RIP Sony a7s III

Lenny, the first time it caught me out was at a night time wedding reception on a hotel patio, several strings of lights and another source somewhere out of the frame. In Resolve, there is an OFX tool for fixing banding/strobing lights but this case appeared to be the one Abe mentioned, strobing occurring at more than one frequency. In other words, I could tune out the strobing for one source but not without having it in the other. I remember the banding was worse than the strobing lights, so I was able to tune out the banding and just accept the strobing lights.

The most recent instance was just last week filming interviews in a hospital, this was with the Blackmagic Pocket 6K camera which has a 5 inch screen. I could see the banding on the screen, like what you would see if you were filming a tv set. I adjusted the frame rate slightly until it was no long visible. I did this before the filming began and there was no trace of it visible in the recordings that followed. The lights in the hospital were led replacements for ordinary incandescents, in ceiling cans.

I watch for it very carefully now. It can be sneaky. The Panasonic cameras that I use as Abe mentioned, have an automatic setting that has seemed to work perfectly, no spoiled footage that I have seen from them.
 
Haven't experienced frequency issues from dimmed LEDs but maybe I haven't looked enough. I will be more careful in the future especially I generally have cheaper LEDs. Thanks for the heads up. Of course the computer screen has always been a problem but that's what I would use the FX9 for. I have seen it from overhead flourescents sometimes though. Pretty tough if you have multiple sources with different frequencies - Yikes. I figure if you really need internal NDs and ECS get a real video camera but that can only help so much with multiple frequencies.

What does the automatic setting do on the Panny?
 
Last edited:
It's a menu item called "Synchro Scan." There is very little description except this, "Adjust the shutter speed to match the frequency of TV, etc."

Although I said it works perfectly, if that's all it does I probably didn't have enough testing with it to be conclusive. On the BMD from last week at the hospital interviews, I also don't remember exactly what I did to fix it, whether it be changing the shutter angle slightly, or changing the shutter speed slightly, same thing I guess really. I do remember it was 23.98p framerate. As soon as I saw it I was in a brief panic to fix it quick, the interview was a hospice patient, neither one of us had much "time." The Panasonic was a 2nd camera to this. I didn't do anything except enable Synchro Scan, and it did not show the problem.
 
Back on the BMD, I'm not sure why changing the shutter speed or shutter angle would have worked, the framerate was the same either way, but it did. On the BMD Pocket 6K I can also change the framerate in 1 FPS increments but I'm pretty sure I did not do that. I'll go back to the camera metadata and see if that gives a clue and return shortly.
 
I know what you mean by not remembering what you did in a panic. Pretty rare that you could have the freedom to change from 30 to 24 in the middle of a shoot.
 
BMD have released firmware update 7.9.1 for the Pocket 6K, with this release the A7SIII is now dead. Please recycle.

So while I was putting my settings back in after the update, I did see a menu choice for Flicker Free 50 HZ or 60 HZ. This has always been there but I forgot about it. But it makes me wonder about something Abe said, about how dimming works on LEDs, may be different ways this is accomplished, PWM, duty cycle or frequency. PWM or duty cycle should not make a difference as long as the underlying carrier frequency is 50 or 60 hz like the AC line. But if frequency was the method, it would be a mess.
 
Tom Roper said:
BMD have released firmware update 7.9.1 for the Pocket 6K, with this release the A7SIII is now dead. Please recycle.
Click to expand...
:laugh: But wait, maybe we can petition Sony to get this magical, mystical thing call CineEI on the A7sIII to revive it - and also make it do much more incredible things...I heard you don't even have to push record button get best dynamic range with CineEI. :tongue:
 
LennyLevy said:
Haven't experienced frequency issues from dimmed LEDs but maybe I haven't looked enough. I will be more careful in the future especially I generally have cheaper LEDs. Thanks for the heads up. Of course the computer screen has always been a problem but that's what I would use the FX9 for. I have seen it from overhead flourescents sometimes though. Pretty tough if you have multiple sources with different frequencies - Yikes. I figure if you really need internal NDs and ECS get a real video camera but that can only help so much with multiple frequencies.
Click to expand...

You're probably not going to see an issue with video production lights since even cheap ones are made with the problem in mind. That being said, the issue arises with all the LEDs at Christie's gallery (a frequent client of mine), so clearly nobody was worried about video banding when they upgraded their lighting to LEDs. Same story with wedding venues. They rarely have flicker-free LEDs (which is why I love actual tungsten bulbs and candles) even though people are clearly filming there all the time.

But if you don't notice a problem, then you probably don't have one! It's relatively rare to record LED banding and not notice it until after the shoot. You can see it on the monitor. And if it's subtle enough that you don't notice, then odds are that the client won't either. Bad rolling LED bands are a real poke in the eye.

Panasonic has had the ability to fine-tune shutter speed on their mirrorless cameras (they call it "Synchro Scan") to solve this problem since at least the GH4, if not earlier. It's really not that complicated for the engineers to program! Olympus mirrorless cameras have it, too. So does the Sony A1 and A7IV. Why the A7SIII and FX3 don't have it is beyond me.
 
markfpv said:
:laugh: But wait, maybe we can petition Sony to get this magical, mystical thing call CineEI on the A7sIII to revive it - and also make it do much more incredible things...I heard you don't even have to push record button get best dynamic range with CineEI. :tongue:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Mark, I meant the A7IV. A7SIII was already obsolete. It's so sad when people can't let go of the past. :D
 
Hey Jonpais, If you're still lurking this thread: I know I suggested laying this discussion to rest but frankly your not veiled suggestion that a few of us are not true professionals has stuck in my craw so I came up with a suggestion the other day: With your FX3 or FX9 whatever you have in CineEI shoot an image with a good contrast range in base ISO then open the iris one or even 2 stops and shoot it again. Now repeat using Cine EI and shoot it again lowering the EI by an equal amount. This should show whether Cine EI is different from overexposure. If the images look different (other than very slight exposure) I'll eat my shoe and post the video.
 
As a result of massive firmware update 2.00 that enables timecode, Cine EI and a number of other noteworthy improvements, the FX3 has joined the coveted list of Netflix Approved cameras. This is the first time we recall seeing the Ninja V mentioned in connection with a Netflix Production Guide, meaning that recording ProRes RAW externally to a compatible Atomos device is perfectly acceptable. it is also made abundantly clear that the mighty FX3, like its sibling the a7s III, outputs 16-bit raw, in spite of baseless claims to the contrary by CineD. This development practically gurarantees the use of the FX3 as a B-cam on major productions alongside Sony’s other cinema cameras. I also fully expect this news to send the folks in the Blackmagic forums into overdrive. LOL
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:
. This development practically gurarantees the use of the FX3 as a B-cam on major productions alongside Sony’s other cinema cameras.
Click to expand...

Probably true. Although I don't think this clarifies anything about the specs of the RAW it outputs.

Nobody is saying the new firmware isn't cool. The only contention is if, as you claim, the a7siii is now "dead." Most shooters don't give a crap about Netflix certification and will continue to base their purchases on other factors.
 
ahalpert said:
Probably true. Although I don't think this clarifies anything about the specs of the RAW it outputs.

Nobody is saying the new firmware isn't cool. The only contention is if, as you claim, the a7siii is now "dead." Most shooters don't give a crap about Netflix certification and will continue to base their purchases on other factors.
Click to expand...

The specs? The Ninja V captures 16-bit RAW from the FX3, which is then compressed and recorded as 12-bit ProRes RAW at 4.2K up to p60. Apple’s 20-page White Paper outlines the specs for ProRes RAW. 12-bit PRR is indisputably superior to the internal codec on the FX3 for sure! The largest and most respected manufacturers on the planet have unanimously approved of ProRes RAW, including Canon, Sony, Nikon, Sigma, Panasonic, Olympus, Z-Cam, Fuji, DJI and Leica. And when a manufacturer announces internal PRR only to scrap their plans because of RED, practically everyone is disappointed. Nevertheless, you don’t have to look far to find people who will make disparaging remarks about practically anything at all, including REDCODE RAW, so what one or two people in the forums think about PRR doesn’t concern me; and it shouldn’t concern anyone else for that matter. Over at CML there is a comparison between BRAW and PRR and spoiler alert: the former did not trounce the latter. Adam Wilt is not alone in thinking that both ProRes RAW and BRAW outperform 10-bit internal log codecs when it comes to color correction and it is no different with the FX3 any more than the S1H..

Actually, nearly everyone is interested in what cameras the largest streaming network selects as worthy of shooting Netflix Originals, which is why cameras that do make the list always make headlines. Whether anyone makes a purchasing decision based on the list is totally irrelevant, as no one here claimed they did. For that matter, not once have I heard someone say that they weren’t buying a camera because it was Netflix Approved. hehe
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:
.. it is also made abundantly clear that the mighty FX3, like its sibling the a7s III, outputs 16-bit raw, in spite of baseless claims to the contrary by CineD.
Click to expand...

The question is not if you can record PRR but if you can output 16-bit or in actuality some lower bit-depth, which I don't think is answered here.

I make good money and nobody I work for gives a crap about Netflix certification. None of the shooters I know need it either. Obviously if you work for Netflix you need it. And some other companies and streamers will follow suit.

But the fact of the matter is that Netflix certification is based on specific requirements for resolution, gamma, bit-depth, bit-rate, time code and I/O etc. There are things they need that I don't need. If you know what you're doing, you don't need to consult their list. Or click bait headlines. "Hehe"
 
ahalpert said:
The question is not if you can record PRR but if you can output 16-bit or in actuality some lower bit-depth, which I don't think is answered here.

I make good money and nobody I work for gives a crap about Netflix certification. None of the shooters I know need it either. Obviously if you work for Netflix you need it. And some other companies and streamers will follow suit.

But the fact of the matter is that Netflix certification is based on specific requirements for resolution, gamma, bit-depth, bit-rate, time code and I/O etc. There are things they need that I don't need. If you know what you're doing, you don't need to consult their list. Or click bait headlines. "Hehe"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. The question is answered here: the FX3 outputs 16-bit RAW which is then recorded as 12-bit ProRes RAW in the Ninja V. It is also unquestionably superior to the internal codec for color correction.
I'm happy you make good money.

A few years back. a famous cinematographer had this to say to a ProRes RAW skeptic:

"RAW control without leaving ProRes or having to transcode to ProRes from another RAW format.

It’s actually great. I’d say 90% of TV drama is shot ProRes. Now we get RAW controls inside of ProRes."

To another suggesting that the popularity of ProRes has got nothing to do with its performance, he added:

"Or maybe because DNX is always a “me too” codec and ProRes just seemingly works better at a performance level ?

I’ve never understood the Apple hate. I mean I do because obviously there are some platforms and scenarios that just aren’t supported, but by and large it’s an incredibly robust and consistent format for the end user, and it seemly will run on much lower specced machines than other similar data rate codecs. It’s well understood even for it’s downsides.

And this is just the beginning. I’m sure in the very near future once the launch exclusivity arrangements lapse, any ProRes recording camera today could become a ProRes RAW camera tomorrow.

Like for example, Alexa.

I would guess even an old clunker Alexa could theoretically could suddenly get a ProRes RAW onboard recording update. I’m certain Arri wouldn’t want to actually do that to a legacy product, but I’d imagine the demand for SXS cards would suddenly go up again !

And in the not to distant future, just like they’ve been doing for years, a new flavour of ProRes RAW that can do 16 Bit (or whatever) would be added.

I can’t imagine the Alexa would have been as successful a camera without ProRes, especially in the early days.

The only thing that will kill ProRes is the lack of high end machines that leverage the Apple hardware advantages to using it."

ARRI rep Art Adams also thought ProRes RAW in an Alexa would be a great idea.

As for bit depth, all of ARRI's cameras up until the Alexa 35 recorded 12-bit (log) ARRIRAW files, so not sure what the fuss is all about.

Furthermore, there's nothing whatsoever click-baity about reporting that a camera has been approved by Netflix. You know what is reprehensible?
A billionaire CEO constantly giving interviews with financial magazines gushing over how wealthy he is! hehe
 
Last edited:
Everybody likes the concept of ProRes RAW. The issue is that the FX3/A7SIII sensor probably can't read out 24 fps in 16-bit, let alone 60 fps. We don't have the official sensor data sheet, so it's just speculation.

But you can output a "16-bit" stream without supplying true 16-bit data. Sony has been known to do this in RAW stills on their mirrorless cameras. (A 14-bit container for 12 bits of data.)

the Sony IMX455 sensor (which is likely the same sensor used in the Sony a7r IV) has a 16-Bit sensor readout mode, as confirmed by the official Sony sensor data sheet.

However, this mode is only supported when shooting stills. The sensor readout drops to 12-Bit up to 9.42fps and 10-Bit up to 21.33fps at full resolution.Now, the FX9, FX6, and FX3 cameras have a much lower resolution than the 61MP Sony a7r IV and we don’t know the exact sensor models used in the Sony Cinema Line cameras. Nonetheless, I find it very hard to believe that these sensors have a 16-Bit readout mode at high enough frame rates for shooting RAW videos.

Of course, even though the Sony Cinema Line cameras may not feature a 16-Bit RAW sensor readout mode, delivering their signal through a 16-Bit data output can still offer other advantages for preserving image quality, as Sony confirmed. However, advertising this feature as 16-Bit RAW output can be deceptive in my opinion.
Click to expand...
https://www.cined.com/sony-cinema-line-does-16-bit-raw-provide-a-true-16-bit-sensor-readout/
 
ahalpert said:
Everybody likes the concept of ProRes RAW. The issue is that the FX3/A7SIII sensor probably can't read out 24 fps in 16-bit, let alone 60 fps. We don't have the official sensor data sheet, so it's just speculation.

But you can output a "16-bit" stream without supplying true 16-bit data. Sony has been known to do this in RAW stills on their mirrorless cameras. (A 14-bit container for 12 bits of data.)


https://www.cined.com/sony-cinema-li...ensor-readout/
Click to expand...

Not true, Ahalpert. There are people in the forums who disparage ProRes RAW, but they are a tiny minority. We're not talking about a concept, though. We're talking about an actual RAW codec, one that's already been implemented in over 30 cameras. And that number is likely to increase to 48 by the end of 2023. Let's make this clear: YOU and a couple of outliers in the forums don't think the FX3 is outputting 16-bit. There are flat-earthers, too. The article you quote admits they've got no idea what they're talking about. In any case, the number of bits is not something I obsess over.

We DO know the sensor used in the FX3, however. It is a 48 megapixel quad bayer sensor with blazing fast readout speeds:

"Regardless of imaging quality, the third gen has a huge improvement in readout speed due to its BSI architecture. After all, this camera is mainly aimed for cinematographers. Its all-pixel scan rate has drastically increased from 30FPS to 90FPS. And 1080P60 no longer needs subsampling like in IMX235."

Incidentally, the FX3 came in second on a list of the top rented new products at one of the world's largest rental houses last year. So yeah, it was already hugely popular before it got Netflix approval. What would be weird would be to not report that the FX3 had been approved by Netflix.
 
Last edited:
A famous cinematographer had this to say in response to CineD's hit piece:

"It’s disingenuous to have a headline title of your article imply a “truth” but then never truly answer the very same question you posit and only reference some of the models. It devalues your credibility and makes it seem like someone with an agenda rather than journalism."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top