Sony FDR-AX100 Videos and Shooting Tips - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 09:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Now that the camera is available we can post our own videos and discuss shooting videos with the camera.

I was able to get a hold of the camera for one hour to try it out.

Here is the video I shot in the hour I had:

https://vimeo.com/89673510

The video was edited without any video re-compression. It was shot at 30fps, 4K (XAVC S UHD).

I was interested in high contrast outdoor scenes, indoor low-light scenes, and bokeh. There are no cats, but there are fountains, goldfish, a snake, lizards, flowers, dinosaurs, children, scenic buildings, people, bicycles.

I used shutter-priority mode, with plenty of use of ND filters. Manual audio (stereo). Audio converted from PCM to AAC.

The windy day shakes the camera in some outdoor scenes.

The original 4K uploaded video can be downloaded.

I learned that in manual ND mode, the camera makes suggestion for which level of ND to use (blinking icon). Pretty neat!

Youtube version (choose 1440p):
markr041 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 09:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Was the stabilization active? There seemed to be a slight vibration in many of the scenes.
Tugela is online now  
post #3 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 10:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela View Post

Was the stabilization active? There seemed to be a slight vibration in many of the scenes.

Standard mode, not "Active" mode. Active mode crops the video (you can see the shift in the viewfinder when you turn it on). Perhaps Active mode is needed for fully stable video. We need to see how that affects video quality.
markr041 is offline  
post #4 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 10:05 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
I have a doubt, and since that you have much more experience than I do, maybe you can answer that to me.

I have never owned a camcorder capable of manual exposure, and there is something that I cant understand.

On most of the shots the subject is well exposed, but even being well exposed you still have those cheap blown out spots. That is so cheap. Isnt there a way to expose properly? Everyone was crazy about the Zebra feature on the RX10, but shouldnt it be used to avoid those stuff?








When I shoot videos with my Canon or my NEX I dont have problems with blown out stuff.










I reinforce my suggestion. Maybe a calibration on the picture profile would help.

And were you using auto WB? That video looks very purple..
thedest is offline  
post #5 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 10:13 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 147
I didn't use the zebras this FIRST time. The zebras would completely solve the problem for you. That's what they are designed to do, as you know. Nothing to do with Picture profiles.

Very easy to use - you can use shutter priority and then the AE shift dial to narrow the aperture if you want to avoid hot spots. Sony camcorders seem to overexpose so you do have to ride that AE shift dial a lot.

If I knew someone was going to grab frames and circle hot spots in my video, perhaps I would have spent more time watching for them.
markr041 is offline  
post #6 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 10:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 25,271
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1836 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

If I knew someone was going to grab frames and circle hot spots in my video, perhaps I would have spent more time watching for them.

Very funny. wink.gif

I don't even have to read them to know what's in them.

The bottom line is that the subjects are well exposed and nobody, watching a moving video, is going to give a rat's rear about an over exposed minor element (non-subject) of a frame grab.

I'll take a look at your video tomorrow Mark. I look forward to it.

BTW, good idea on the thread topic. smile.gif
thedest likes this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #7 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 10:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 25,271
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1836 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
OK. I just looked at them on my IPad and it looks really nice Mark. Colors look very good and appropriate for the season. At this time of year colors are not exactly exploding.

Flesh tones and exposure looked generally excellent and the indoor shots were great. Really nice job Mark.

Have you noticed the nice audio from the onboard mikes?
Ken Ross is offline  
post #8 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 10:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

OK. I just looked at them on my IPad and it looks really nice Mark. Colors look very good and appropriate for the season. At this time of year colors are not exactly exploding.

Flesh tones and exposure looked generally excellent and the indoor shots were great. Really nice job Mark.

Have you noticed the nice audio from the onboard mikes?

Thanks. Yes, I agree the audio is good, and it is nice that it is uncompressed in 4K mode (RAW audio!).
markr041 is offline  
post #9 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 10:50 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

I didn't use the zebras this FIRST time. The zebras would completely solve the problem for you. That's what they are designed to do, as you know. Nothing to do with Picture profiles.

Very easy to use - you can use shutter priority and then the AE shift dial to narrow the aperture if you want to avoid hot spots. Sony camcorders seem to overexpose so you do have to ride that AE shift dial a lot.

If I knew someone was going to grab frames and circle hot spots in my video, perhaps I would have spent more time watching for them.

Thats the reason why I think that the picture profile is the key and the zebras wont help that much.


In this first picture we can see your "raw" video. The red line on that green graphic indicates the limits of our displays. They can only show highlights up to the 100 value. This camera, just like most "cheap" cameras, record superwhites, as you can see. It records highlights up to 110. So 10% of that information is simply lost when you play the video.





If you correct the exposure you can see the lost info.





So that means that the camera has captured the info that you need, but the image was "cooked" in a way that our displays cant show. I dont understand why those cameras do that. They simply record info that we CANT see. Why?


So, even if you use zebras, in high contrast situations you will still have those hot spots, that are more like areas than spots. And that will happen because the camera thinks that to overexpose by 10% is not overexposing. The zebras wont show clipping in the LCD, but you will have blown out spots on your TV.

Does anyone know why those cameras do that?
thedest is offline  
post #10 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 11:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 147
I do not fully understand what you said, which appears to merely say that the camcorder over-exposes (which is what I said). So, you correct that by lowering exposure. You can adjust the zebras to show at 70% rather than 100% and shoot to avoid them at that level. AE shift will do the trick; it corrects for the auto overexposure. My experience with Panasonic and Sony cameras and camcorders is precisely that they always needed to be underexposed relative to the auto exposure. This was not true for the Canon cameras. I also remain perplexed why they are set this way. But I do not see what this has to do with gamma curves or tints or saturation, which is what Picture Profiles are about.

I am going to try Cinematone, which I understand gives more info in highlights, and less in dark areas and a richer color palette (no pretense of being natural). It is supposed to be filmic, and thus I guess is for those who hate video.
markr041 is offline  
post #11 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 11:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

I have a doubt, and since that you have much more experience than I do, maybe you can answer that to me.

I have never owned a camcorder capable of manual exposure, and there is something that I cant understand.

On most of the shots the subject is well exposed, but even being well exposed you still have those cheap blown out spots. That is so cheap. Isnt there a way to expose properly? Everyone was crazy about the Zebra feature on the RX10, but shouldnt it be used to avoid those stuff?


When I shoot videos with my Canon or my NEX I dont have problems with blown out stuff.


I reinforce my suggestion. Maybe a calibration on the picture profile would help.

And were you using auto WB? That video looks very purple..

Maybe you need a better monitor, because mine shows details in the whites at those points.
Tugela is online now  
post #12 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 11:24 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

I do not fully understand what you said, which appears to merely say that the camcorder over-exposes (which is what I said). But I do not see what this has to do with gamma curves or tints or saturation, which is what Picture Profiles are about.

Nah... its hard to explain. You need to understand what is a superwhite. Its not an exposure problem per se. Its a problem with the algorithm that the camera uses to cook the image. In a high contrast situation, even if you expose correctly, the camera will record 10% of the highlights on a superwhite area, so even though the highlights were recorded, they will show up like those hot spots.

That also means that the camera is 10% overexposed. That will bring gamma shifts. Those gamma shifts can alter the colors. The sky can look fluorescent blue. The sand can look like a glowing yellow etc. So avoiding those shifts would give you better colors.

But leave it that way. The Handycam consumer dont care about that, and I dont want to sound (more) boring.

But anyway, the picture profile should solve that, not the zebras.
thedest is offline  
post #13 of 39 Old 03-20-2014, 11:44 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
Just watched it on my ipad and it does look much better on it. That may be reason. A consumer camera should be calibrated for the popular consumer devices.
thedest is offline  
post #14 of 39 Old 03-21-2014, 05:08 AM
Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 29
This color/highlight stuff you are discussing about just goes out the window as soon as the "consumers" watch it on their cartoonish color/super contrasty AMOLED screens of Samsung, Nokia etc. mobile devices. A few single models of these devices such as Galaxy Note 2,3 or S3,4 etc. have sold over 10 MILLION of units each, outselling the high-end Bravias, Kuros, Vieras, Smart TVs, etc. combined. I agree with most of what you're saying here but don't underestimate the futility of doing something technically right yet never understood because it's never seen by the real "consumers" out there.

Unless our deliverables are destined for the theaters or somehow get to be viewed by really sophisticated end users, on optimally calibrated displays, I think the beauty is only in the eyes of the beholders.
P&Struefan is offline  
post #15 of 39 Old 03-21-2014, 05:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 25,271
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1836 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela View Post

Maybe you need a better monitor, because mine shows details in the whites at those points.

Mine too. Very odd comments. The continued obsession with every piece of white in a frame, regardless of the fact that it has nothing to do with the subject, continues to amaze me. Comments like 'so cheap' are 'so odd'. smile.gif

I agree with some posters, this guy needs a new monitor. I think much of it also lies in the fact that he dislikes a video that depicts a real world, natural look, but prefers instead a very stylistic video. Mark's video was totally natural with imagery you can well imagine seeing with your naked eye.

We put the live output of the AX100 on an 85" UHD display at Robert's Value Electronics and looked around that same room. It was like looking at that same room with your naked eyes. It was the most realistic output I've ever seen from a video camera. Both the colors and detail were much like you saw it if you just turned around and looked at the same scene with your naked eyes. Nothing 'cheap' or 'fluorescent' about it, just natural. We were both amazed.

If you look at so many of the videos he's posted as 'exemplary' and see the stylistic colors or muddy or low contrast nature of the scenes, it's very clear his tastes are far different than someone looking for accuracy. I suspect that AX100 users are looking for a very different imagery than he is. Nothing wrong with either approach.

I looked at the color of the sky in one of my shots on an ISF'd 64" plasma (ISF'd by one of the most respected guys in the industry) and the sky color looked as natural as it does when I look at it with my naked eyes. No saturation issues, certainly no 'fluorescent' colors, just a natural blue.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #16 of 39 Old 03-21-2014, 06:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 25,271
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1836 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by P&Struefan View Post

This color/highlight stuff you are discussing about just goes out the window as soon as the "consumers" watch it on their cartoonish color/super contrasty AMOLED screens of Samsung, Nokia etc. mobile devices.

Nah, it looks very accurate on an ISF'd plasmas too. I think it also looks very good on the latest gen Ipad and those are also known to be quite color accurate. Not your typical garish cellphone display.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #17 of 39 Old 03-21-2014, 06:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

Just watched it on my ipad and it does look much better on it. That may be reason. A consumer camera should be calibrated for the popular consumer devices.

Nice try - you are now caught: Turns out the iPad has one of the best screens of any device (including multi-thousand dollar HDTV's), as measured by gamut and color accuracy (as said by Ken above). This is an excerpt from extensive tests done on the screens of many tablets:

"Color Gamut and Color Accuracy:

While the display PPI and pixel Resolution seem to get most of the attention, it is the display’s Color Gamut together with the Factory Display Calibration (below) that play the most important role in determining the Wow factor and true picture quality and color accuracy of a display. The Color Gamut is the range of colors that a display can produce. If you want to see accurate colors in photos, videos, and all standard consumer content the display needs to closely match the Standard Color Gamut that was used to produce the content, which is called sRGB / Rec.709. Most of the previous generations of LCD Tablets and Smartphones had smaller Color Gamuts around 60 percent of the Standard Gamut, which produces somewhat subdued colors. But that’s been changing due to both technology and competition.

While the iPad 2 and iPhone 4 had reduced 61-64 percent Color Gamuts, the Amazon Kindle Fire HD and Google Nexus 7 both deliver a much larger 86 percent Color Gamut, and the new iPad 3 and iPhone 5 have full 100 percent standard Color Gamuts. So it was a surprise and a major disappointment for the iPad mini to arrive with an antiquated smaller 62 percent Color Gamut.

Factory Display Calibration:

The raw LCD panel hardware first needs to be adjusted and calibrated at the factory with specialized firmware and software data that are downloaded into the device in order for the display to produce a usable image – let alone an accurate and beautiful one. This is actually a science but most manufacturers seem to treat it as if it were a modern art form, so few Tablets, Smartphones, and even HDTVs produce accurate high quality images.

Apple has been a leader in accurate display calibration – the new iPad 3 and iPhone 5 have among the best and most accurate factory calibrations we have ever measured in a consumer product, including high-end HDTVs. " [emphasis by me]

Here is the link: http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_mini_ShootOut_1.htm

Time to get your displays color-calibrated, and re-do everything you graded using them smile.gif
Ken Ross likes this.
markr041 is offline  
post #18 of 39 Old 03-21-2014, 07:42 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
I own an Ipad 2. Even using simple tools to check the calibration shows horrible results on it.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

It is a toy next to my monitor. And what P&Struefan has said is true. That may be my main problem. Most people dont have calibrated monitors. Those who have it are the minority, so most people wont be able to enjoy all the latitude and colors of the display. A smooth shadow on my monitor shows up crushed on my ipad. A well saturated image can show bleeding, and a good highlight can show up gray.

And I dont grade using my eyes, so I have no doubts that they are correct. I grade using parameters (Premiere Pro and Lightroom have all the graphics and references that you need), so even on a non calibrated screen I can grade a video for TV or cinema delivery.

A well calibrated monitor is important to SEE the results, not to color correct.
thedest is offline  
post #19 of 39 Old 03-21-2014, 09:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 25,271
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1836 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Time to get your displays color-calibrated, and re-do everything you graded using them smile.gif

^ biggrin.gif

Now the interesting thing is the typical AVS'r usually does calibrate his display and probably does have it ISF'd. I spend a lot of time on the display threads and I know this is a fact. I get every one of my displays professionally ISF'd.

It's these same people, with calibrated display devices, that are commenting in a positive way about the same videos that our friend calls 'horrible', 'cheap', fluorescent (my personal favorite), and on and on. As is so true in statistics, it's always wise to throw out the outliers. wink.gif

I like to take a very simplistic, yet practical approach. When I have a live AX100 output on a 4K display and the image looks almost exactly like the room its showing, who do I believe, our friend or my eyes? When the sky color I've shot matches the sky color I see, who do I believe, our friend or my eyes? I might also add that Robert @VE worked in video engineering for many years, is exposed to the best displays on a day in and day out basis, and he was equally impressed by the camera's output. But hey, what do we know? biggrin.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #20 of 39 Old 03-21-2014, 09:07 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

I own an Ipad 2. Even using simple tools to check the calibration shows horrible results on it.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

It is a toy next to my monitor. And what P&Struefan has said is true. That may be my main problem. Most people dont have calibrated monitors. Those who have it are the minority, so most people wont be able to enjoy all the latitude and colors of the display. A smooth shadow on my monitor shows up crushed on my ipad. A well saturated image can show bleeding, and a good highlight can show up gray.

And I dont grade using my eyes, so I have no doubts that they are correct. I grade using parameters (Premiere Pro and Lightroom have all the graphics and references that you need), so even on a non calibrated screen I can grade a video for TV or cinema delivery.

A well calibrated monitor is important to SEE the results, not to color correct.

Get the iPad 3, as the tests above indicate. I don't understand your notion of grade. If it is to obtain a "look" there is no correct grade, it is all about aesthetics. And the only judgment is what your eyes see and whether you like it, not the parameters. If the criterion is accuracy to the scene, meters and graphs are useful but not sufficient.

I have followed closely all the forums where pros with evidently minor careers show off their grades and create LUTs using RAW video. Most of the grades are terrible, as are most of the ones you show us, as pitted against what we see in movie theaters or what we see in real life. They obviously are not attempts to reproduce what we see in the real world. They are artistic expressions, which is absolutely great but not the issue.

I certainly agree that there is an issue of heterogeneous viewing devices, just as in pro audio there are heterogeneous listening devices and most of them are horribly inaccurate.
Ken Ross likes this.
markr041 is offline  
post #21 of 39 Old 03-25-2014, 08:35 PM
Member
 
pstrauss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
You mention "The video was edited without any video re-compression. It was shot at 30fps, 4K (XAVC S UHD)." How are you doing this in Premiere Pro? Don't you have to re-encode to another codec on export, or is there a way to keep the original encoding to preserve quality?
pstrauss is offline  
post #22 of 39 Old 03-25-2014, 08:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 25,271
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1836 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
^ Mark used TMPEGenc Smart Render 4, which outputs losslessly except where transitions are present. The downside of the program is that you can't add music if that's what you wanted in your project.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #23 of 39 Old 03-25-2014, 09:11 PM
Member
 
pstrauss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Ah, looks interesting. I wonder if there's a similar editor available for Mac.
pstrauss is offline  
post #24 of 39 Old 03-26-2014, 11:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Philip_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi

This is called 'Superwhites' when the detail is there but seen blown out. Video is RGB 16-235, however the majority of camcorders capture 16-255. TVs and media players (hardware or software) when playing most video codecs will discard values 236 and above and then stretch the 16-235 to 0-255. So you find you get more whited out areas than you might expect. Zebras may or may not help depending on how they are calibrated, if they are calibrated to show at values 236 or above they will help prevent the blown highlights, however if they are set to show when exceeding values of 255, they will not help.

In some cases if contrast is extreme there is no choice but to blow highlights or lose shadow details.

Having superwhites isn't necessarily a bad thing, as you can adjust them in post and bring those values back into range and recover detail. A lot of the "bondi blue" issues with sky especially affecting Panasonic 3 chip camcorders in the past can be corrected by dealing with superwhites. In these cases most of the Blue values are above 235 for the sky, so if those are discarded or clipped we end up with much less blue in proportion to Red and Green, by mapping them back into the 16-235 range, magic can happen.smile.gif

For Sony Vegas there are some great curve presets that deal with superwhites, either by removing them to make the video broadcast safe, or remapping them into range. Quite often you can remap them and suddenly see detail that wasn't visible before as blown highlights come back into range. http://www.glennchan.info/articles/vegas/color-correction/tutorial.htm

Cameras like the Panasonic GH4 are giving more control over this sort of thing by allowing us to choose the RGB range to capture, either 0-255, 16-255, or 16-235, alas these options don't extend to most consumer camcorders. By capturing 0-255 for example we have a lot more latitude for exposure changes in post as we have captured a lot more shadow and highlight detail, it still needs bringing into the 16-235 range for most video codecs, but we have a choice on what gets blown, shadow or highlights, or can squeeze both ends in for an almost HDR type effect.

Regards

Phil
Philip_L is offline  
post #25 of 39 Old 03-26-2014, 02:17 PM
wbo
Member
 
wbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynchburg, VA
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
One thing to keep in mind when working with footage from the FDR-AX100 or any other 4k camera for that matter is the footage should be in the Rec. 2020 color space not the Rec. 709 color space that you may be accustomed to working in. Rec. 2020 has a much larger gamut and is capable of representing a much richer color pallet.

That means to get technically correct colors when using the footage for a Blu-ray disc or other media that uses the Rec. 709 gamut you must apply a color filter of some sort to compress the Rec. 2020 levels down into the Rec. 709 range or some colors may appear to be incorrect on some players.

The other factor is the AX100 like most high-end cameras record using full-range luminance which allows for maximum flexibility. H.264 video can use luminance ranges of 0-255 or 16-235. Either one is perfectly acceptable and there is a header field in the H.264 bitstream that identifies which range is in use. The 0-255 levels can always be compressed down to 16-235 levels when editing the video if the extra information is not desired.

Video players should display both luminance ranges properly but some handle this better than others. Typically PC monitors, cell phones, and tablets operate in the 0-255 range so it is usually recommended to use 0-255 levels for video that is going to be viewed primary on the web. (Youtube in particular uses 0-255 levels by default.)

In my experience TVs can vary but most appear to use the 16-235 range by default with some having an option to switch to using the 0-255 range. Because of this, most Blu-ray discs use the 16-235 range.

The advantage is the 0-255 range allows for a much higher dynamic range between black and white allowing more detail to be captured.. The 16-235 range is what was typically used for many analog video standards and has stuck around into the digital era.
wbo is offline  
post #26 of 39 Old 03-27-2014, 01:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Philip_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi

XAVC-S is still BT.709. I don't think anything uses Rec. 2020 yet. Video levels are strictly 16-235 (but highlights are captured up to 255 most likely). If you want 0-255 the GH4 is your best bet. These first generation 4K camcorders are not really capturing 4K as it should be, but hey that's the cost of being an early adopter and all part of the fun.

File details from sample Sony AX100 media file is:
Code:
Format                                   : XAVC
Codec ID                                 : XAVC
File size                                : 143 MiB
Duration                                 : 19s 19ms
Overall bit rate mode                    : Variable
Overall bit rate                         : 63.0 Mbps
Encoded date                             : UTC 2014-03-21 06:48:39
Tagged date                              : UTC 2014-03-21 06:48:39

Video
ID                                       : 1
Format                                   : AVC
Format/Info                              : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                           : High@L5.1
Format settings, CABAC                   : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames                : 2 frames
Codec ID                                 : avc1
Codec ID/Info                            : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                                 : 19s 19ms
Bit rate mode                            : Variable
Bit rate                                 : 61.2 Mbps
Maximum bit rate                         : 60.0 Mbps
Width                                    : 3 840 pixels
Height                                   : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 16:9
Frame rate mode                          : Constant
Frame rate                               : 29.970 fps
Color space                              : YUV
Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Scan type                                : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 0.246
Stream size                              : 139 MiB (97%)
Encoded date                             : UTC 2014-03-21 06:48:39
Tagged date                              : UTC 2014-03-21 06:48:39
Color primaries                          : BT.709
Transfer characteristics                 : IEC 61966-2-4
Matrix coefficients                      : BT.709

Regards

Phil
Philip_L is offline  
post #27 of 39 Old 03-27-2014, 02:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 147
"These first generation 4K camcorders are not really capturing 4K as it should be."

Do you mean not capturing the full 4K resolution? What in the parameters do you see as problematical? You don't like 4:2:0? 8-bit? Nothing to do with 4K. You want a higher bit rate? what else is new.

What do you mean?

And, it is obvious that no HD cameras are capturing full HD (1080 resolution) by a long shot. And almost all are shooting 4:2:0 and 8-bit also. So?
markr041 is offline  
post #28 of 39 Old 03-27-2014, 02:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 25,271
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1836 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
And why does Phil insist on posting this in a 'AX100 Videos and Shooting Tips' thread? There is no video and, most certainly, no shooting tip.

I mean honestly, the gyrations he goes through to show his dislike of the AX100 and 4K in general. In fact no matter what site I read his posts, there's nothing but negativity. Hmm, he reminds of someone.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #29 of 39 Old 03-27-2014, 03:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Philip_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

"These first generation 4K camcorders are not really capturing 4K as it should be."

Do you mean not capturing the full 4K resolution? What in the parameters do you see as problematical? You don't like 4:2:0? 8-bit? Nothing to do with 4K. You want a higher bit rate? what else is new.

What do you mean?

And, it is obvious that no HD cameras are capturing full HD (1080 resolution) by a long shot. And almost all are shooting 4:2:0 and 8-bit also. So?

1) Low frame rates. Terrible judder in most of the sample clips posted due to low frame rates I feel sick watching them and this isn't just the AX100. We've had 60 samples per second motion for decades, first in the form of 60i and recently 60p. From day one camcorders either wouldn't do 24fps or 30fps, or it was buried away in the settings because video at those frame rates isn't good, unless you shoot like film, and no use for sport or fast action. Now as the LSIs struggle to do 4K and only go as far as 30fps (just 25fps in 50Hz countries on the AX100), it is suddenly the in thing, but it looks as terrible as it always did rolleyes.gif If you know what you are doing and shoot like film, then the requite motion blur defeats the object of 4K's potential feeling of reality.

2) Very compressed, looks good downscaled or on smaller monitors, but everything looks good scaled down. It is what it is, 15Mbits/sec HD times 4.

3) No extra color information, does it even do Deep Color like AVCHD? Still 16-235.

4) 4.2.0 at 8bit doesn't bother me so much.

At 24fps or 30fps the resolution that can be resolved on moving subjects, due to the sample and hold nature of LCD and OLED displays is going to be very poor. The UHD specification doesn't include 30fps as a recognised frame-rate to qualify as UHD, why is this? Only 24fps and 25fps are included for legacy and film transfers, with 60fps being the minimum for video, with an aim of 120fps eventually. Presumably this is why these camcorders do not have the UHD moniker, but just have 4K.

For anything with moderate to fast action, you are going to need to record in 1080P on these camcorders, it even says that in the instructions, otherwise it is a nauseating juddery mess. I'll take 4K at 60fps thank you, and not before, otherwise it is one step forward, two steps back!

Regards

Phil
Philip_L is offline  
post #30 of 39 Old 03-27-2014, 03:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 25,271
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1836 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L View Post

Hi
1) Low frame rates. Terrible judder in most of the sample clips posted due to low frame rates I feel sick watching them and this isn't just the AX100. We've had 60 samples per second motion for decades, first in the form of 60i and recently 60p. From day one camcorders either wouldn't do 24fps or 30fps, or it was buried away in the settings because video at those frame rates isn't good, unless you shoot like film, and no use for sport or fast action. Now as the LSIs struggle to do 4K and only go as far as 30fps (just 25fps in 50Hz countries on the AX100), it is suddenly the in thing, but it looks as terrible as it always did rolleyes.gif If you know what you are doing and shoot like film, then the requite motion blur defeats the object of 4K's potential feeling of reality.

But yet you can't resist watching each and every AX100 video. Why would you watch a video that 'makes you sick'. Why is it that owners seem very happy with the unit. Why is it that I can apply frame doubling to my display and get perfectly smooth motion. If the videos I've been watching 'look terrible', I can't begin to imagine the false illusions I was operating under with my other cameras.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L View Post

2) Very compressed, looks good downscaled or on smaller monitors, but everything looks good scaled down. It is what it is, 15Mbits/sec HD times 4.
Wrong again Dr. Phil. I've seen these on higher resolution monitors as well as 4K displays, and guess what, they just look better and better with the higher rez displays. And you are again wrong, this IS a higher efficiency codec even though a variant of an older one. This is why so many (of course with the exception of you) are so surprised by how good it looks. The codec and bitrate are holding up surprisingly well. Sorry.

So again Phil, why are you here and why do you take every opportunity to knock this camera? You don't like it, we get it. Why not leave people AND owners to discuss this camera without your constant "HI, this camera sucks".

Sorry Phil, your opinion is in a distinct minority and I find your comments non-productive and I can't keep but thinking there's something ulterior motive here. rolleyes.gif

Oh, and once again you had promised to 'return this thread to us', but I guess you went back on your word...again.
Ken Ross 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