Page 14 of 32 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 320
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    380
    Default
    The extension box looks really bad. The sleek design of the FX9 just goes out of the window and it doesn't even record anything. One would wish that Sony did something similar to the F5/F55 recorder that integrates really well. Or just put a raw output connector as on the FS5. Why o why Sony do you still make these odd things. I bet the FX6 will have raw output straight from the body.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    1,473
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DendriteStudios View Post
    Still can't quite get over how they stuck with that stupid extension unit.
    I agree.
    It seems to have some usueful functions for broadcast and networking. But for me the only need I have for it is the raw out.

    I asked one of the Japanese Sony guys (not sure if he was one of the developers of the camera or not though) today if it wouldnít be possible to route the raw signal to the on body SDI port. But he either didnít understand my question or just avoided it by saying it wasnít possible.

    If the extension had also been a raw recorder tailored for the FX9 it would also have made sense.

    Iím starting to come to terms with the idea of not having raw though. XAVC will be enough for 99% of my paying customers and for other projects if I want a slightly better codec I can record ProRes via my Ninja V. Canít really see myself needing better than that.
    With my FS700 I have to use the raw signal because internal codecs are crap and itís the only way to get 4K. That issue will be gone with the FX9.
    Sony NEX-FS700R | A7S | Odyssey 7Q+ | Atomos Ninja V
    Sony 24-70/2.8 GM, 70-200/2.8GM, SEL 50/1.8, 35/1.8, 18-105/4, FE 28-70 | Samyang 16, 35 & 85mm Cine
    Sachtler Flowtech 75 | Benro S8
    MacBook Pro 2018 6-core i7 2.6 ghz / 32gb ram / 512gb HD | macOS Mojave
    Hackintosh i7-8700K 6-core 3.7 ghz / 32 gb ram / 512gb NVMe / Radeon RX 580 | macOS Mojave


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    380
    Default
    Sony wont make a home run with the FX9 as they did with the FS7. So my take is FS7 will still be the go to choice for most productions. Especially as the price is double that of the FS7 and in real use might offer little extra to clients.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member JPNola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    New Orleans USA
    Posts
    1,298
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Brown View Post
    The extension box looks really bad. The sleek design of the FX9 just goes out of the window and it doesn't even record anything. One would wish that Sony did something similar to the F5/F55 recorder that integrates really well. Or just put a raw output connector as on the FS5. Why o why Sony do you still make these odd things. I bet the FX6 will have raw output straight from the body.
    Sony could have made the extension unit smaller had they done without the slot-receiver. The slot-receiver isn't something in high demand. More of an ENG-news thing.

    I wonder if Sony could have made the Fx9 so that the existing extension unit worked with it as well.

    Sony could have added something else to the extension unit to make it more worth it. Have the slot receiver toast bagels or something.
    Big sources matter.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    657
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by dmitrizigany View Post
    I think they did that with the Venice if I donít remember incorrectly...
    Panasonic also did that with their Varicam menu emulator. Very useful the first time I got behind the Varicam.

    Chris Young


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    380
    Default


    The greatest feature might be the S-tone setting. In my opinion it looks really nice straight out of the camera and no fuss with LUTs. Just like how I set up my FS5.


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Brown View Post
    The extension box looks really bad. The sleek design of the FX9 just goes out of the window and it doesn't even record anything. One would wish that Sony did something similar to the F5/F55 recorder that integrates really well. Or just put a raw output connector as on the FS5. Why o why Sony do you still make these odd things. I bet the FX6 will have raw output straight from the body.
    Or even better... I would hope that Sony would facilitate other manufacturers to make their own extension/recorder custom fitted to the FX9. It would be nice to record BRAW or Prores Raw on sleek integrated recorders that custom fit the camera.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Brown View Post

    The greatest feature might be the S-tone setting. In my opinion it looks really nice straight out of the camera and no fuss with LUTs. Just like how I set up my FS5.
    Very curious how you have your FS5 looking good out of camera? I never did figure out how to get good images out of that camera. FS7 has always been easier for me: shoot with the LC709A MLUT in Slog3, apply the LUT in post, and the footage looks gorgeous. The Arri C-Log LUT looks good too. But with the FS5, itís always felt like a crap shoot. Thoughts?


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    1,473
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Nusbaum View Post
    Or even better... I would hope that Sony would facilitate other manufacturers to make their own extension/recorder custom fitted to the FX9. It would be nice to record BRAW or Prores Raw on sleek integrated recorders that custom fit the camera.
    +10000 to that!

    I could deal with the extension back for raw if it also recorded the raw files. It’s the combination of having to add the extension back AND a recorder that just makes it a mess.
    Sony NEX-FS700R | A7S | Odyssey 7Q+ | Atomos Ninja V
    Sony 24-70/2.8 GM, 70-200/2.8GM, SEL 50/1.8, 35/1.8, 18-105/4, FE 28-70 | Samyang 16, 35 & 85mm Cine
    Sachtler Flowtech 75 | Benro S8
    MacBook Pro 2018 6-core i7 2.6 ghz / 32gb ram / 512gb HD | macOS Mojave
    Hackintosh i7-8700K 6-core 3.7 ghz / 32 gb ram / 512gb NVMe / Radeon RX 580 | macOS Mojave


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    380
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by dipstik View Post
    Very curious how you have your FS5 looking good out of camera? I never did figure out how to get good images out of that camera. FS7 has always been easier for me: shoot with the LC709A MLUT in Slog3, apply the LUT in post, and the footage looks gorgeous. The Arri C-Log LUT looks good too. But with the FS5, it’s always felt like a crap shoot. Thoughts?
    When I first got my FS5 I used it just as my FS7 with Slog3 and LUT and yes it didn't look as good as the FS7. Then I did some testing and comparison between the two cameras and concluded that to get the best out of my FS5 I set it to Cine4 gamma instead of Slog3 and used Pro as color mode and I lowered detail to -7. This gave me a nice image straight out of the camera with good high light roll off and low noise and with a good color rendition. So ever since I changed settings it has worked great delivering fine images to clients. And it matches FS7 when doing two camera shoots with just a touch of tweak.

    FS5 haven't got the superiour video processing compared to the FS7 so I thought it be better to set the camera to get the best out of what it can do.

    Another limiting factor is that 4k internally only records to 8-bit 4:2:0 so 4k images although looking fine lacks the last step of detail compared to FS7. But I prefer my FS5 with Cine4/Pro to a C200 and WideDR as it gives me a better image even in 4k.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 14 of 32 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •