[markr041]

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:

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):

 

[Tugela]

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

 

[markr041]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24510291


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.

 

[thedest]

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..

 

[markr041]

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.

 

[Ken Ross]



Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24510337


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.

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.

 

[Ken Ross]

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?

 

[markr041]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24510382


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!).

 

[thedest]



Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24510337


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?

 

[markr041]

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.

 

[Tugela]



Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24510311


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.

 

[thedest]



Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24510443


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]

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.

 

[P&Struefan]

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.

 

[Ken Ross]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24510449


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'.

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]



Quote:
Originally Posted by P&Struefan  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24510792


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.

 

[markr041]



Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24510500


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

 

[thedest]

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.

 

[Ken Ross]



Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24511045


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

^

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.

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?

 

[markr041]



Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest  /t/1523563/sony-fdr-ax100-videos-and-shooting-tips#post_24511215


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.