 gives professionals even greater flexibility and more creative options for acquisition and production in HD, QFHD and 4K (4096×2160).

With a 1/2.3-inch Exmor® R CMOS sensor, the camcorder can create stunning 4K content (4096×2160) at 50p or 60p. The PXW-Z100 camcorder is based on the same shooting ergonomics as a conventional handheld professional camcorder, allowing users to record 4K content cost effectively.


The PXW-Z100 camcorder, together with the fixed 4K-compatible high-performance G Lens, weighs less than 7lbs. The PXW-Z100 uses Sony’s XAVC™* recording format first employed in Sony’s PMW-F55 CineAlta® 4K camera. MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 compression is used for HD (1920×1080), QFHD (3840×2016) and 4K (4096×2160) content. Image sampling is 4:2:2 10-bit, with an intra-frame system that compresses each frame individually at a maximum bit rate of 500 Mbps or 600 Mbps during 4K 50fps or 60fps recording, respectively, and 223 Mbps during HD 50fps or 60fps recording. The XAVC format is ideal for those looking to implement a high-quality, secure and worry-free workflow.

Users can select QFHD (3840×2160) and HD (1920×1080) resolutions, both of which are compatible with most 4K TV’s.

The camcorder provides extremely high sensitivity due to its back-illuminated Exmor® R CMOS sensor — even during 4K shooting. With more than 8.8 million effective pixels, the 1/2.3-inch sensor captures 4K images at 50p or 60p. The built-in high-performance G Lens offers maximum shooting flexibility, including a wide angle of 30 mm in 4096×2160 mode or 31.5mm in 3840×2160 and 1920×1080 modes and 20x powerful optical zoom (equivalent to 35mm).

The new camcorder uses state-of-the-art XQD solid-state memory cards, a format recently defined by several industry leading companies. XQD uses the ultra-fast PCI Express interface and Sony’s unique camera processor to enable stable video recording at 500Mbps or 600Mbps**. The PXW-Z100 camcorder features two XQD Memory card slots. Multiple cards can be used in various ways, such as for relay recording. When the first card becomes full, recording continues on the second card without a break.

The HDMI® interface on the PXW-Z100 camcorder can output 4K as a 50fps/60fps signal. When the PXW-Z100 is connected to a Sony PVM-X300 4K professional monitor or a 4K-compatible BRAVIA® TV, the recorded 4K image can be displayed in 4K 50fps/60fps quality. A future firmware upgrade is planned to provide compatibility with the new HDMI standard (referred to as HDMI 2.0) and enable 4K 50fps/60fps output to a wider range of devices. Other features include a 3G HD-SDI interface that supports output to an SDI of up to HD 60p. It also supports HD output during 4K recording***.

http://www.dvinfo.net/news/sony-launches-professional-pxw-z100-4k-xdcam-camcorder.html

jogiba is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 09-07-2013, 07:34 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,019
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Sony Updates XQD Cards for 4K Video Capture Speeds :
Quote:
Sony has updated its S-Series of XQD cards and introduces a new N-Series of XQD cards in response to the latest 4K camcorders introduced this week.

The Sony XQD card S-Series was previously spec’d at a max 168MB/s read/write speed. The updated S-Series now features a max transfer speed of 180MB/s, which will support stable workflows with XAVC 4K Intra 4:2:2 at 4096 x 2160/60p 600Mbps. Specifically, these new S-Series cards will accommodate the new Sony PXW-Z100 XDCAM camcorder.

Likewise, the Sony XQD card N-Series are intended to accommodate the lower data rates captured in 4K video from the new Sony FDR-AX1 camcorder.

Both series will be available in 32GB and 64GB capacities. The N-Series will be available in October, while the S-Series will be available in November. Pricing is as follows:
Sony XQD N Series

32GB at $109
64GB at $219

Sony XQD S Series

32GB at $229
64GB at $369
http://www.photographybay.com/2013/09/07/sony-updates-xqd-cards-for-4k-video-capture-speeds/

jogiba is offline  
post #3 of 31 Old 09-07-2013, 10:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
hatchback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Dang! I just bought a 64GB S series that only does 168MB/s. How annoying.
hatchback is offline  
post #4 of 31 Old 09-07-2013, 12:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,019
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 75
I bet most consumer 4K cameras coming in the next few years will use the new UHS-II SD cards.

Quote:
Toshiba has announced the Exceria and Exceria Pro ranges of SD cards - the first to conform to the UHS-II standard and the fastest SD cards yet announced. The Exceria Pro cards will be available in 16GB and 32GB sizes from October 2013 and will offer read/write speeds of 260MB/s and 240MB/s respectively. 32GB and 64GB Exceria series cards offering the same read speeds but half the write speed will follow a month later.

The UHS-II standard increases the maximum possible write speed for SD cards to 312MB/s, when used with compatible devices, compared with the 104MB/s maximum offered by UHS-I cards.

Further advances in higher resolution image recording (including 4K2K video), will also fuel demand for transfers of data-rich images at high speed.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/07/16/Toshiba-Exceria-Pro-fastest-SD-cards-UHS-II-up-to-240MBs-write?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0


jogiba is offline  
post #5 of 31 Old 09-08-2013, 09:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 38
4K seems to be where HD was about 8 years ago (except for broadcast). First Sony HD camcorders Z1 and FX1 came out about then, Blu-ray and HD-DVD were rumored but had not come out yet, and I don't think a true 1080 x 1920 TV had hit the market yet. If I still made videos, I would LOVE to get the Z100. As I don't, I would love to have its 4K capability in a DSLR.
Chevypower is offline  
post #6 of 31 Old 09-08-2013, 06:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,019
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 75
I think 4K OLED UHDTVs are going to shake up the industry if they could get the prices down in the next few years along with 4K from smartphones to consumer camcorders.
Quote:
In fact, there were two 56-inch 4K OLED prototypes at the show: one from Sony, and one from Panasonic. The combination of tack-sharp 4K resolution, outstanding contrast, vibrant colors, and smooth motion exhibited by these prototype sets made my shoes fall off.

http://www.techhive.com/article/2024911/oled-and-4k-at-ces-2013-the-fantasy-and-the-reality-video-.html
jogiba is offline  
post #7 of 31 Old 01-14-2014, 12:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,019
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Some sample 2160p 4K youtube videos :














click here to view 2560x1600 screen capture
jogiba is offline  
post #8 of 31 Old 01-14-2014, 01:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
hatchback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Thanks for posting these, Joe. I'd say... not bad! At least some of the shots have more detail than FHD. But this camera is definitely not going to set any records for resolution, dynamic range, or low light performance. What did Sony expect from a single 1/2.3" sensor with a Bayer color filter?
hatchback is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 01-14-2014, 05:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,569
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1495
With the exception of the last series of clips, I honestly would not have known it was shot with a 4K camera. The last series looked much better, but still, it doesn't compare to the 'wow' feeling you get watching the AX100.

Hatchback, you're right, as many have stated, the 1" sensor on the AX100 will make that camera's footage probably look better than these smaller sensor 4K cameras.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #10 of 31 Old 01-14-2014, 06:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
hatchback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Ken, Lately I've been wondering if you're my long lost brother from NY. Are you?
hatchback is offline  
post #11 of 31 Old 01-15-2014, 10:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,569
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1495
Probably not Hatch, just similar interests in cameras. biggrin.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #12 of 31 Old 01-15-2014, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
I got my hands on direct-from-the-camera PXW-Z100 4K XDCAM MXF video clips. The problem with these (and any) Youtube videos is that we do not know how they were edited/compressed and we have to tolerate Youtube compression.

So, I am editing the original clips (simple clip merge, no grading or any alterations) in Sony Vegas Pro 12 and spitting out a true UHD video using Sony's XAVC S codec (the default in Vegas and same used in the littler Sony 4K camera).

My plan is to upload the video to Vimeo so you can download it and play it on whatever device you have, without any Youtube or Vimeo extra compression, if it is not too large. The rendered file is 107 Mbps - much higher than from the AX100, so it should not suffer from compression artifacts, if nothing else. The clips are certainly not beauty shots, in fact they are quiet amateurish, but still useful.

I have zero stake in whether you all like this camera or not, but I can help at least in providing a more useful sample. The MXF files are huge, and they cannot be imported in Sony Vegas versions below 12 (and earlier versions of 12 crash!). This is cutting edge stuff.

I still cannot find an original sample from the AX100. If I find one I will upload that to Vimeo, sticking with UHD.
markr041 is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 01-15-2014, 06:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
thedest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

With the exception of the last series of clips, I honestly would not have known it was shot with a 4K camera. The last series looked much better, but still, it doesn't compare to the 'wow' feeling you get watching the AX100.

Hatchback, you're right, as many have stated, the 1" sensor on the AX100 will make that camera's footage probably look better than these smaller sensor 4K cameras.

Thats because you were enchanted by the landscapes and forgot to evaluate the technical aspects of the video. Thats called marketing. Companies make a video with the close-up of a flower and people think that the camera is the best thing in the planet.

The sample posted here has less sharpening halos. Those halos make the AX100 look like a great camera to shoot a boring ZOO family video.

It looks like you are a big fan of oversharpening.

But I have to agree that those videos dont look good. Dont expect much better videos with the AX100, unless you live in paradise with perfect landscapes and lighting all day.
thedest is offline  
post #14 of 31 Old 01-15-2014, 06:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Sony PXW Z100 4K (3840x2160) video available for download.

107 Mbps XAVC S UHD video, with PCM audio created from the in-camera MXF clips with no extra processing in Sony Vegas Pro 12.

https://vimeo.com/84269661

You can stream the Vimeo downrezzed, re-compressed video to see what you are getting. This video is far from art, but it has scenes with details and motion, if not challenging dynamic range. No one will be "mesmerized" by shot beauty!

As far as I am concerned this is the only valid video for judging this camera, since we know its provenance ( the camera from cineshop in Australia), and we know how it was processed, as described above. And you can bypass the "streaming' compression by downloading.
markr041 is offline  
post #15 of 31 Old 01-15-2014, 08:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,569
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1495
Thanks Mark, nice job. Actually the shots looked very good with lots of detail when played on Splash Pro, however in the editing process the video got a bit emasculated.

The color looked very natural, but in looking at the bitrate, I'm seeing bitrates averaging about 5mbps and a frame rate of 24fps. I'm not sure if that was the frame rate the video originated in.

Regardless, I don't see this as a means to necessarily judge the AX100, but rather the codec it uses. The AX100 uses a much larger chip than the Z and has the potential, in some areas, to be even better.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #16 of 31 Old 01-15-2014, 08:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,569
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

Thats because you were enchanted by the landscapes and forgot to evaluate the technical aspects of the video. Thats called marketing. Companies make a video with the close-up of a flower and people think that the camera is the best thing in the planet.

The sample posted here has less sharpening halos. Those halos make the AX100 look like a great camera to shoot a boring ZOO family video.

No, the videos I commented on didn't look good because they were lacking detail. Pretty simple. This has nothing to do with the lack of in-camera sharpening. There is a difference between true detail and apparent sharpness. Those videos had neither. I have no idea how the camera was adjusted nor do you.

The AX100 demo video looked great (as almost everyone agrees but you...of course) because I and many others DID evaluate the 'technical details'. You often see things that nobody else sees. That's because most of what you criticize either doesn't exist or is so utterly trivial in the total sum of the picture, that it's not even worth mentioning. Do you have any idea how many BMPCC videos I've seen with blown details and 'superwhites'? I don't bother to comment on them because they don't mean a hell of a lot in the total summation of the picture. This is true of ANY camera. If you choose to micro analyze a picture for flaws, you will have a hard time finding ANY video where that can't be done. One day you might learn to put things in perspective and actually sit back and enjoy a picture.

And as much as you try to demean the AX100 today and the RX10 'yesterday' and as desperate as your attempts become, if the AX100 is a 'great camera to shoot a boring ZOO family video', then it will also be a great camera to shoot lots of other things with. A camera that can do well at the zoo can do well shooting many other things.

On another note, you should learn that what YOU think is boring may not be boring to others. Just as what you find interesting might be boring to others. Hard to believe right?

You have a manner of expressing yourself that turns off people better than almost any poster I can remember in recent years.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #17 of 31 Old 01-15-2014, 09:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
thedest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

No, the videos I commented on didn't look good because they were lacking detail. Pretty simple. This has nothing to do with the lack of in-camera sharpening.

LOL How can you say that they lack detail compared to the AX100? To evaluate that you have to look at the amount of info per area or you need to play with the local contrast of the video.

Example. Here is the video that im grading right now.

.



.

Most people would say that the resolution of that video sucks. But if you add local contrast, the detail will show up. I havent sharpened it yet.

.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Do you have any idea how many BMPCC videos I've seen with blown details and 'superwhites'? I don't bother to comment on them because they don't mean a hell of a lot in the total summation of the picture.

Blown out details caused by a bad grading of by the lack of dynamic range? Have you ever seen how the BM cameras blow the highlights? Do you know what a highlight roll-off is? I dont mind having something blowing out, if the roll-off is decent. I have yet to see a professional that thinks that this ridiculous banding/roll-off produced by that camera can be considered usable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

On another note, you should learn that what YOU think is boring may not be boring to others. Just as what you find interesting might be boring to others. Hard to believe right?

I know that. I have nothing against people that like to use their cellphones to make videos.
thedest is offline  
post #18 of 31 Old 01-16-2014, 07:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Thanks Mark, nice job. Actually the shots looked very good with lots of detail when played on Splash Pro, however in the editing process the video got a bit emasculated.

The color looked very natural, but in looking at the bitrate, I'm seeing bitrates averaging about 5mbps and a frame rate of 24fps. I'm not sure if that was the frame rate the video originated in.

Regardless, I don't see this as a means to necessarily judge the AX100, but rather the codec it uses. The AX100 uses a much larger chip than the Z and has the potential, in some areas, to be even better.

The original frame rate is 24fps. The bitrate by my calculation is 107 Mbps. The video was not "emasculated". Of course, the bitrate will vary by scene. The brief 1:33 video is over 1GB in size, so the bitrate is obviously very high. I agree that the 1" sensor has an advantage.
markr041 is offline  
post #19 of 31 Old 01-16-2014, 08:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,569
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1495
^ Hmm, that's odd. I don't know why my player is reporting such a low bitrate with the downloaded video. When I play my RX10 clips through the same player, it reports back bitrates of 24-28mbps.

Edit: Mark, I just checked both my Splash Pro player again as well as windows media. Windows media reports back a data rate of 4475kbps on your video that I downloaded and a typical RX10 clip as 25,963kbps. The bitrate on your video never exceeded about 6mbps. So something seems whacky.

That's OK, it's not overly important. Thanks for your efforts.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #20 of 31 Old 01-16-2014, 08:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
thedest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
The 1" sensor will have an advantage in color reproduction and in dynamic range (if you disconsider other factors)

Is there a difference between the downsampling of those cameras?

Because a 24fps video at 100Mbps has a great advantage over a 30fps 60Mbps video in terms of amount of detail. Maybe the problem is the lack of oversharpening.
thedest is offline  
post #21 of 31 Old 01-16-2014, 09:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

^ Hmm, that's odd. I don't know why my player is reporting such a low bitrate with the downloaded video. When I play my RX10 clips through the same player, it reports back bitrates of 24-28mbps.

Edit: Mark, I just checked both my Splash Pro player again as well as windows media. Windows media reports back a data rate of 4475kbps on your video that I downloaded and a typical RX10 clip as 25,963kbps. The bitrate on your video never exceeded about 6mbps. So something seems whacky.

That's OK, it's not overly important. Thanks for your efforts.

This is not a big deal, but here are the data describing the file:

General
Complete name : C:\Users\mr534\Videos\Mark.mp4
Format : XAVC
Codec ID : XAVC
File size : 1.17 GiB
Duration : 1mn 32s
Overall bit rate : 108 Mbps
Encoded date : UTC 2014-01-16 00:46:06
Tagged date : UTC 2014-01-16 00:46:06

Video
ID : 2
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L5.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
Format settings, GOP : M=3, N=16
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 1mn 32s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 107 Mbps
Width : 3 840 pixels
Height : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 23.976 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.536
Stream size : 1.15 GiB (99%)
Language : English
Encoded date : UTC 2014-01-16 00:46:06
Tagged date : UTC 2014-01-16 00:46:06

Audio
ID : 1
Format : PCM
Format settings, Endianness : Big
Format settings, Sign : Signed
Codec ID : twos
Duration : 1mn 32s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 1 536 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Bit depth : 16 bits
Stream size : 17.0 MiB (1%)
Language : English
Encoded date : UTC 2014-01-16 00:46:06
Tagged date : UTC 2014-01-16 00:46:06

Either you downloaded the wrong file by accident (is it greater than 1 GB?) or the players are giving wrong info. I am using medianfo.
markr041 is offline  
post #22 of 31 Old 01-16-2014, 10:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,569
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1495
Mark, I think we're talking about 2 different files. I'm talking about your edited file that you linked on Vimeo. That file was about 53 megs and had a low bitrate as reported by two different players. I never saw a link to the original, much larger file.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #23 of 31 Old 01-16-2014, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Mark, I think we're talking about 2 different files. I'm talking about your edited file that you linked on Vimeo. That file was about 53 megs and had a low bitrate as reported by two different players. I never saw a link to the original, much larger file.

Aha. The whole point of my doing the exercise is you can download the original file I uploaded, described above.

The link takes you to the Vimeo site where the files are located. You then click the 'download' tab and you will see the original file link. That is the one to play on the Kuro! smile.gif

In fact, every original video file I have linked in this forum of my videos is available the same way. So that people can really see the quality (or not) of the video without the compression from streaming. The low bitrate of the streaming file really lowers quality.

So, now there is a 107Mbps UHD file to play. And again, this is the ONLY true UHD video file whose origin we know and that is not crippled by low bitrates.

18 people have downloaded the original file so far.
markr041 is offline  
post #24 of 31 Old 01-16-2014, 01:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,569
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1495
OK, I see what happened. I was not logged in to Vimeo and as a 'guest' you don't have access to the larger file. redface.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #25 of 31 Old 01-17-2014, 10:37 AM
Senior Member
 
Philip_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Aha. The whole point of my doing the exercise is you can download the original file I uploaded, described above.

The link takes you to the Vimeo site where the files are located. You then click the 'download' tab and you will see the original file link. That is the one to play on the Kuro! smile.gif

In fact, every original video file I have linked in this forum of my videos is available the same way. So that people can really see the quality (or not) of the video without the compression from streaming. The low bitrate of the streaming file really lowers quality.

So, now there is a 107Mbps UHD file to play. And again, this is the ONLY true UHD video file whose origin we know and that is not crippled by low bitrates.

18 people have downloaded the original file so far.

Make it 19 now tongue.gif

Those clips looked great to me. Simply can't be compared to the AX100 demo clips on YouTube with it's terrible compression and very well chosen subject matter, you can't get any real idea on how a camera will handle until some "real" clips are posted. Given the AX100 and CX900 demo clips contain the same scenes, it is clear those demos are not quite what they are suppose to be and I'd be surprised if we have actually seen any real AX100 footage yet. Sony at CES refused to allow anyone to record sample footage from the AX100 so they could post it, that says a lot really.

Ken may be sold but I want to see some clips not via Sony's PR department.

Regards

Phil
Philip_L is offline  
post #26 of 31 Old 01-17-2014, 11:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L View Post

Hi
Make it 19 now tongue.gif

Those clips looked great to me. Simply can't be compared to the AX100 demo clips on YouTube with it's terrible compression and very well chosen subject matter, you can't get any real idea on how a camera will handle until some "real" clips are posted. Given the AX100 and CX900 demo clips contain the same scenes, it is clear those demos are not quite what they are suppose to be and I'd be surprised if we have actually seen any real AX100 footage yet. Sony at CES refused to allow anyone to record sample footage from the AX100 so they could post it, that says a lot really.

Ken may be sold but I want to see some clips not via Sony's PR department.

Regards

Phil
Thanks for looking. It's up to 29 downloads (and one Like)!
markr041 is offline  
post #27 of 31 Old 01-17-2014, 11:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,569
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L View Post

Sony at CES refused to allow anyone to record sample footage from the AX100 so they could post it, that says a lot really.

Phil

Here we go again. Guilty until proven innocent. Stunningly amazing. Did you know Phil that not allowing recording from a new camera introduced at CES is a very common practice by every manufacturer? Further it's perfectly understandable. Let Joe Schmo grab the camera, totally screw up the settings and then post it as 'here's how the AX100 really shoots'. In fact, I think some here would do just that. I'm convinced of it.

But no, this is yet another indication of the secret underworld practices of Sony. I give up. I've never seen such a concerted effort by a few guys to do everything they can to cast suspicion about this camera. rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

Fortunately, on the two other forums I visit that are frequented by enthusiasts and professionals, there is no such nonsense even IF there is questioning about missing features, frame rates etc. In other words there is intelligent conversation going on there.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #28 of 31 Old 01-17-2014, 12:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Another definition of "fake" - a viewer commenting on another Sony promo Youtube video for the pro model:

"this looks just tooo detailed,,its starting to look fake,,the human eyes cant see like this in real life,,,this is starting to look like CG,,,all the 4k stuff is going to far,,i still think film is perfect at 16mm and 35mm,,this is just to detailed,,i like a little softness,,i just am starting to not like this 2k 4k stuff,,,getting out of hand,,,and red is coming out with 8k???why are you people supporting this look,,it looks just unreal,,,does life on the streets look like this????"

It's too real so it must be fake!
smile.gif
markr041 is offline  
post #29 of 31 Old 01-17-2014, 12:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,569
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1495
And that I would take as a compliment. It's actually the same general comment that guys who just love the film look say about high resolution video. It's 'too real'. And that's precisely the look I love (and I know you do too). It's also the reason I, personally, am not a fan of the film look...except for the movies where you want a detachment from reality.

Having always been involved in the sciences, I take so much of the crap I read here (and it IS crap) with more than a grain of salt. There is no better way to determine quality that works for you then by actually using the camera and putting it through its paces. Weird, I know. wink.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #30 of 31 Old 01-17-2014, 12:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
thedest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Another definition of "fake" - a viewer commenting on another Sony promo Youtube video for the pro model:

"this looks just tooo detailed,,its starting to look fake,,the human eyes cant see like this in real life,,,this is starting to look like CG,,,all the 4k stuff is going to far,,i still think film is perfect at 16mm and 35mm,,this is just to detailed,,i like a little softness,,i just am starting to not like this 2k 4k stuff,,,getting out of hand,,,and red is coming out with 8k???why are you people supporting this look,,it looks just unreal,,,does life on the streets look like this????"

It's too real so it must be fake!
smile.gif

And the best part is that in real life his eyes cant see that amount of detail, but in the video his eyes can see them.

Sony made a camera that enhances the resolution of your eyes. Isnt that amazing? biggrin.gif

I have 2 theories for his disease:

1- I dont know why, but people usually accept videos as something that naturally has to look worse than a picture. Because for them, thats how videos work. They cant be as good as pictures because well, they are videos.

2- With low resolution monitors, 4K videos (even the bad ones) have so much resolution that they can even create aliasing. They look as sharp as their monitors can get. That may be the first time that he sees his monitor working fully.
thedest is offline  
Reply Camcorders

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off