Sony 4K Handycam FDR-AX100 thread - Page 79 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 68Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2341 of 2686 Old 08-13-2014, 12:11 PM
Senior Member
 
William Chiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Just got the GH4 yesterday and this was the out of box under one minute clip.

Since that footage, I feel the GH4 sharper than the FZ1000 and maybe a bit closer to our AX100 in crispness under default settings. The AX100 does exhibit a more vibrant look than Panasonic.

The GH4 does allow for more fine tuning of sharpness and other things. The steady shot in both GH4 and FZ1000 is better than AX100, but you cannot walk around with either. It's not that good. Zooming sucks with the Panasonic. They are not camcorders.

Both GH4 and FZ1000 feel like toys next to the solid AX100. More metal in the Sony.
William Chiu is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2342 of 2686 Old 08-13-2014, 12:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Chiu View Post
Just got the GH4 yesterday and this was the out of box under one minute clip.
http://youtu.be/0osGYOY1Frc

Since that footage, I feel the GH4 sharper than the FZ1000 and maybe a bit closer to our AX100 in crispness under default settings. The AX100 does exhibit a more vibrant look than Panasonic.

The GH4 does allow for more fine tuning of sharpness and other things. The steady shot in both GH4 and FZ1000 is better than AX100, but you cannot walk around with either. It's not that good. Zooming sucks with the Panasonic. They are not camcorders.

Both GH4 and FZ1000 feel like toys next to the solid AX100. More metal in the Sony.

As you know, the GH4 is an interchangeable lens camera. The stabilization is in the lens, the low-light ability depends on the aperture, etc. What lens were you using when you made your assessment?
markr041 is online now  
post #2343 of 2686 Old 08-13-2014, 12:34 PM
Senior Member
 
William Chiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 60
True. I used the Panasonic 35-100 OIS zoom. Which is one of the sharpest in the lineup. But, at even the 35mm end, much harder to keep still than say the 12-35 OIS zoom.

Low light, the GH4 is better with the 35-100 than the FZ1000 at similar focal lengths. The AX100 is better than the above two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
As you know, the GH4 is an interchangeable lens camera. The stabilization is in the lens, the low-light ability depends on the aperture, etc. What lens were you using when you made your assessment?
William Chiu is offline  
post #2344 of 2686 Old 08-13-2014, 01:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Chiu View Post
True. I used the Panasonic 35-100 OIS zoom. Which is one of the sharpest in the lineup. But, at even the 35mm end, much harder to keep still than say the 12-35 OIS zoom.

Low light, the GH4 is better with the 35-100 than the FZ1000 at similar focal lengths. The AX100 is better than the above two.

I agree with that assessment. But the point is again, you can change the lens. The Nocticron f1.2 lens, for example, allows in more than 5X (yes, more than five times) the light compared with an f2.8 lens, which is what the 35-100mm lens is, and f2.8 is the widest aperture of the AX100 (and only available at the wide end). With that lens, the GH4 "low-light" ability is far better than the AX100. Of course, the lens is incredibly expensive, but one has the option. All-around, as is, the AX100 is a better deal. I just wish it had more picture options.
markr041 is online now  
post #2345 of 2686 Old 08-13-2014, 01:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Mattias Burling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 19
You could also speed boost a Nikon or Canon lens and get crazy apertures below f1 if you want to.
Mattias Burling is offline  
post #2346 of 2686 Old 08-13-2014, 01:40 PM
Senior Member
 
William Chiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 60
I do have the speed booster for Nikon F mount to MFT, as well as the Leica M mount to MFT.
With something like the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8, that maybe a great walk around solution.
If only it AF as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattias Burling View Post
You could also speed boost a Nikon or Canon lens and get crazy apertures below f1 if you want to.
William Chiu is offline  
post #2347 of 2686 Old 08-13-2014, 01:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Mattias Burling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Chiu View Post
I do have the speed booster for Nikon F mount to MFT, as well as the Leica M mount to MFT.
With something like the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8, that maybe a great walk around solution.
If only it AF as well.
Yes, its a shame that its just the Canon version that gives AF and you have to disable the physical shutter in the camera but it reduces much more of the focal length and gives more than one extra stop of light. You could also use a dumb Nikon to EF - Boster - MFT.
(For those that don't know, we are talking about the bmpcc booster that has become very popular on various other cameras such as the GH4.)
Mattias Burling is offline  
post #2348 of 2686 Old 08-13-2014, 06:20 PM
Newbie
 
milosh9k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by leamas View Post
I don't know first of all what is the origin of the problem. Something badly encoded in the clip maybe ?! If not, that means it can be solved somehow in the output. What I wonder is, you say that also the rich architectural details suffer from this. This doesn't happen to me. Maybe also the TV / player plays a role. What is your setup?
Here are two examples of Moiré (seen as flickering) on architectural details. Check out 2:07, 2:26 of this video:

The same is visible in the original clips, before editing, transcoding and uploading to YT, but sometimes looks a little different, in some places it is less pronounced.
You mentioned yourself this happening in trees with many leaves, I also have cases like this.
I guess blurring will resolve the issue, but then the nice detail will be lost. Unfortunately I cannot check out this in 4K, as I haven't upgraded my monitor and TV yet
milosh9k is offline  
post #2349 of 2686 Old 08-14-2014, 01:07 AM
Member
 
leamas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosh9k View Post
Here are two examples of Moiré (seen as flickering) on architectural details. Check out 2:07, 2:26 of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lFsvkrqOno

The same is visible in the original clips, before editing, transcoding and uploading to YT, but sometimes looks a little different, in some places it is less pronounced.
You mentioned yourself this happening in trees with many leaves, I also have cases like this.
I guess blurring will resolve the issue, but then the nice detail will be lost. Unfortunately I cannot check out this in 4K, as I haven't upgraded my monitor and TV yet
I think Moire effects shouldn't flicker also, but that is a different aspect. Should be exactly like what our eyes see. I have seen such effects in scenes involving fences, where close vertical metallic pieces are put together. Or roofs. Indeed the effect is a bit ugly, it's more like a side effect of the frame interpolation (or maybe even video compressor inside the camera) since both of them involve blocks of pixels rather than single pixels. In an ideal world it shouldn't flicker at all because every pixel should be perfectly fit and not grouped with the neighbors by some algorithms. This is a long story, my TV (F9000) does the frame interpolation by big blocks of pixels and this effect is really visible if I look carefully. This is due to the cheap hardware they use I think. Maybe future TVs will have much better image processors, that can avoid such effects, and also make the rolling shutter effects less visible. I own a Samsung F9000 but I will buy soon a OneConnect box that will allow me to feed the TV in 4K 60p, then maybe the PC will help the frame interpolation on the TV to behave better.
I will check your video at home on my TV and come with feedback.
leamas is offline  
post #2350 of 2686 Old 08-14-2014, 03:01 AM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Chiu View Post
The AX100 does exhibit a more vibrant look than Panasonic. Both GH4 and FZ1000 feel like toys next to the solid AX100.
I felt the opposite. The look of GH4 footage is highly adjustable in camera whereas it's much less so with the AX100. The GH4 has 3 dials and many buttons in addition to a huge range of selectable menu options. That gives it a professional character whereas the AX100 is just like a $500 consumer camcorder with limited menu options, far fewer buttons and dials, plus it's a bulky thing next to the compact GH4. Although the body of the GH4 is mostly plastic, the quality of the shutter mechanism is true pro grade - rated for 200,000 actuations. The big and bright viewfinder of the GH4 is also pro grade in comparison to the small "looking into a tunnel" consumer grade viewfinder of the AX100. The GH4 has a 1 year parts and labor warranty, whereas the AX100 has only a 90 day labor warranty as is typical for consumer camcorders. Lastly, I feel the footage of the GH4 has a natural looking degree of crispness whereas the footage of the AX100 looks over sharpened. I will admit the audio quality of the built in mic of AX100 does seem clearer than the GH4.

Last edited by SD90; 08-14-2014 at 03:09 AM.
SD90 is offline  
post #2351 of 2686 Old 08-14-2014, 07:18 AM
Member
 
leamas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post
I felt the opposite. The look of GH4 footage is highly adjustable in camera whereas it's much less so with the AX100. The GH4 has 3 dials and many buttons in addition to a huge range of selectable menu options. That gives it a professional character whereas the AX100 is just like a $500 consumer camcorder with limited menu options, far fewer buttons and dials, plus it's a bulky thing next to the compact GH4. Although the body of the GH4 is mostly plastic, the quality of the shutter mechanism is true pro grade - rated for 200,000 actuations. The big and bright viewfinder of the GH4 is also pro grade in comparison to the small "looking into a tunnel" consumer grade viewfinder of the AX100. The GH4 has a 1 year parts and labor warranty, whereas the AX100 has only a 90 day labor warranty as is typical for consumer camcorders. Lastly, I feel the footage of the GH4 has a natural looking degree of crispness whereas the footage of the AX100 looks over sharpened. I will admit the audio quality of the built in mic of AX100 does seem clearer than the GH4.
I don't want to agree or disagree with what's being said but just to tell my opinion about how a camera should be. Things like viewfinder, dials, buttons are really important to some extent, also build construction & shape matters a bit but the main aspect is the footage that the camera produces. I know I will hear about other aspects, everything is important, of course but let's not forget what is the end purpose of a camera. The footage. And here, I have seen footage of both GH4 and AX100, I use a big TV (65 inch) and it's very clear to me that the AX100 produces more detail than GH4. I don't own a GH4, I don't know which lenses are available / used in the various footage that I saw but it's a pure truth that on a big screen, that sharpness of AX100 that you tell about, looks spectacular. Ok, we can enter now a discussion about how colors should be, how the overall detail should be more like film etcetera, everything is relative but I think it's clear that the quality of the AX100 footage is better. If somebody can check on a 79/80 inch screen, I think it will be even more obvious there. I admit that on small screens, differences may not be visible that much and there it comes the relativity.
leamas is offline  
post #2352 of 2686 Old 08-14-2014, 07:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,574
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1383 Post(s)
Liked: 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post
I felt the opposite. The look of GH4 footage is highly adjustable in camera whereas it's much less so with the AX100. The GH4 has 3 dials and many buttons in addition to a huge range of selectable menu options. That gives it a professional character whereas the AX100 is just like a $500 consumer camcorder with limited menu options, far fewer buttons and dials, plus it's a bulky thing next to the compact GH4. Although the body of the GH4 is mostly plastic, the quality of the shutter mechanism is true pro grade - rated for 200,000 actuations. The big and bright viewfinder of the GH4 is also pro grade in comparison to the small "looking into a tunnel" consumer grade viewfinder of the AX100. The GH4 has a 1 year parts and labor warranty, whereas the AX100 has only a 90 day labor warranty as is typical for consumer camcorders. Lastly, I feel the footage of the GH4 has a natural looking degree of crispness whereas the footage of the AX100 looks over sharpened. I will admit the audio quality of the built in mic of AX100 does seem clearer than the GH4.
Regardless of how many buttons, dials, days of warranty, rated shutter actuations etc, I look for the end result, the picture. Warranties and all the other 'goodies' do me no good if, inevitably, I'm less satisfied with the picture. Such was the case with my private battle of the AX100 vs the GH4.

IMO, not only was there more real detail and sharpness in the picture, but the color was consistently accurate in the AX100. I had no need to make changes other than when I'd do a MWB. I don't miss not having picture profiles and the like, I don't feel the need for them. Yet with the GH4, no matter which profile and no matter how I adjusted the picture within a profile, I could not get the clarity & consistent color the AX100 gave me...even with its 'limited menu options'.

As far as bulk is concerned, yes, it is heavier than the GH4, but that also adds to stability in holding the camera. This is not to say the IS on the AX100 is great, it's not, but IMO it's easier to hold a camcorder style camera steadier than a DSLR-type camera.

The GH4 will make many users happy, but for my needs it was basically 'no contest'.

Last edited by Ken Ross; 08-14-2014 at 07:40 AM.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #2353 of 2686 Old 08-14-2014, 10:12 AM
Member
 
leamas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosh9k View Post
Here are two examples of Moiré (seen as flickering) on architectural details. Check out 2:07, 2:26 of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lFsvkrqOno

The same is visible in the original clips, before editing, transcoding and uploading to YT, but sometimes looks a little different, in some places it is less pronounced.
You mentioned yourself this happening in trees with many leaves, I also have cases like this.
I guess blurring will resolve the issue, but then the nice detail will be lost. Unfortunately I cannot check out this in 4K, as I haven't upgraded my monitor and TV yet
No flickering on my TV. I adjusted the sharpness via the graphics card driver, but still to a value that preserves the detail. The scenes that still flicker are the ones with very bright light and big details on trees etc.
milosh9k likes this.
leamas is offline  
post #2354 of 2686 Old 08-14-2014, 12:29 PM
Member
 
Cloudstrewn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The fine (0.2 or 0.3 pixel radius) but intense built-in edge sharpening in the AX100 is a bit of a turn-off for me. It's understandable that Sony should try this bit of 'deception' given that the camera is aimed at a consumer market, but I sure hope the pro version of this camera will have adjustable sharpness, also a higher rolling shutter rate closer to the GH4, otherwise they won't entice me to part with any cash.
Cloudstrewn is offline  
post #2355 of 2686 Old 08-14-2014, 02:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Mattias Burling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Did someone say Moire?
Its a shame that its only the AX100 thats on a Monopod and the only shoot that I have no idea about the settings on.
But still the AX100 is good at avoiding Moire and so is the others that should IMO. The one that surprised me was the old Nex-5t.


I used a really old soft Sigma on the BMDs so they would match up more against the Sonys. So the AX100 is the only one with a sharp lens. I think I will go back a sunny day similar to the AX100 shoot with a Canon L lens on the BMPC just for fun.
milosh9k likes this.

Last edited by Mattias Burling; 08-14-2014 at 02:28 PM.
Mattias Burling is offline  
post #2356 of 2686 Old 08-14-2014, 11:22 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudstrewn View Post
The fine (0.2 or 0.3 pixel radius) but intense built-in edge sharpening in the AX100 is a bit of a turn-off for me.
Yes the oversharpening of the AX100 is quite noticable when, after shooting with the GH4 for awhile, I go back and look at some of the footage I shot with the AX100.. The default sharpening of the GH4 in Standard or Scenery shooting modes seems perfect to me so don't attempt to either add or remove any in-camera or in post. With the AX100 one cannot remove any sharpening in-camera, so it must be done in post. Panasonic does add a smidgen of in-camera sharpening to the GH4 when shooting in Vivid mode, so that option is available to GH4 owners who desire a very slightly crisper look.

I gather this impression of oversharpening on the AX100 is not an issue when viewing on a large ULD TV screen or monitor, but just on small ULD monitors and regular HD monitors.

Last edited by SD90; 08-14-2014 at 11:27 PM.
SD90 is offline  
post #2357 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 10:18 AM
Member
 
Cloudstrewn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post
I gather this impression of oversharpening on the AX100 is not an issue when viewing on a large ULD TV screen or monitor, but just on small ULD monitors and regular HD monitors.
The main problem is when you want to do further processing of the footage (perhaps not relevant for the consumer end-user who this camera's aimed at) and would prefer to add any sharpening at the end.

Incidentally - and this is a subjective thing and probably varies from person to person - I find that in some circumstances the image doesn't look quite right because of the sharpening, even when viewed at full 4K. It was this that made me investigate the causes in the first place.

Great camera, just hope the pro version is tweaked a little.
Cloudstrewn is offline  
post #2358 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 11:13 AM
Senior Member
 
chenderson2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudstrewn View Post
The main problem is when you want to do further processing of the footage (perhaps not relevant for the consumer end-user who this camera's aimed at) and would prefer to add any sharpening at the end.

Incidentally - and this is a subjective thing and probably varies from person to person - I find that in some circumstances the image doesn't look quite right because of the sharpening, even when viewed at full 4K. It was this that made me investigate the causes in the first place.

Great camera, just hope the pro version is tweaked a little.
Interesting that you should mention this. I was in an electronics store the other day to see they had replaced the Sony UHD TVs with LG and Samsung. The LG was running some demo footage in 4k and it was so over sharp that it looked cartoonish. I mentioned this to the salesman, but he had no comment. So, you can go to extremes with sharpening and lose the realism. I haven't noticed this, though, with the Sony ax100.
chenderson2 is offline  
post #2359 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 03:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,574
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1383 Post(s)
Liked: 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by chenderson2 View Post
Interesting that you should mention this. I was in an electronics store the other day to see they had replaced the Sony UHD TVs with LG and Samsung. The LG was running some demo footage in 4k and it was so over sharp that it looked cartoonish. I mentioned this to the salesman, but he had no comment. So, you can go to extremes with sharpening and lose the realism. I haven't noticed this, though, with the Sony ax100.
Nor have I. What some call over-sharpening is, IMO, more detail. I saw that repeatedly when comparing my GH4 with my AX100. The AX100 had more real detail and real detail is not created by over-sharpening, which in fact, lessens detail. The actual, objective, measured resolution of the AX100 was greater in Slashcam's tests.

BTW, I too have seen that hideously over-sharpened LG running the 4K demo. It's not the demo material that's over-sharpened, but rather the LG. I changed the picture mode and it became quite watchable, even very nice. I had put one of my 4K videos on the LG and prior to adjustment, it was also quite ugly with the LG's default over-sharpening.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #2360 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 05:57 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Nor have I. What some call over-sharpening is, IMO, more detail. I saw that repeatedly when comparing my GH4 with my AX100. The AX100 had more real detail and real detail is not created by over-sharpening
The point some of us (including Chris Mayer on DVX) are tying to make is that even if it's true the AX100 resolves a wee bit more detail than the GH4, Sony adds some extra sharpening - just enough extra to detract from realism a bit. Thus, even though Chris Mayer says he likes his AX100, he also says he sometimes de-sharpens its footage in post whereas he never has to de-sharpen GH4 footage.
SD90 is offline  
post #2361 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
de-sharpening to match, not to improve

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post
The point some of us (including Chris Mayer on DVX) are tying to make is that even if it's true the AX100 resolves a wee bit more detail than the GH4, Sony adds some extra sharpening - just enough extra to detract from realism a bit. Thus, even though Chris Mayer says he likes his AX100, he also says he sometimes de-sharpens its footage in post whereas he never has to de-sharpen GH4 footage.

Who is Chris Mayer? And why should we care what he thinks? More seriously, can you provide link to his post where he says he de-sharpens the AX100 video (I assume you are referring to dvxuser forums, but if not what?)


I found this AX100 review by the same Chris Mayer on Amazon:


"The Sony AX100 is a strong 4K camera. Great for the causal shoot who wants plenty of detail in their videos. The camera also does a great job down sampling to 1080 in camera with very little artifact (in fact it does a better job recurring 1080 internally than does the Gh4).
I shoot with the Black magic production 4K, the C100, the Gh4 (new). I will be keeping the AX100 as it has great built in features like ND filters and zebras. The lens on the camera is top notch. Now if the camera had a bit more control over the image in the menus like contrast sharpness adjustments. The internal mic is also very good. It holds its own in low light as well.

Good camera and good value"


I believe he de-sharpens AX100 video so when he mixes it with GH4 video it matches better. That is because the GH4 video is softer (really softer not artificially softer). Am I wrong? If not, your statement about de-sharpening is misleading. The fact is (slashcam.de tests), the AX100 has more real, artifact resolution than the GH4. This is not to deny there is some sharpening, but it is actually less than by the GH4. I like the GH4 too, and I wish like your well-regarded Chris Mayer theAX100 had more control over picture parameters in-camera.
Ken Ross likes this.

Last edited by markr041; 08-15-2014 at 06:40 PM.
markr041 is online now  
post #2362 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 07:14 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
Who is Chris Mayer? And why should we care what he thinks? More seriously, can you provide link to his post where he says he de-sharpens the AX100 video
Chris is a pro who compared the AX100 to the GH4.
SD90 is offline  
post #2363 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 07:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Correct - he de-sharpened to mix better

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post
Chris is a pro who compared the AX100 to the GH4.

That is the thread I thought you were referring to. I had read this thread before. I am afraid you are misinterpreting this, as I suspected - he made a video combining footage from the AX100 and another camera and de-sharpened the AX100 to make it mix better, as I said. This is a quote completely out of context.


This is what he said at the beginning of his thread: "...and graded the AX100 to the BMC4K." He conformed the AX100 to look like the softer video". the full quote: "While shooting with the AX100 I made sure to film some scenes that I had in mind with the BMC4K. Each plane or scene is filmed with each camera. And without starting from scratch I copied some of the BMC4K shots from my earlier video into the new timeline and graded the AX100 to the BMC4K."

Link to full thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...ght=dustylense

He did not de-sharpen because he thought the AX100 was artificially sharpened or needed de-sharpening on its own. Nowhere does he say the AX100 has a problem with artifacts. He praises the Zeiss lens for its sharpness. As you see in my exact quote from his review, he does not criticize the sharpness of the AX100, he praises it. I really do not care whether the AX100 is considered too sharp by you or some pro, but I do care about accuracy of information (come to think of it, I care about video accuracy too!). He does prefer the BMC4K, but not because f artificial sharpness.
Ken Ross and hatchback like this.

Last edited by markr041; 08-15-2014 at 08:03 PM.
markr041 is online now  
post #2364 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 07:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
Eugene157's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Palm Springs area
Posts: 503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Wedge pattern of the AX100 and Panasonic X900M. They can be directly compared. The 900 is a RGB camera, so no debayering and very clean output, for all practical purposes artifact free, especially in the center ring.

Wish the AX100 looked like the 900, no sharpening.

Gene

X900M.jpg






AX100 sharpening.jpg
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	X900M.jpg
Views:	32
Size:	59.7 KB
ID:	214297   Click image for larger version

Name:	AX100 sharpening.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	66.1 KB
ID:	214305  

Last edited by Eugene157; 08-15-2014 at 07:57 PM. Reason: Sorry screwed up the JPEGS.
Eugene157 is offline  
post #2365 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 07:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene157 View Post
Wedge pattern of the AX100 and Panasonic X900M. They can be directly compared. The 900 is a RGB camera, so no debayering and very clean output, for all practical purposes artifact free, especially in the center ring.

Wish it looked like the 900, no sharpening.

Gene

X900M.jpg

AX100 sharpening.jpg

Thanks for posting these. The slashcam.de site also has the same charts for the GH4, which is not as good.


As has been said many times here, the Panasonic 700, 750 and 900 camcorders had and have the sharpest, artifact-free 1080p of any cameras. But you can compare the actual performance from the Panasonic TM900 to the AX100 rendered to 1080 in this already-posted video: https://vimeo.com/97880567. Most prefer the AX100 downscaled 1080, but not necessarily only for the resolution.
markr041 is online now  
post #2366 of 2686 Old 08-15-2014, 11:51 PM
Senior Member
 
SD90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
This is a quote completely out of context. He did not de-sharpen because he thought the AX100 was artificially sharpened or needed de-sharpening on its own. As you see in my exact quote from his review, he does not criticize the sharpness of the AX100, he praises it.
Three months later, in another thread, Chris Mayer once again said he de-sharpens. Specifically he said: "But the camera just produces nice pictures. I actually de-sharpen the camera in post." My interpretation is that he means he routinely de-sharpens AX100 stand alone footage in post, not just when adding AX100 footage to footage shot with other 4K cameras.

Last edited by SD90; 08-16-2014 at 08:26 AM.
SD90 is offline  
post #2367 of 2686 Old 08-16-2014, 01:02 AM
Senior Member
 
Mattias Burling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Why dont you guys just ask him?
Mattias Burling is offline  
post #2368 of 2686 Old 08-16-2014, 03:57 AM
Member
 
Cloudstrewn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD90 View Post
Thus, even though Chris Mayer says he likes his AX100, he also says he sometimes de-sharpens its footage in post
Be interesting to know how he desharpens it, and whether it's just the sledgehammer approach of blurring.

When I was thinking of getting the AX100 I did some investigation of removing or reducing the edge sharpening, and found that the more surgical approach of de-haloing software did quite a good job (the haloing is so strong in places that there is actually ringing around the edges - ie echoes of the first halo).

People have mentioned the slashcam review above, and thought it might be worth quoting them on the AX100:
"Für einen 4K-Ausschnitt ist unser ISO-Testbild erstaunlich scharf. Leider tritt auch eine nicht abstellbare deutliche Nachschärfung zu Tage, ohne die das Sony-Bild deutlich cinematischer ausfallen würde."
which translataes roughly as:
"For 4K our ISO test image is surprisingly sharp. Unfortunately , a non-suppressible significant sharpening is evident, without which the Sony image would be very cinematic."
Cloudstrewn is offline  
post #2369 of 2686 Old 08-16-2014, 04:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Mattias Burling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Diffusion filter is the way to go IMO if you want to desharpen since its alwyas best to get stuff right as early in the chain as possible. Same way its better to hold the camera steady than to do it in post.
Tiffens Black Satin filters seems to be verry popular among pros. Havent tried myself but like what I see from others.
Mattias Burling is offline  
post #2370 of 2686 Old 08-16-2014, 04:39 AM
Member
 
Cloudstrewn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattias Burling View Post
its alwyas best to get stuff right as early in the chain as possible
In that case we may have to break into Sony headquarters and hold the CEO hostage
Mattias Burling likes this.
Cloudstrewn 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