Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 205
  1. Collapse Details
    #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,143
    Default
    Over in the RED world, everyone is always paying more for the better technology (the better specs).


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

  2. Collapse Details
    #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    1,462
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary T View Post
    Sony says that when recording 4K at 60P the FX9 uses a 83% crop of the sensor. It sounds like it might be processing limitation.

    It might not be an issue for most shooters but if you are switching between 24P/30P and 60P in the same setup it could make it difficult to match shots.
    That is one of my big issues with the FX9.
    But I wonder if they’ll manage to fix that in future updates?
    With the Venice they’ve pushed the frame rates quite a lot from what they first announced.
    As it’s a brand new sensor they might be very conservative with what they say it can do. One can always hope at least ;)
    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
    #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    651
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by dmitrizigany View Post
    With the Venice they’ve pushed the frame rates quite a lot from what they first announced.
    As it’s a brand new sensor they might be very conservative with what they say it can do. One can always hope at least ;)
    "...conservative with what they say it can do." is an interesting observation. When you look at the total size of the FX9 sensor it is actually 6064 x 4040. Compare this to the The Venice sensor which is 6048 x 4032. Contrast this with the Canon C500 Mark II sensor. It is 17×9 and is 5.9K at 5952 x 3140. That’s 48 lines short of a full 6K sensor. Nobody is quibbling over 48 lines. It is in effect a 6K sensor. Where I see a BIG difference is in the depth of the Canon sensor where it comes in at a height of 3140. It is by definition a 17x9 sensor. Look at both Sony sensors and it becomes patently obvious that they are both 3:2 sensors. Look at the Venice firmware updates. v4.0 offered amongst other things 120fps at 4K 2.39:1, 60fps at 6K 3:2 or 110fps at 4K 17:9. v5.0 is adding up to 90fps at 6K 2.39:1 and 72fps at 6K 17:9.

    The big thing that a 3 x 2 sensor can offer which cannot be offered on a shorter 17 x 9 sensor without a significant drop in resolution is 2 x squeeze FF Anamorphic which requires about 28 x 24 mm in sensor area. The Venice can and does offer this within its 35.9 x 24 mm (1.50:1) sensor. Seeing as that the FX9 sensor has a very similar aspect ratio and pixel specs on its sensor to the Venice I would suggest it's not beyond Sony's capability to offer full Anamorphic later if they felt they needed to. Or full frame 6K 50/60p for that matter if marketing wise they feel it necessary. Sony have a habit of chucking in specification upgrades over time. Look at the original FS7 it's now on v4.3, Venice now v5.0. This is not knocking Canon but if their past track record is anything to go by what you buy originally doesn't get many "feature" upgrades. Their upgrades are more in the way of improvements and fixes as it the case with the latest C300 firmware v1.1.2.1 00. Not major changes to frame rates and frame aspect ratios. You may recall when the Sony F5 came out it was HD only. It then had a major feature upgrade to 4K. Albeit Sony was pushed ahead of their roadmap with that upgrade as somebody found a hack to bump the FS5 up to 4K. It will be interesting to see where Sony go with this FX9. If they have a four to five year roadmap for this FX9 camera like they are demonstrating with the FS7, F5 and F55 I can see no way that the FX9 will not evolve over time. Time will tell I guess.

    Chris Young

    Venice 6K FF & 4K S35 modes.jpgSony-FX9-Sensor specs.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,342
    Default
    This is an amazing camera thats really cheap.. I really dont see what's not to love.. the ext is a horrible lump.. but now with TC in on the camera just dont buy it.. 3rd part V mount.. .. got to be a winner.. presuming all the millions of Fs7 owners have made a fortune on their camera.s they will nearly all buy this one too..


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Canon Examples
    #85
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Sttratos View Post
    ...as good as the Canon looks in specs I have never really seen anything from a Canon C300, C200 or C500 which had a cinema mojo in the way the Alexa or F35 do. So I'm not sure I would go with the 500 MKII for cinematic stuff. Unless it looks considerably better and more mojoey than the other Canons. Haven't seen anything yet.
    While I mostly agree with you about camera "mojo" (the Alexa is definitely the easiest route to getting a cinematic image for sure) there are plenty of examples out there where Canon steps up and represents. Blue Ruin was shot entirely on a C300 MK I. I saw that on the big screen and it looked so good I ended up tracking down the colorist and calling him up to ask him how hard he had to work to make that footage look so cinematic. He said it was shot so well he didn't have to do much to it at all. And that was all in 8 bit, with 10 stops of dynamic range and Canon L glass.

    If you want something recent, there's this article over at Newsshooter where a C300 MK II was used to shoot an up-coming Showtime series. The stuff looks really great and definitely has that mojo going for it. Jeff Hutchens DP - Murder on the Bayou - C300 MK II.

    Barbara_Guillory_002.jpgCommander_Ramby_Cormier_004.jpgRoger_Anderson_001.jpgTeresa_Gary_005.jpg

    Does the Alexa or the Red look more "cinematic" right out of the box, hell yeah they do. And I'm currently where you were at a little while ago, where I'm thinking of just buying an old Alexa to get me there quicker. I've shot with everything, Scarlet, Dragon, Monstro, C300, C200, FS7, Alexa Studo, XT, Mini, Amira, etc. The Alexa and the Red definitely have the most "mojo" like you said. Just looking at an Arri or Red image on the director's monitor makes you smile, which isn't something I totally get from a Canon or a Sony right out of the box. But the Canon can definitely get there and it's certainly getting easier to make that mojo happen by pushing a couple of sliders in post.

    I seriously think Arri and Red are in big trouble and will have no choice but to drop their prices. The gap is now thinner than ever before. I think 2020 will be the last decade where they can get away with charging an arm and a leg for a cinema camera. I've seen people argue that there will always be a demand for expensive cinema cameras. Maybe they're right, but the first computer developed for small businesses was Hewlett Packard's HP 3000 back in 1972. That computer cost $95,000 at the time and adjusted for inflation, that's like $541,209, lol. Technology doesn't stop, no matter how much the big companies fight it.
    Last edited by robotfist; 09-23-2019 at 04:45 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,827
    Cool
    Quote Originally Posted by robotfist View Post
    there's this article over at Newsshooter where a C300 MK II was used to shoot an up-coming Showtime series. The stuff looks really great and definitely has that mojo going for it.
    In the NewsShooter comments Jeff Hutchens mentions that he shot 1920x1080 12-bit RGB 4:4:4 CLog3 / Cine Gamut with the Canon C300 Mk2. Shooting 12-bit RGB 4:4:4 probably has a fair bit to do with the look of his footage.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    507
    Default
    In the NYC market I predict the FX9 will far outsell the C500Mk2.
    RAW is great, but virtually NO client wants to deal with RAW, even compressed RAW. Fast turnaround is what everyone wants.

    If productions have the budget for RAW it's Arri, or maybe Panavision, Venice or Red.

    FWIW I'm a former C500 Mk1/Odyssey 7Q owner, and current C300Mk2 owner. I shoot more FS7 jobs than C300m2 jobs. Because a number of clients actually own multiple FS7 rigs.

    As usual, some of the FS7 owners I know kinda wish they went C300M2, so you know what they say about greener grass...

    I suspect the C500M2 will bury any potential C700FF sales.

    Arri IS NOT IN TROUBLE. They sold out their entire planned 2019 run of Alexa Mini LF's in a matter of hours. What other camera company, other than Blackmagic, does that? No one.

    Red on the other hand...
    karlkimdp.com
    Local 600
    email: karlkimdp@gmail.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #88
    Senior Member JPNola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    New Orleans USA
    Posts
    1,290
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by klk View Post
    In the NYC market I predict the FX9 will far outsell the C500Mk2.
    RAW is great, but virtually NO client wants to deal with RAW, even compressed RAW. Fast turnaround is what everyone wants..
    This ^.

    If you are an individual or a production company, why would you spend 32% more over the Fx9 to get the C500MkII? For internal raw? And even if you decided that internal raw is worth paying 32% more for the C500MkII over the Fx9, you give up the electronic ND, dual ISO, greater lens compatibility, and other features of the Fx9 in order to get internal raw. You'll spend 32% more and you won't even get an eyepiece without paying even more on top of that 32% greater price tag.

    I suspect that some folks over at Canon had a "well, F me." reaction when they learned the Fx9 is $5000 under the price of the C500MkII. Five thousand dollars less. Think about what other gear you could buy with that $5000 to go with your Fx9. Lights. A monitor. Microphones. A 5-lens Rokinon bundle. A decent tripod.

    Sony undercut Canon rather significantly here. And in that put the C500MkII at risk of being another C700, a camera that is admittedly better than other cameras but was priced out of reach for most. Say you were about to pull the trigger on a C500MkII. In order to step up to the C500MkII you'll have to spend another $7000. On the other hand, if you were about to pull the trigger on a Sony Fs7M2 the Fx9 is only $2000 more. That's more "do-able" financially. Sony excels at getting the pricing just right. $16k is a gulp of a price for many. Whereas $11k is a more manageable price tag for many. Sony knows the target market well and has calculated that in this mid-range market the lack of internal raw isn't going to be a deal-breaker for most.

    Maybe I am way off the mark here. And I confess to having a pro-Sony bias given that I've been shooting on Sony professional cameras for 36 years now. Regardless of where your preferences fall, we are spoiled to have so many options today.
    Big sources matter.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,063
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by robotfist View Post
    While I mostly agree with you about camera "mojo" (the Alexa is definitely the easiest route to getting a cinematic image for sure) there are plenty of examples out there where Canon steps up and represents.
    I guess we just have different ideas of what mojo is.
    I saw no mojo in neither example you mentioned. They look good. But mojo? Nope. Not IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by robotfist View Post
    The Alexa and the Red definitely have the most "mojo" like you said.
    Who said anything about Red? Never mentioned it. I said F35.
    For mojo give me a F35 any day over any Red. Over any Panasonic, Canon, Blackmagic or whatever too. For mojo there is Alexa and F35 and then there is the rest IMO. Sure. You can try your best in grading spending a lot of time and money to try to come close. But what's the point? Like Vinyl. They spent a lot of time and work and in the end could have just grabbed an Alexa or F35 and made it much better and easier. But the childish 4K thing fom Netflix meant they had to set for the stupid way rather than the way which made more sense. And Vinyl still looked video-ish in the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by robotfist View Post
    And I'm currently where you were at a little while ago, where I'm thinking of just buying an old Alexa to get me there quicker.
    Do it! You will never regret or look back.

    Unless you are shooting things which don't need mojo. Like weddings, corporate, interviews, live events, wild life, news, broadcast etc. It's not worth it working so hard trying to make something like a FS7, EVA1 or C300 look like a cinema camera, when the real cinema cameras are so cheap now.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #90
    Senior Member Grug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,629
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JPNola View Post
    This ^.

    If you are an individual or a production company, why would you spend 32% more over the Fx9 to get the C500MkII? For internal raw? And even if you decided that internal raw is worth paying 32% more for the C500MkII over the Fx9, you give up the electronic ND, dual ISO, greater lens compatibility, and other features of the Fx9 in order to get internal raw. You'll spend 32% more and you won't even get an eyepiece without paying even more on top of that 32% greater price tag.

    I suspect that some folks over at Canon had a "well, F me." reaction when they learned the Fx9 is $5000 under the price of the C500MkII. Five thousand dollars less. Think about what other gear you could buy with that $5000 to go with your Fx9. Lights. A monitor. Microphones. A 5-lens Rokinon bundle. A decent tripod.

    Sony undercut Canon rather significantly here. And in that put the C500MkII at risk of being another C700, a camera that is admittedly better than other cameras but was priced out of reach for most. Say you were about to pull the trigger on a C500MkII. In order to step up to the C500MkII you'll have to spend another $7000. On the other hand, if you were about to pull the trigger on a Sony Fs7M2 the Fx9 is only $2000 more. That's more "do-able" financially. Sony excels at getting the pricing just right. $16k is a gulp of a price for many. Whereas $11k is a more manageable price tag for many. Sony knows the target market well and has calculated that in this mid-range market the lack of internal raw isn't going to be a deal-breaker for most.

    Maybe I am way off the mark here. And I confess to having a pro-Sony bias given that I've been shooting on Sony professional cameras for 36 years now. Regardless of where your preferences fall, we are spoiled to have so many options today.
    The prices are so close between the two, that the comparisons are inevitable. But the cameras really are playing in different ballparks.

    One is a 10-bit 300Mbps 4k camera (that at some point will have an external raw-recording option). The other is a 12-bit 2.1Gbps 6k camera, with internal raw recording and anamorphic shooting modes.

    They take slightly different approaches with similar feature sets otherwise, but the differences in recording specs and capabilities puts an ocean between them.

    What's nice about the C500 Mkii is that it can also do the nice, manageable 10-bit 410Mbps downsampled 4k thing, for those fast turnaround jobs where beefier files aren't on the table.


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

Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... 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
  •