Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 75
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    384
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DLD View Post
    The problem with FX-9 is its fairly expensive attachment for Raw recording, whereas a lower tier FX-6 (and FX-3 and A7SIII) can record Raw into Ninja 5 without it. Many FX-9 owners are not happy about that.

    I speculate that Sony would release an FX-9II, that can record Raw either internally or to Ninja V via HDMI.

    But I have no inside info. It just seems reasonable.
    That’s a big part of what pushed me to the FX6 coming from an FS7II. The lack of 4K 120p, the size/weight difference and the fact that the FX9 still needs that dang extension unit for raw all killed that camera for me. There’s really no excuse for the extension unit or lack of 4K 120p in that camera especially when there are four cameras below it (FX6, A1, A7SIII, FX3) that all have the 4K 120p and raw directly out.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Default
    Do you guys have a lot of clients asking for Raw? I've never had one. Seems to me anyone who needs to have a Raw workflow is going to want to shoot on a more upper tier camera than an FX6 anyway - but I don't know how everyone works so it must be important to some people. To be honest, I think a lot of people are way more concerned with Raw than just learning how to light and shoot good pictures in the first place.


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

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Dubai & London
    Posts
    202
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DLD View Post
    The problem with FX-9 is its fairly expensive attachment for Raw recording, whereas a lower tier FX-6 (and FX-3 and A7SIII) can record Raw into Ninja 5 without it. Many FX-9 owners are not happy about that.

    I speculate that Sony would release an FX-9II, that can record Raw either internally or to Ninja V via HDMI.

    But I have no inside info. It just seems reasonable.
    The raw recording to ninja v must surely be at a lower bit rate?? I知 pretty sure Sony aren稚 that stupid to canabalize the FX9 and Venice would they? The FX9 II would also have to be very carefully updated as I知 pretty sure internal raw would also crop their Venice market - it looks unlikely unless they release a new updated Venice first? 🤔 I maybe wrong but I just don稚 see how it would make sense


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Dubai & London
    Posts
    202
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Milligan View Post
    That’s a big part of what pushed me to the FX6 coming from an FS7II. The lack of 4K 120p, the size/weight difference and the fact that the FX9 still needs that dang extension unit for raw all killed that camera for me. There’s really no excuse for the extension unit or lack of 4K 120p in that camera especially when there are four cameras below it (FX6, A1, A7SIII, FX3) that all have the 4K 120p and raw directly out.
    The image coming out of an FX9 is much more noticeably sharper over the FX6 and A7s3 from what I’ve seen - it’s astonishing that people are not talking about this - it’s like the difference between a Red Dragon and FS7...
    Yes, the FX6 and A7s3/ FX3 have 10bit but that number doesn’t mean the image is the same quality - it’s far more complex.
    BM cameras have arguably much better features but more people still pay more for a Sony and if they want Raw they prefer Red ��*♂️


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

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Dubai & London
    Posts
    202
    Default
    No client ever asks for raw but I used to shoot Red Gemini and it’s a welcomed codec for fixing in post so - they don’t care but it helps if shots incorrectly exposed or white balanced etc - but otherwise I’ve never had a client specifically ask for raw recording on a Sony camera that would be a unicorn request for me...
    If raw is critical for greenscreen or cgi then I would just hire the Red or maybe the FX9 Slog3 might work...


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by cane141 View Post
    The raw recording to ninja v must surely be at a lower bit rate?? I’m pretty sure Sony aren’t that stupid to canabalize the FX9 and Venice would they? The FX9 II would also have to be very carefully updated as I’m pretty sure internal raw would also crop their Venice market - it looks unlikely unless they release a new updated Venice first? 樂 I maybe wrong but I just don’t see how it would make sense
    The FX9, FX6, FX3, and A7SIII all send out a 16-bit linear RAW signal from their SDI/HDMI that can be captured as a 12-bit log compressed ProRes RAW file by the ATOMOS Shogun 7/Ninja V. The unfortunate thing for FX9 users is that the FX9 was released prior to the new processers (dual BIONZ XR) that are running in the FX6, FX3, and A7SIII. If they are to be believed, Sony have mentioned that this is the sole reason that the add-on is required for the FX9 to output a RAW signal without the bulky extension unit.

    As for a RAW internal on Sony cameras, I have been hoping for that but highly doubt that will be happening anytime soon. You can check the latest news about Kinefinity having to remove RAW recording from their cameras, to see why it would be unlikely. RED's patents stand in the way on compressed RAW internal happening on the Sony cameras. Blackmagic use BRAW to get around that, and ATOMOS have a deal/agreement with RED which is why they are allowed to record compressed ProRes RAW. ARRI use the CODEX HDE add-on attachment to record RAW with 40% compression and also can record RAW with the Odyssey 7 monitor/recorder. I'm not sure if the Odyssey captures compressed RAW or if it works for the newer ALEXA LF or 65.

    As for Canon, there have been rumors about if an IP swap with RED is what allows them to record compressed RAW internally. The swap being that the RED Komodo is allowed to use the RF mount. However Canon's RAW compression is between 5:1 to 3:1 if I am remembering it correctly, which I think is what is allowable to get around RED's RAW recording patent which covers anything that is compressed as 6:1 and higher. As we get 8K resolutions and above, compression of the RAW codecs become more necessary, as uncompressed 8K files would require a lot of storage space. Panasonic seem to relying on ProRes RAW with ATOMOS recorders or BRAW with Blackmagic recorders. I do believe Panasonic has a RAW codec, but it is probably uncompressed.

    Sony do have their X-OCN RAW codec which is 16 bit linear:
    https://sonycine.com/resources/16_bit_x_ocn_xt_profile/

    It's pretty hard to find downloadable footage of X-OCN as the codec is only used on the really high end Sony cameras, VENICE, F55, and I think the F5 maybe. But they all require the AXS-R7 attachment, which fits pretty nicely on the cameras, but costs $6980. Not to mention the media for the X-OCN is really expensive. Based on how expensive the AXS-R7 and media is for Sony's high-end cameras, I would be very surprised if X-OCN was made available to their lower-end cameras. But yet I am still hopeful that this eventually somehow happens.

    From the few clips of X-OCN footage that I have found available online, it's a really great codec. I believe 16-bit linear RAW is able to capture about the equivalent number of stops of 12-bit log RAW, but the 12-bit log is more efficient which is why we do not see much, if any, other 16-bit linear RAW codecs. I do think (assume) that the 16-bit codec should improve on the amount of color information that is captured, due to the higher number of tonal gradations that is captured:

    https://pro.sony/en_IE/technology/re...echnology-xocn

    Ben Allan ACS CSI has a great video showing how much more information is captured in 12-bit codec versus 10-bit:

    https://twitter.com/BenAllanACS/stat...94047088930818

    That was more long-winded than I intended, lol. But hopefully I got my facts right.
    Last edited by Teddy_Dem; 03-03-2021 at 06:36 AM.


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

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Default
    For my part FX9 choice was simple. The 6K sensor gives that rich, detailed image i have envied REDs for so long. But it still has everything that gives that solo runner documentarist a fast turnaround. No hassle like the REDs with file size, audio, NDs etc.

    The sensor is the only reason im hesitating to swapping to FX6. Its smaller, thats a huge plus for my needs, so i might swap at some point. But i want a7s III as second cam anyway so 4K100 will be from that.

    I just love opening my FX9 6K>4K files and looking at the detailed image. So pleasing... I never liked the dull, soft 4K from my FS7 this same way.

    The debayer from the sensor softens the image, so 4K from a 4K sensor is not true 4K, but rather something to 3K. While 6K > 4K shows you true 4K. I guess thats why HD from FS700 + Odyssey7Q was so darn good. It took a higher detailed image and squeezed it down. And thats why 6K REDs gave so nice images in 4K.

    4K > HD shows true HD. While an HD sensor is actually lower than 1080p because of the sensor technology.


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

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK/Japan
    Posts
    128
    Default
    I'm going to be brave and ask a genuine question, and it's something I can't answer myself despite having spent most of my working life in this business (and can't help feeling I should be able to do better!).

    When comparing images from the FX6 and 9 I also see more detail quite easily in the 9 shots and I also see a very small amount of extra "richness/thickness" but it's this latter that bothers me. So far I've been able to make the few FX6 images that I've been able to download just as "rich/thick" as downloaded FX9 images by adding a very small boost in saturation. I'm probably exposing (pun, I know) myself to people saying I'm obviously no good at this if I can't see the difference in a "naturally rich" image and one that's been boosted very slightly to match and they may be right. But at the moment, I can't.

    I have an FX6 on pre-order but will compare it directly with a 9 before I part with the dosh and hopefully, with more time and my own images I might be able to see what, if anything, I'm missing. The lockdown makes this tricky right now so I welcome comments and if you think I should be able to see the ndifference, please say as precisely as you can why.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by stewhem View Post
    I'm going to be brave and ask a genuine question, and it's something I can't answer myself despite having spent most of my working life in this business (and can't help feeling I should be able to do better!).

    When comparing images from the FX6 and 9 I also see more detail quite easily in the 9 shots and I also see a very small amount of extra "richness/thickness" but it's this latter that bothers me. So far I've been able to make the few FX6 images that I've been able to download just as "rich/thick" as downloaded FX9 images by adding a very small boost in saturation. I'm probably exposing (pun, I know) myself to people saying I'm obviously no good at this if I can't see the difference in a "naturally rich" image and one that's been boosted very slightly to match and they may be right. But at the moment, I can't.

    I have an FX6 on pre-order but will compare it directly with a 9 before I part with the dosh and hopefully, with more time and my own images I might be able to see what, if anything, I'm missing. The lockdown makes this tricky right now so I welcome comments and if you think I should be able to see the ndifference, please say as precisely as you can why.
    I posted this in the FX3 thread. You might find it helpful as it has the FX9, FX6, and FX3 side by side. Curiously the FX3 doesn't seem to match the FX6 even though they are using the same sensor. The FX3 appears to be more saturated and "sharper". However I wouldn't fully rely on this single video sample, as everyone knows side by side tests can easily be screwed up as one could easily inadvertently have a single or multiple settings mismatched.

    He also shot the cameras in Slog3 and used a LUT in post, which could also be the another reason for this mismatch if something was somehow setup wrong in the NLE. A side by side of the SOOC with S-Cinetone may be a "better" comparison. But always tests that you do yourself will yield better information based on your workflow, etc.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajVKnRibAlU


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddy_Dem View Post
    ... That was more long-winded than I intended, lol. But hopefully I got my facts right.
    If I may add a small bit. There are other proprietary codecs - such as HEVC/H265 and AV 1 - developed outside of Red and Canon and capable of 12-bit compressed encoding. The visual loss, at some high bit rate, becomes negligible. Sony's new 8K A1 camera does have a "low grade" version of H265 with a 4:2:0 Long GOP. It may not be able to offer 8K in an intraframe mode even with updates but a next gen camera should.


    Quote Originally Posted by stewhem View Post
    I'm going to be brave and ask a genuine question, and it's something I can't answer myself despite having spent most of my working life in this business (and can't help feeling I should be able to do better!).

    When comparing images from the FX6 and 9 I also see more detail quite easily in the 9 shots and I also see a very small amount of extra "richness/thickness" but it's this latter that bothers me. So far I've been able to make the few FX6 images that I've been able to download just as "rich/thick" as downloaded FX9 images by adding a very small boost in saturation. I'm probably exposing (pun, I know) myself to people saying I'm obviously no good at this if I can't see the difference in a "naturally rich" image and one that's been boosted very slightly to match and they may be right. But at the moment, I can't..
    R5 has a better 4K than R6 due to the oversampling (I think R5 looks gorgeous with enough light).. FX-9, as mentioned above, has a 6K sensor that downsamples into a 4K image, so there's more color information. FX-6, FX-3 and A7SIII have "only" a 4K sensor.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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
  •