Tech Those who shoot on Sony 4K, camcoder selection - GoFuckYourself.com

nin · 12-05-2015, 11:46 AM

Hello evryone

I need your help.

I did spend a lot of time on searching a 4K camcoder for shooting the content under $6K. For a lot of reasons I did again stop my choice on Sony camcoders. Please do not write about Canon 5D MIII, Blackmagic, Red etc.
The best 2 I did find are Sony FDR-AX1 and Sony PXW-Z100. The difference is about $1K.

Main differences in those camcoders, as I see, are:
hi-end vs proffesional
150 vs 600 Mbit max bit rate
4:2:0 vs 4:2:2
XAVC S vs XAVC codec
optical vs digital image stabilizer
3840x2160 (4k or QHD, 16:9) vs 4096x2160 (cinema or true 4K, 17:9)

Could someone comment on using those camcoders for shooting content? We are shooting a lot without tripods, from hands, indoor and outdoor.

For instance, is it possible to shoot on PXW-Z100 in 4096x2160, using 4:2:0 and like 200 Mbits bitrate? Its not written anywhere, if its possible to set the real 4K and shoot using not the maximum bitrate? I'm afraid to use max bitrates because then I will have to use some real strong video-post-production studio, will have the problems with storing the content, with the XQD cards for it, and website content do not need such bitrate.

One more question is about the image stabilazer. Whats the difference in those models? The sony specs says that its almost the same, but IMHO its impossible to be the same - optical and digital?!

Can someone help me to find the answer? I didn't touch both cameras, so its hard for me to understand now what to choose.

Thanks in advance,
NIN

cmscorpus · 12-07-2015, 10:56 AM

Hi,
I cannot really give yu an answer about how the cams work and which one might be more suitable in regards of all the details you might conisder.
But due to we are searching content here:
https://gfy.com/gfy-content-market/11...broadcast.html
in 4:2:2 and in 25 FPS ( PAL) I can tell you that this is material really asked for from now on for broadcast (you can always break down quality later for web), and many did miss to work in these specs.
So, its rarer to find these than most other specs of materials.

So, I think 4:2:2 is secure for the future.

DigitalDreads · 12-07-2015, 02:41 PM

I'm sure you could turn the bitrate down for recording. I would call whatever place you want to get it from and ask them. In my opinion I'd rather have the option to shoot at a higher bitrate in case I need that quality in the future. (unless the price difference is substantial) You can always render out your footage at a smaller bitrate/resolution. You may not have the hardware to handle it on your computer as much as you'd like but for a small fee (compared to the investment in the camera) you could easily get your computer the parts to handle it (few $100) I'm never against upgrading my computer since it'll have to happen eventually and its the lifeline of my income.

As far as the sub sampling, 4:2:2 is better than 4:2:0 so it kind of follows my opinion above of going with 4:2:2 of me rather having it and not need it than need it and not have it. So if you go with upgrading your computer to handle it, you can always render out a lower quality. As cmscorpus stated above, 4:2:2 will become more standard as tech progresses.

For codecs, I can't comment too much on those, but if you do a google search or ask the person selling them about it they may be able to explain it. It depends on what you need and your personal preference. I know XAVC S's wrapper is .mp4 so if you'd rather have footage come out of the camera as .mp4 instead of .mxf then you may want XAVC S. I can work with either so it doesn't matter as much to me, but it gets deeper than that and they have some differences in color depths and subsampling too. I don't notice it hardly (if I even do) and I do VFX/stills in this industry so it's not really up to me. (which is why you may want a more professional opinion on the codecs)

For the image stabilization, Optical is physical parts in the camera that move (like a gyro) to counter the movement of the camera, digital is software based stabilization (like the stabilize motion tool in after effects) and uses the software to interpret and stabilize motion. Most people like optical more since it's physical parts using the laws of physics and has less room for error when stabilizing motion. Digital is good too but software always has a small chance for error.

As for resolution, that's up to you. If you'll never need true 4K or will never have your stuff on a true 4K display it's not a big deal. If in the future you may want/need the actual 4k resolution then you may want to just go with it now.

Hope that helps, this information is from what I've learned going through school and working in the industry so I'd get another opinion if you're unsure about anything. It really depends on what your plan for now and the future is in regards to content and quality. Just make sure you get everything you NEED right now without breaking the bank, and then try and plan what you'll need in the future and if it'll be worth it to spend the extra now, or have to do it later.

Grapesoda · 12-10-2015, 06:10 AM

Thanks guys great stuff

nin · 12-16-2015, 10:52 AM

Thank you so much!

Jay-Rock · 01-06-2016, 06:43 AM

You can down convert your chroma subsampling 4:2:0 4K
to 4:2:2 1080p or even 4:4:4 1080p
with the extra pixel information.

As for using 4:2:0 you wont really see much difference until you
do extreme color grading, looking at a gradient,
or chroma keying. It is true that broadcast wants 4:2:2 and it does
help if you want to do extreme color grading.

12-05-2015, 11:46 AM	#1
nin Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Spain, Barcelona Posts: 67	Those who shoot on Sony 4K, camcoder selection Hello evryone I need your help. I did spend a lot of time on searching a 4K camcoder for shooting the content under $6K. For a lot of reasons I did again stop my choice on Sony camcoders. Please do not write about Canon 5D MIII, Blackmagic, Red etc. The best 2 I did find are Sony FDR-AX1 and Sony PXW-Z100. The difference is about $1K. Main differences in those camcoders, as I see, are: hi-end vs proffesional 150 vs 600 Mbit max bit rate 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 XAVC S vs XAVC codec optical vs digital image stabilizer 3840x2160 (4k or QHD, 16:9) vs 4096x2160 (cinema or true 4K, 17:9) Could someone comment on using those camcoders for shooting content? We are shooting a lot without tripods, from hands, indoor and outdoor. For instance, is it possible to shoot on PXW-Z100 in 4096x2160, using 4:2:0 and like 200 Mbits bitrate? Its not written anywhere, if its possible to set the real 4K and shoot using not the maximum bitrate? I'm afraid to use max bitrates because then I will have to use some real strong video-post-production studio, will have the problems with storing the content, with the XQD cards for it, and website content do not need such bitrate. One more question is about the image stabilazer. Whats the difference in those models? The sony specs says that its almost the same, but IMHO its impossible to be the same - optical and digital?! Can someone help me to find the answer? I didn't touch both cameras, so its hard for me to understand now what to choose. Thanks in advance, NIN __________________ Ninellie Production and Ninellie Models

12-07-2015, 10:56 AM	#2
cmscorpus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: In this World? Posts: 327	Hi, I cannot really give yu an answer about how the cams work and which one might be more suitable in regards of all the details you might conisder. But due to we are searching content here: https://gfy.com/gfy-content-market/11...broadcast.html in 4:2:2 and in 25 FPS ( PAL) I can tell you that this is material really asked for from now on for broadcast (you can always break down quality later for web), and many did miss to work in these specs. So, its rarer to find these than most other specs of materials. So, I think 4:2:2 is secure for the future. __________________ Wishing Well Of Porn Content ICQ: 628 - 185 - 269 \| Skype : lisbert \| Gtalk: [email protected]

12-16-2015, 10:52 AM	#5
nin Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Spain, Barcelona Posts: 67	Thank you so much! __________________ Ninellie Production and Ninellie Models

01-06-2016, 06:43 AM	#6
Jay-Rock Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Porn Valley Posts: 2,779	You can down convert your chroma subsampling 4:2:0 4K to 4:2:2 1080p or even 4:4:4 1080p with the extra pixel information. As for using 4:2:0 you wont really see much difference until you do extreme color grading, looking at a gradient, or chroma keying. It is true that broadcast wants 4:2:2 and it does help if you want to do extreme color grading. __________________ HD and 4k Content Production by JayRock http://jayspov.net http://blackforwife.com http://cospimps.com SKYPE JAYROCKCONTENT [email protected] Twitter @jayrockcontent

12-07-2015, 02:41 PM	#3
DigitalDreads Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: South Florida Posts: 35	I'm sure you could turn the bitrate down for recording. I would call whatever place you want to get it from and ask them. In my opinion I'd rather have the option to shoot at a higher bitrate in case I need that quality in the future. (unless the price difference is substantial) You can always render out your footage at a smaller bitrate/resolution. You may not have the hardware to handle it on your computer as much as you'd like but for a small fee (compared to the investment in the camera) you could easily get your computer the parts to handle it (few $100) I'm never against upgrading my computer since it'll have to happen eventually and its the lifeline of my income. As far as the sub sampling, 4:2:2 is better than 4:2:0 so it kind of follows my opinion above of going with 4:2:2 of me rather having it and not need it than need it and not have it. So if you go with upgrading your computer to handle it, you can always render out a lower quality. As cmscorpus stated above, 4:2:2 will become more standard as tech progresses. For codecs, I can't comment too much on those, but if you do a google search or ask the person selling them about it they may be able to explain it. It depends on what you need and your personal preference. I know XAVC S's wrapper is .mp4 so if you'd rather have footage come out of the camera as .mp4 instead of .mxf then you may want XAVC S. I can work with either so it doesn't matter as much to me, but it gets deeper than that and they have some differences in color depths and subsampling too. I don't notice it hardly (if I even do) and I do VFX/stills in this industry so it's not really up to me. (which is why you may want a more professional opinion on the codecs) For the image stabilization, Optical is physical parts in the camera that move (like a gyro) to counter the movement of the camera, digital is software based stabilization (like the stabilize motion tool in after effects) and uses the software to interpret and stabilize motion. Most people like optical more since it's physical parts using the laws of physics and has less room for error when stabilizing motion. Digital is good too but software always has a small chance for error. As for resolution, that's up to you. If you'll never need true 4K or will never have your stuff on a true 4K display it's not a big deal. If in the future you may want/need the actual 4k resolution then you may want to just go with it now. Hope that helps, this information is from what I've learned going through school and working in the industry so I'd get another opinion if you're unsure about anything. It really depends on what your plan for now and the future is in regards to content and quality. Just make sure you get everything you NEED right now without breaking the bank, and then try and plan what you'll need in the future and if it'll be worth it to spend the extra now, or have to do it later.

12-10-2015, 06:10 AM	#4
Grapesoda So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montana Posts: 46,150	Thanks guys great stuff