DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
Smaller form factor, probably reduced frame rates??? I've head a lot of talk about it being a super 35 Venice, but if it's still full frame maybe that would be pretty amazing. We shall find out tomorrow....
Sony BURANO
- Thread starter NorBro
- Start date
Smaller form factor, probably reduced frame rates??? I've head a lot of talk about it being a super 35 Venice, but if it's still full frame maybe that would be pretty amazing. We shall find out tomorrow....
ahalpert
Major Contributor
there was a rumor on sonyalpharumors that it would use the a7siii sensor. then there was a rumor that it would use the a9iii sensor. both are probably wrong. the a9iii sensor is going to be amazing, though. perhaps 6K @ 480fps. I think there's an a9iii preorder for me in the near future. I'm assuming the Burano will be north of $20k and I will not be buying it, just envying those who do
it would be like sony to put the same sensor in as many cameras as possible. if they used the a7siii sensor, maybe they could finally implement a dual gain output from the quad bayer sensor
cyvideo
Veteran
Latest rumours we are hearing down under is that BURANO is FF with a 1 ms rolling shutter. If that's the true, that's akin to a global shutter performance, but without the one-stop loss associated with global shutters. Also indicates that this would have to be a brand-new sensor, as I know of no Sony sensor with a 1 ms response rate. Does anyone else know of one?
Chris Young
Chris Young
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I bet it's the same sensor as in the upcoming a9iii, which is confirmed to launch this winter in anticipation of next year's Olympics and is supposed to be super fast. So yes, a brand-new sensor
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Looks like 8K FF with dual base ISO 800/3200 and 16-stop latitude.
full-frame 8.6K at 30 fps, full-frame cropped 6K at 60 fps, Super35 5.8K, and Super35 cropped 4K at 120 fps.
IBIS in a cine camera, that's new
5lbs without PL mount. $25k
--- I feel like they screwed up with this resolution choice. I would have done a lower resolution and higher framerate
full-frame 8.6K at 30 fps, full-frame cropped 6K at 60 fps, Super35 5.8K, and Super35 cropped 4K at 120 fps.
IBIS in a cine camera, that's new
5lbs without PL mount. $25k
--- I feel like they screwed up with this resolution choice. I would have done a lower resolution and higher framerate
Last edited:
Teddy_Dem
Well-known member
Plus autofocus and e-ND.
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
Yeah, it probably depends on what type of work you're doing right? If you're in narrative then this probably ticks most of your boxes.
If you're more in advertising/commercial stuff that needs high frame rates then you may go for a Red V-Raptor for $25k?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This is true but I feel like you want to have 60fps available from your full sensor width. Even in narrative? Otherwise it's a bit of a pain in the butt to crop into your lenses and get there.
I feel like this looks like a high end doc camera to me? But I'm sure people will make lots of money shooting lots of different stuff with it
drboffa
Well-known member
I'm guessing Sony will eventually put more framerate options in the camera via firmware, which is not atypical for them.
This is not the realm of camera I work with, but for mid-tier corporate and documentary work or production companies it looks pretty amazing. Top notch AF in a cinema camera from a line with cinema bone fides is a pretty good selling point. You're also getting a lot of the convenience of the prosumer level—IBIS, variable NDs, small-ish size, reasonable media, lots of codec options—but in something that is decidedly professional level.
This is not the realm of camera I work with, but for mid-tier corporate and documentary work or production companies it looks pretty amazing. Top notch AF in a cinema camera from a line with cinema bone fides is a pretty good selling point. You're also getting a lot of the convenience of the prosumer level—IBIS, variable NDs, small-ish size, reasonable media, lots of codec options—but in something that is decidedly professional level.
drboffa
Well-known member
It does look nice, Chis, although YouTube compression is killing it on my end (all the moving grass and foliage is destroying the image with artifacts).
That said, I honestly have a hard time distinguishing between cameras at this point. The bar is so high, even for the mid-tier (even for the "low" tier). The shot of the woman with the lantern is pretty impressive in the first one, although I'm not sure an FX6 or FX9 (or similar) couldn't pull it off.
EDIT: if anything, the panning shots of running animals are even more impressive. I haven't seen readout speeds for the sensor but Alister Chapman has suggested they're just a bit slower than the Venice 2's.
That said, I honestly have a hard time distinguishing between cameras at this point. The bar is so high, even for the mid-tier (even for the "low" tier). The shot of the woman with the lantern is pretty impressive in the first one, although I'm not sure an FX6 or FX9 (or similar) couldn't pull it off.
EDIT: if anything, the panning shots of running animals are even more impressive. I haven't seen readout speeds for the sensor but Alister Chapman has suggested they're just a bit slower than the Venice 2's.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Oh, I see... the Venice 2 8K sensor launched with 30fps in 8K and then they gave it firmware for 48fps.... So maybe they could do that here, and then you could shoot slow-mo. I think 48fps was pretty standard for slow-mo in drama...
And CineD clocked the Venice 2 8K rolling shutter at about 3ms. Which makes me wonder why they can't give it higher framerates, at least pixel-binned
And CineD clocked the Venice 2 8K rolling shutter at about 3ms. Which makes me wonder why they can't give it higher framerates, at least pixel-binned
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
They're describing the 6k as oversampled from the 8k, but still full frame field of view. It appears there is certainly a bit of a crop, but it's quite small and since it's technically labeled as "FF Crop" I'm not sure how much it would affect your lens FOV. Eventually I'm sure there will be tests and more info specific to this point.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Yeah...
Now, not all cameras are equal and obviously some are better than others, but... If you can't get a nice image out of pretty much any modern camera today, the problem isn't the camera.
cyvideo
Veteran
Totally agree with that comment. The thing that impressed me the most over the obvious YT introduced artifacts was the dynamic range in some of the forest shots. You could really see into the shadows, yet the highlights were very well handled. Yes, rolling shutter. On one comparison, CVP's they have the Venice up against the Burano. And the rolling shutter performance looked pretty good indeed. Around 13:48 into the video. It's a pretty good in depth review.
Chris Young
drboffa
Well-known member
That is a pretty good video, Chris, especially given that it seems like they had the Burano for a limited time. I find CVP generally do a nice job giving fair reviews (and not pulling punches on points of criticism—e.g., rightly calling out the subpar viewfinder situation on a camera that is over $20K).
The Burano—from what these limited tests show—does seem to excel in holding detail into shadows and underexposed areas. Curiously, and like every single camera aside from ARRIs, it's still basically limited to about 4, maybe 4.5 stops of overexposure. But if a camera op can't work without 4.5 stops of overexposure latitude (assuming normal scenarios) then something else is wrong...
The Burano—from what these limited tests show—does seem to excel in holding detail into shadows and underexposed areas. Curiously, and like every single camera aside from ARRIs, it's still basically limited to about 4, maybe 4.5 stops of overexposure. But if a camera op can't work without 4.5 stops of overexposure latitude (assuming normal scenarios) then something else is wrong...
I would say this announcement is going to tank the prices for the F5/F55 camera bodies, but... I am not sure if they can go any lower!
But this is very much aimed at the F5/F55 owner.
It's a big jump up from the FS7 (which is what the FX9 was aimed at).
While being massively cheaper than the F35/F65 was (which is what the VENICE is aimed at).
But this is very much aimed at the F5/F55 owner.
It's a big jump up from the FS7 (which is what the FX9 was aimed at).
While being massively cheaper than the F35/F65 was (which is what the VENICE is aimed at).
Grug
Veteran
Is anyone else rather disappointed with the announcement of the Burano?
After having such high hopes for it, I find myself incredibly torn on it.
On the one hand, it has a powerful list of "pros" in it's favour, and on the other, some really brutal "cons".
The monitoring features are a mess, there’s zero power distribution, the onboard LCD (which is your only option for monitoring a clean image with display data outside the composition) is only 720p, not particularly bright, and has a loupe option that completely stifles access to most of the camera's controls.
Sony have stuffed some pretty incredible imaging power inside the camera, but then they’ve gone and wrapped it in a body that, apart from the integrated PL-mount, fairly-heavily compressed raw recording, and onboard LCD’s ability to display image data without obscuring your composition (albeit only at 720p), offers very few FUNCTIONAL advantages over something like an FX9 for conventional production work (where you’re working with a camera team).
Beyond the higher image quality, what advantages do people see it providing (for that significantly higher price point it commands over the FX9/FX6)?
To my mind, Sony really needs to swap out the v-mount plate before launch for a version that includes at least some basic power distro (a pair of DTAPs or LEMOs at the very least), the LCD cable needs to get AT LEAST 20cm longer (so it can be moved forward enough for the camera to be balanced for shoulder mount work), and they need to have a very definite plan to get a monitoring output that will allow for display info to be displayed on the OUTSIDE of the composition.
Those are some really painful factors weighing against it (especially at that price point), and all the more frustrating given how superbly layed out the Venice 2 is. For those of us doing conventional crewed production, I’d be interested to hear how many of you would be willing to live with all of those functional limitations on-set, for the benefits of the image quality that powerful sensor can provide?
On the "Pros" list, the features that make it incredibly exciting as a camera are:
- Venice 2's superb 8.6k sensor
- A proper, RIGID, PL-mount on a mid-range camera again! (no more constant lens support dramas)
- Moderate 50w power draw (that means 2 hours of runtime on small 500g 98Whr v-mount batteries, no need to invest in a whole new battery system ala Arri)
- 2-second boot time (compared to around 20 seconds with the Alexa 35 and V-raptor)
- Internal Raw recording (and compressed raw, so you'll actually get permission to shoot it - something that rarely happens with Arris)
- Dual-base ISO, and totally usable at it's "high" setting of 3200 ISO
- VND and IBIS (I'd still prefer the Venice's 1-8 stops of ND, but VND is the next best thing), also the IBIS looks impressive for handheld work.
- Cheap, easily sourced media!
- In 6k "crop mode", you can assign a custom button to cycle through the different crop modes - single-button-press S35mm crop in/out is FINALLY a thing (and it's 6k in both FF and S35mm)!
- Compact body size, that in spite of weighing the same as an Alexa 35, will actually rig out significantly lighter, thanks to much smaller batteries and less need for accessory cage gack.
In short, absolute top-end image quality (good enough for basically anything, even IMAX theoretically), with all of the mod-cons of a super-fast boot time, extensive internal ND, natively usable dual-ISO mode, long run times of small batteries, true dual formats of FF/S35mm, easy media costs and management, and the ability to be used for both conventional production (with it's rigid PL-mount) and looser b-roll/talking head type work, where Sony's autofocus holds a tonne of appeal these days (meaning one camera can do two jobs - i.e. you could sell your FX9 or FX6 to help pay for this, and you won't be losing out on anything much).
That's a powerful set of appealing features alongside a powerfully unappealling set of compromises.
There's also the curse of the mid-range camera to consider.
The last time I spent this much on a mid-range camera was for the F5 + R5 Raw Recorder, an incredibly powerful mid-range camera, the undisputed value-for-money champion of it's time... and it was a complete disaster for me. NO ONE wanted it for commercial or narrative production, it basically lived solely in the corporate and reality tv worlds.
That's history to be wary of.
That said, if the F5 had had the sensor from the F65 at the time, would it have seen the same fate? That's the $25,000 USD / $40,000 AUD question.
I find myself very torn on this one.
After having such high hopes for it, I find myself incredibly torn on it.
On the one hand, it has a powerful list of "pros" in it's favour, and on the other, some really brutal "cons".
The monitoring features are a mess, there’s zero power distribution, the onboard LCD (which is your only option for monitoring a clean image with display data outside the composition) is only 720p, not particularly bright, and has a loupe option that completely stifles access to most of the camera's controls.
Sony have stuffed some pretty incredible imaging power inside the camera, but then they’ve gone and wrapped it in a body that, apart from the integrated PL-mount, fairly-heavily compressed raw recording, and onboard LCD’s ability to display image data without obscuring your composition (albeit only at 720p), offers very few FUNCTIONAL advantages over something like an FX9 for conventional production work (where you’re working with a camera team).
Beyond the higher image quality, what advantages do people see it providing (for that significantly higher price point it commands over the FX9/FX6)?
To my mind, Sony really needs to swap out the v-mount plate before launch for a version that includes at least some basic power distro (a pair of DTAPs or LEMOs at the very least), the LCD cable needs to get AT LEAST 20cm longer (so it can be moved forward enough for the camera to be balanced for shoulder mount work), and they need to have a very definite plan to get a monitoring output that will allow for display info to be displayed on the OUTSIDE of the composition.
Those are some really painful factors weighing against it (especially at that price point), and all the more frustrating given how superbly layed out the Venice 2 is. For those of us doing conventional crewed production, I’d be interested to hear how many of you would be willing to live with all of those functional limitations on-set, for the benefits of the image quality that powerful sensor can provide?
On the "Pros" list, the features that make it incredibly exciting as a camera are:
- Venice 2's superb 8.6k sensor
- A proper, RIGID, PL-mount on a mid-range camera again! (no more constant lens support dramas)
- Moderate 50w power draw (that means 2 hours of runtime on small 500g 98Whr v-mount batteries, no need to invest in a whole new battery system ala Arri)
- 2-second boot time (compared to around 20 seconds with the Alexa 35 and V-raptor)
- Internal Raw recording (and compressed raw, so you'll actually get permission to shoot it - something that rarely happens with Arris)
- Dual-base ISO, and totally usable at it's "high" setting of 3200 ISO
- VND and IBIS (I'd still prefer the Venice's 1-8 stops of ND, but VND is the next best thing), also the IBIS looks impressive for handheld work.
- Cheap, easily sourced media!
- In 6k "crop mode", you can assign a custom button to cycle through the different crop modes - single-button-press S35mm crop in/out is FINALLY a thing (and it's 6k in both FF and S35mm)!
- Compact body size, that in spite of weighing the same as an Alexa 35, will actually rig out significantly lighter, thanks to much smaller batteries and less need for accessory cage gack.
In short, absolute top-end image quality (good enough for basically anything, even IMAX theoretically), with all of the mod-cons of a super-fast boot time, extensive internal ND, natively usable dual-ISO mode, long run times of small batteries, true dual formats of FF/S35mm, easy media costs and management, and the ability to be used for both conventional production (with it's rigid PL-mount) and looser b-roll/talking head type work, where Sony's autofocus holds a tonne of appeal these days (meaning one camera can do two jobs - i.e. you could sell your FX9 or FX6 to help pay for this, and you won't be losing out on anything much).
That's a powerful set of appealing features alongside a powerfully unappealling set of compromises.
There's also the curse of the mid-range camera to consider.
The last time I spent this much on a mid-range camera was for the F5 + R5 Raw Recorder, an incredibly powerful mid-range camera, the undisputed value-for-money champion of it's time... and it was a complete disaster for me. NO ONE wanted it for commercial or narrative production, it basically lived solely in the corporate and reality tv worlds.
That's history to be wary of.
That said, if the F5 had had the sensor from the F65 at the time, would it have seen the same fate? That's the $25,000 USD / $40,000 AUD question.
I find myself very torn on this one.