Other: Is Your Sony FX6 Soft?

Teddy_Dem said:
Thanks for your thoughts on the camera, I definitely appreciate your perspective as I know you have tested several cameras. Do you still feel like the e-ND is what you would rather have as opposed to the superior autofocus on Sony's mirrorless cameras?
Click to expand...

Thank you! But just for the record I have easily tested probably over 100 cameras at this point...but I didn't really start to get it and how things work until about 2017-2018. And of course most of those were cheaper cameras.

If you haven't seen this, this is funny (I'll have to update my part with like 20 more): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?364130-**Which-cameras-have-you-owned-or-used-**&highlight=

___

Realistically-speaking as a camera operator in 2019, I would choose AF because I could not afford to have soft eyes on large sensor shallow DOF interviews, and it makes life so much easier with random b-roll where you may have a few hours to grab stuff and not everything has to be in perfect focus at all times (you cover the edit in your head).

Plus...with gimbals and full-frame manual focus doesn't exist, IMO (wouldn't even bother with any accessories unless they are automatic).

___

Dreamingly-speaking as a beach bum, I would choose eND and IBIS because they make my home movie tests more enjoyable. Shooting wide open - or stopping down 2-3 clicks which is what I like to do to add a little contrast from the lens - and then adjusting eND with your finger as you normally would the aperture is fantastic.

___

With all that said, we all see these features differently, which is why they make these cameras the way they do.

People making a living in studios with crews and/or on tripods or lots of different gear may not have any interest in any of the above and are after more data and color science (like from ARRI - BM - RED).
 
Teddy_Dem said:
Thanks for your thoughts on the camera, I definitely appreciate your perspective as I know you have tested several cameras. Do you still feel like the e-ND is what you would rather have as opposed to the superior autofocus on Sony's mirrorless cameras?
Click to expand...

Doesn't it sort of depend on what you're using it for? I mean, it would be great to have it all

But, for example, my 2nd shooter today asked my opinion of the stabilization of my new Weebill-S gimbal vs my Ronin-S that I've had for a while. And I said the Ronin-s has superior stabilization, customizability, and operating. Except...the lower weight of the weebil and how I have it rigged out (which is not at all, unlike my ronin-s) means I can do "pov" mode and roll/Dutch the camera by turning my wrist. I wouldn't do that on my Ronin-S because it would destroy my wrist. And I wouldn't put the Ronin-S on the end of a monopod and reach it out over people's heads like I do with the weebill.

I wish my A7SIII had e-ND but for the gimbal stuff I do with it, the AF/IBIS is probably more useful. But if I were shooting mostly doc/handheld, I think the e-ND would probably be way more useful
 
Joshua Milligan said:
...That being said, in all of the interviews I've done with the FX6 alongside my A7SIII, the FX6 looks extremely soft. So much so that it feels like I'm back on my FS7 all over again.
Click to expand...

The FX6 looks soft because the internal codec sucks big time. Even though it is an all "I" codec, compared to the XAVC-SI in the A7SIII, the FX6 implementation of the codec renders soft glowing images. I know for a fact because I compared simultaneous recordings I've made with my Ninja V+ in ProRes HQ and ProRes RAW. The files recorded externally are sharper and with much better color and skin tones. I hate the internal codecs of the FX6 because of this. I think that the internal codecs of the FX6 were developed a long time ago for the older cameras, and since then Sony has improved the compression algorithm and that’s why it’s better on the A7SIII. I wish that the FX6 could record ProRes internally like many consumer cameras can today like Fuji and Nikon. One other fact, is that the internal codec combined with the dismal electronic variable ND creates even more degradation to the image. There's a reason the Venice doesn't have the electronic VND. It sucks.
 
Last edited:
Rocketfuel said:
The FX6 looks soft because the internal codec sucks big time. Even though it is an all "I" codec, compared to the XAVC-SI in the A7SIII, the FX6 implementation of the codec renders soft glowing images. I know for a fact because I compared simultaneous recordings I've made with my Ninja V+ in ProRes HQ and ProRes RAW. The files recorded externally are sharper and with much better color and skin tones. I hate the internal codecs of the FX6 because of this. I think that the internal codecs of the FX6 were developed a long time ago for the older cameras, and since then Sony has improved the compression algorithm and that’s why it’s better on the A7SIII. I wish that the FX6 could record ProRes internally like many consumer cameras can today like Fuji and Nikon. One other fact, is that the internal codec combined with the dismal electronic variable ND creates even more degradation to the image. There's a reason the Venice doesn't have the electronic VND. It sucks.
Click to expand...

Well, those are some amazing "discoveries" you have made about how awful the FX6 is. Hatred for the internal codecs seems like a strong emotion, but I guess if the difference is as huge as you say it is, maybe that is a good way of putting it. Also, in what way(s) is the picture degraded with VND? Color? Sharpnesss? Dynamic range? Please be more specific so I can see if I can reproduce what you are seeing on your camera.

I assume you must have some examples from the FX6 you could easily post:

1) Picture degradation caused by VND.
2) Internal and external codecs recorded simultanously.

A split screen comparison would be nice, but downloadable original files would be even better. Please post as soon as possible. I look forward to seeing them.
Thanks in advance! :-)
 
Some thoughts..
FX9 is downsampling FX6 is straight.. this could make the 6 softer
Photo camera with the right downrezzing could be sharp like the FX9 for the same reasons
Slog with no sharpening should be sharpened until it is sharp before comparisons are made
Photo camera with inbuild sharpening may display moire which may render it to be useless for certain jobs
FX9 v 6 .. sony may have crippled the fx6 to some extent to keep the 9 ahead
my experience of external VND made plastic surfaces look wierd (rainbow effect) - the nature of any polarisation could cause this.
slog compressed with a codec designed for 709 compression may induce banding due to poor data distribution

But shoot and publish charts or comment has no value
 
Sam, I know you are just throwing out a few ideas and theories but, as a more experienced Sony user, perhaps I can shed some light.

1) I don't think Rocketfuel ever mentioned the FX9, so whether it is sharper than the FX6 doesn't matter to him/her. But for the record, I've compared the FX6 and FX9 head-to-head and was surprised to find that the FX9 is not sharper. If someone says different, they should post something that proves it. I've posted my test footage before and will be happy to post it again if someone wants a refresher. Originally I planned on using my FX6 for awhile and then upgrading to an FX9, but once I compared them, I kept the FX6 because I couldn't see a picture quality difference, yet the FX6 blows the FX9 away on other features. There's no question in mind which one is the "better" camera for me.

2) Rocketfuel does claim his/her FS7iii is sharper than the FX6, and I won't dispute that because I do know my A1 is sharper than my FX6. However, the difference is due to the 8K sensor downsampled to 4K and has nothing to do with the codec. If the FS7iii is sharper, it is probably due to the sensor and processing -- not the codec.

3) Sony VND is not a polarizer, so comparisons to glass VND filters is not applicable.

4) Sony doesn't cripple cameras to give a more expensive camera an edge. Lower priced cameras sometimes have lower performance specs and fewer advanced features so they can be produced at a lower price point or better meet the needs of a different type of customer. That is not "cripplIng". Is a Chevy Tahoe a crippled version of a Cadillac Escalade? Is a Boeing 737 a crippled version of the 777? Is a MacBook Air a crippled version of a MacBook Pro? They are all just different products with different features and price points. A mature person will choose the one that best fits their needs without complaining that they got suckered into buying a crippled product. Complaining about a crippled product says more about the person saying it than the product they are talking about.

5) S-LOG requires a 10-bit 4:2:2 codec. If someone uses a qualified codec, the camera model doesn't matter.

6) Sharpening in post is a necessary step of S-LOG grading. Anyone who has experience color grading in Resolve knows how to do it with two mouse clicks. If sharpening isn't added, S-LOG and RAW images will be softer than I like, but others may prefer a softer look. There is no right or wrong. We can all choose the look we want in post, but that doesn't make the camera soft. Sharpening is a normal part of grading.

7) It'd be a complete waste of effort to put ProRes on Sony cameras. Anyone who thinks ProRes is better than XAVC-I should post some samples that prove it. And even if that can be proven, then let's see if the difference will justify doubling or tripling the file sizes to get that little bit of improvement.

morgan_moore said:
But shoot and publish charts or comment has no value
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. People need to be prepared to put up or shut up.
 
Last edited:
Doug. If you are referring to the test shots you put up, inside a big commercial building I seem to remember, between the FX6 and 9 I seem to remember the FX9 shot looked better. So yes, I don't think it would hurt to put them up again. I've edited a few jobs shot with both cameras. Hard to be objective, as I've not had a case where both were used on the same job with exactly the same lenses. I think that's the only way to be somewhat objective. Generally I've felt the FX9 to be sharper, but I also feel the FX9 to be a little shade greener. I would not say the FX6 is soft, far from it. It's just that my gut feel editing the footage is that the FX9 resolves extremely fine high frequency detail a little better. Distant leaves and grass and very distant brickwork on buildings was where I first started to notice this difference. But that's nit-picking really.

Chris Young
 
This thread is from 2021 and you're still debating whether the FX6 is soft? I don't mind because if we didn't have people posting these phantom problems, what would we talk about?
 
Clearly a bunch of deviating thought here.. Many have some value and some none.

12bit raw came over SDI .. which is limited and had to be complressed where crippling would be specifically dialing something down on the software (to make it worse than the 65 with three lines of code) ??

I would agree that 444 sr codec slog in the f55 was to me special

A sharp image with a risk of moiree is of no value to broadcasters with standards

Sharpening is a technical process of balancing moiree avoidance with countering the softening of the OPLF ?

As mentioned the compression algorythm is different for a 'straight to output' compression vs a LUT ready comprssion .. different not bad.

I dont understand colour management. This means I know more about it than most.

Proress is a format that is poor on aquisition data card size/cost .. this may now be not a 'thing' where as poor processing might be 'a thing' for indies- however when you archive 100, 10*60 shoots the smaller files will save $$$$

Sony see the big pipe.

I fee the sony look is 'knee' which enables matching a wide DR scene to a narrow DR delivery space (709) and interms of live broadcast was a boon.. 'do you want to see the shadow are of the stadium at bit grey.. or do you want to lose half of the play field into black'.. we want to see the players and ball.

Knee is a solution for live or as live

LIghting and cinemtaography should not use a knee profile
 
I'm not sure what Sony see the big pipe means? You and I just dump the footy.. then the pipe goes to post and backup.

Having 10 operators working for 10 months 10 hours a day and having a petabyte of footage... or 3 PT with pro res. that needs backing up. is a big cost saving.

When I first BBC'd they 'could not afford to store more than 50mbs' and would not allow me to shoot 4k on my fs7. Sony compression understand this.
 
AmbiSonde said:
2) Rocketfuel dropped a deuce and ran away to a safe distance to see who stepped in it. Rocketfuel has no interest in substantiating their claims and I certainly don't think it's possible to do so.
Click to expand...

The only difference between Rocketfuel and you is that he/she dropped a duece and ran away with their tail between their legs, while you continue to drop deuce after deuce stinking up the place. Reading through your posts it is amazing the amount of incorrect and unfounded things you will say. Are you trolling? It reminds me of a certain orange-hued politician who has no regard for the truth and will strut around making dumb statement after dumb statement knowing that there's no way fact checkers can keep up with it. We can't judge your credentials because because you have chosen to hide behind a fake name. We've never seen any of your work. Have you posted the HLG vs. SLOG footage that you said you would in an earlier thread?

I also see you've gone back and deleted posts you made that even you must have realized were clearly total crap. Well, you can scoop up your posts in a doggy bag and try to pretend they never happened, but the stench remains in the air.

Personally, I don't have the time or patience to correct all your bullshit, but let me tell you, it stinks. Please back up some of your ridiculous claims with proof or pipe down. In the meantime, I'm not taking the bait and won't waste time debunking your crap on a point by point basis.
 
Last edited:
cyvideo said:
Doug. If you are referring to the test shots you put up, inside a big commercial building I seem to remember, between the FX6 and 9 I seem to remember the FX9 shot looked better. So yes, I don't think it would hurt to put them up again.
Chris Young
Click to expand...

Hey Chris, here's a link to that video from about a year ago. If you think the image quality of the FX9 is noticeably better than the FX6, I'd have to disagree.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top