Sony 4K Handycam FDR-AX100 thread - Page 110 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 106Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #3271 of 3277 Old Today, 09:29 AM
Member
 
leamas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene157 View Post
Leamas,as you know, the problem with single sensor cameras is the process called debayering, in order to produce a color image. So a 20MP sensor cannot produce a 20MP image. The AX100 promises 14MP, that is still pretty high and implies that there are still a lot of debayering artifacts in the fine detail. As the image is filtered down to 4K video level, that noise is mostly gone resulting in a cleaner image, at least to my eyes.
BTW I use BMP for the video stills.
Eugene

Debayering is an issue which affects all CMOS sensors as I know, but it's very little known about the algorithms that are used in each camera and it's also dependent on the debayering filters technology. I am not very much into this, but there are some facts, like: many cameras just declare the number of megapixels in a sensor and nothing more (so no gross / effective), and photo cameras generally deliver a picture which is exactly the number of pixels in the sensor. Of course, what happens under the hood is not well known. The Sony RX100 cameras by example have the same 1 inch 20 MP sensor like the AX100 but they deliver better pictures in 20 MP mode. Why? Good question. Deliberate software limitation on AX100, in my opinion. Now of course anybody can speculate, but facts are facts. I will also make a test with my AX100, still picture vs picture captured from video.
leamas is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3272 of 3277 Old Today, 12:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
Eugene157's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Palm Springs area
Posts: 619
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by leamas View Post
Debayering is an issue which affects all CMOS sensors as I know, but it's very little known about the algorithms that are used in each camera and it's also dependent on the debayering filters technology. I am not very much into this, but there are some facts, like: many cameras just declare the number of megapixels in a sensor and nothing more (so no gross / effective), and photo cameras generally deliver a picture which is exactly the number of pixels in the sensor. Of course, what happens under the hood is not well known. The Sony RX100 cameras by example have the same 1 inch 20 MP sensor like the AX100 but they deliver better pictures in 20 MP mode. Why? Good question. Deliberate software limitation on AX100, in my opinion. Now of course anybody can speculate, but facts are facts. I will also make a test with my AX100, still picture vs picture captured from video.
You are correct.
I still think that the AX100 lens might be a limiting factor, others have raised this question on this forum before.

photo cameras generally deliver a picture which is exactly the number of pixels in the sensor.

Not really possible, except in the marketing department, by using interpolation.
The luminance component, responsible for detail, in the presence of color pixels, cannot equal the total number of pixels the sensor has.

This is the advantage of a 3 sensor camera, like the Panasonic X900M that I owned before the AX100. It only had, if I remember correctly, about 2 MP per sensor yet delivered an exceptionally clean and sharp image at HD 60P. Some very knowledgeable reviewers claimed it to be the only camera in this price range whose resolution was limited by the HD format itself.

WAY OFF SUBJECT.
I think that in this day and age it is the marketing department that sets the specs. In the good old times , eons ago, when I was designing broadcast cameras etc, it was us, the engineers who set and stood behind the specs. Most likely none of us then and I am including our competing engineers, (most of us on a first name basis), did ever imagine the products on the market today. WOW!
Then, color cameras had 3 or even 4 sensors, "HD" was 500 to 700 lines of horizontal resolution, weight with a zoom lens that cost as much as the camera, 50 lbs and up. The price: a couple of very nice houses.
Looks like I just dated myself!

My favorite example of "specmanship" is the contrast range quoted by some LCD TV manufacturers. While some panels can achieve a ratio of near 5000 (at the price of limited viewing angle), some manufacturers claim 1 000 000 to 1. without using the word "dynamic" .WOW

Eugene

Last edited by Eugene157; Today at 12:23 PM.
Eugene157 is online now  
post #3273 of 3277 Old Today, 01:00 PM
Member
 
leamas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene157 View Post

photo cameras generally deliver a picture which is exactly the number of pixels in the sensor.

Not really possible, except in the marketing department, by using interpolation.
I agree there cannot be the 'ideal' detail, which let s define as the maximum detail that megapixels count can store. But there are 2 aspects coming into my mind. First, algorithms and processing power improved a lot in these days. Also issues dealing with the debayering, like image analysis, shape detection, then post processing, all kinds of color space conversion etc. Again, I don t say it can replicate the ideal detail but it can fool the eye to some extent. Secondly, the jpeg compression, where applicable, can be tuned for quality or space. All these algorithms are the thing that is in fact the marketing... as you also said. Not to enter a discussion about morality here, but I think that companies are too free to define their specs and nobody is taking any measure about defining some real standards.
A short conclusion and still dilemma : why the rx100 delivers better stills than ax100? Debayering is not an argument here. And the lens... the rx100 is much cheaper so I don t think so. I keep my opinion about the software.
leamas is online now  
post #3274 of 3277 Old Today, 01:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
Eugene157's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Palm Springs area
Posts: 619
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Makes sense.


I took a quick look at the RX 100, selling for $400.00 on the Sony web site.

It's main design goal is to be a still camera, video second. That allows for optimization in the processing of the image towards best still picture. And even more important, it is listed as a 3.6 zoom. Such a lens has far fewer elements and is far easier to design and manufacture than a 12X zoom lens. The AX100 12X zoom requires more compromises to maintain focus over that range and the very high price paid for that is detail.
For example, Sony claims that the lens is 80% of the AX100 weight, my wild guess is that two RX100 would not come close.

The Ax100 design goal is to be a 4K camcorder, still pics second. That allows the lens to be designed for best 4 K detail, to go beyond that would unnecessarily raise the cost of the already very expensive optics. An other factor is that the image processor has to be optimized for a 30 FPS rate.

Adding picture taking ability is of secondary importance, aimed at hobbyists who feel they get something for nothing. No pro would consider that feature to be a deal maker or breaker. And the addition of 100 Mb recording too is aimed at pro or semi pro users making the AX100 more palatable for them.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that the two cameras cannot be compared, they are two entirely different species.

A more likely comparison would be the FDR AX33. In order to reduce cost the lens itself is far simpler, and it shows up horribly when looking at tele images. Even the wide angle images that I have seen are inferior, both in dynamic range and detail. And to fit the BOSS requirements the lens had to have less mass,(think plastic?) something not possible with the AX100 lens.

Eugene

Are we beating this horse to death??

Last edited by Eugene157; Today at 02:02 PM.
Eugene157 is online now  
post #3275 of 3277 Old Today, 04:49 PM
Member
 
leamas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Just two more remarks. If lens would limit things on the ax100, why using a 20 mp sensor which is probably more costly? And secondly, why raw images are not enabled on the ax100? I just wonder.
leamas is online now  
post #3276 of 3277 Old Today, 05:25 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by leamas View Post
Just two more remarks. If lens would limit things on the ax100, why using a 20 mp sensor which is probably more costly? And secondly, why raw images are not enabled on the ax100? I just wonder.

I think raw recording could become enabled with another firmware update. Can anyone knowledgeable in this area confirm or deny?
121dj is online now  
post #3277 of 3277 Old Today, 06:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
Eugene157's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Palm Springs area
Posts: 619
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by leamas View Post
Just two more remarks. If lens would limit things on the ax100, why using a 20 mp sensor which is probably more costly? And secondly, why raw images are not enabled on the ax100? I just wonder.
The 20 MP sensor allows the debayering to take place at a higher frequency thus allowing for a much cleaner, artifact freer image at the relatively low 8MP. (8MP compared to still cameras).

Very interesting question, because that is exactly what I noticed when expanding the cameras own stills versus the, limited to 8MP captured stills captured from the stream. I mentioned that earlier.
And it is not the absolute cost of the sensor, but the difference between it and a lesser sensor including perhaps additional artifact suppression and lower performance.

An other marketing decision most likely.My guess would be that raw images, being bigger will take more time to store the image in the memory. I did not time it but it seems to take at least 3- 4 seconds just for the few MB of the JPG image. Not quite sure why it takes THAT long. An other guess is that the relatively poor image would not warrant it, who would use it? This being a camcorder first.

My 2 cents worth.

Have a nice evening

Eugene

Last edited by Eugene157; Today at 06:06 PM.
Eugene157 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
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