cyvideo
Veteran
One of the reasons not every video camera has a global shutter? Some interesting points made by AC here.
Chris Young
https://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/
Chris Young
https://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/
A9III with GLOBAL shutter
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
Doug Jensen
Veteran
The main thing it lacks, compared to a cinema or ENG camera, is built-in ND filters. So a few months ago someone on the forum recommended the Freewell K2 magentic ND system. It was out of stock at the time, but eventually got mine a few weeks ago, plus a Freewell 1/2 grad ND that slides right into the system. It totally opened up the A1 to new possibilites. So, belated thanks to whoever recommended the Freewell.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ic_filter.html
Doug Jensen
Veteran
There are only two situations where I need to have a global shutter camera: Lightning and flash/strobes. For everything else, it is a non-issue and I never notice rolling shutter to be a problem on my non-global cameras. If I had to choose, I'd rather have the other benefits that Alister points out.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I think that was me unless someone else did as well. The Freewell is a great product. There are copycat versions being announced by other manufacturers regularly. I'm jealous that you have the updated model. I have 3 sets of the original model, whose lower strength ND filter goes from 2 to 5 stops rather than 1 to 5 stops. And I can't buy individual replacement filters. If I lose or break one of the filters, I'll have to buy a whole new set
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This is really interesting and majorly under-covered. So, the a9iii has a claimed "8 stops" of shake reduction via IBIS as opposed to the 5.5 stops claimed for the a7siii and the a1 and basically all Sony cameras from that generation.
My theory is that the a9iii should have much smoother stabilization when shooting video, possibly on par with Panasonic. But I haven't found any tests or comparisons of a9iii IBIS.
But I noticed yesterday that the Sony A7Cii, which is a recently-released model that uses the Sony a7iv sensor, claims 7 stops of IBIS. And I found a comparison video testing the IBIS of the a7cii against the IBIS of the a7c (which claims only 5.5 stops IBIS). The a7cii definitely looks smoother during a walking test. It still jerks the sensor a bit when it needs to readjust. But the footsteps are largely invisible whereas the a7c sways with each footstep. I would expect the a9iii to perform even better. IBIS test begins at 9:20 - https://youtu.be/WY9-PsJB0qc
If DLD were still posting (wherever he is, I hope he's doing well although I fear the worst), I'm sure he would say that now that Panasonic has been allowed to have good autofocus, Sony has been allowed to have good IBIS. That's one of the few conspiracy theories I subscribe to (along with the CIA assassinating JFK).
My theory is that the a9iii should have much smoother stabilization when shooting video, possibly on par with Panasonic. But I haven't found any tests or comparisons of a9iii IBIS.
But I noticed yesterday that the Sony A7Cii, which is a recently-released model that uses the Sony a7iv sensor, claims 7 stops of IBIS. And I found a comparison video testing the IBIS of the a7cii against the IBIS of the a7c (which claims only 5.5 stops IBIS). The a7cii definitely looks smoother during a walking test. It still jerks the sensor a bit when it needs to readjust. But the footsteps are largely invisible whereas the a7c sways with each footstep. I would expect the a9iii to perform even better. IBIS test begins at 9:20 - https://youtu.be/WY9-PsJB0qc
If DLD were still posting (wherever he is, I hope he's doing well although I fear the worst), I'm sure he would say that now that Panasonic has been allowed to have good autofocus, Sony has been allowed to have good IBIS. That's one of the few conspiracy theories I subscribe to (along with the CIA assassinating JFK).
Doug Jensen
Veteran
It probably was you, so, let me say thanks. I do like the filter system.
Sony Alpha 9 III Lab Test - Dynamic Range and Latitude | CineD
I still haven't seen any commentary on if A9III rivals Panasonic's IBIS, but this CineD article makes it a more attractive hybrid camera to me. 12 solid stops and several (recoverable?) distinct stops just below the noise floor. 9 stops latitude. Seems like you could underexpose and do post NR and the image could hold up very well. No weird color shifts/blotchy noise artifacts as a result.
Abe, you should watch The Octopus Murders on Netflix - considering the CIA/JFK comment
ahalpert
Major Contributor
That's so funny. After the CineD article dropped, I took another look at the camera, features, price. I still feel like an a7siii successor is more up my alley, but it was a very positive finding on the latitude front.
I was worried about the 4k120 quality because i dont think it's full readout/oversampled. But it seems like the DR measurement is the same as at 24 at least.
I'll check out Octopus Murders. I'm not generally a conspiracy person. But sometimes they make more sense than the official explanation. Like with Epstein's death...
The CIA didn't assassinate JFK. CIA operatives did train Cuban paramilitary exiles near New Orleans for a failed Anti-Castro, Bay of Pigs invasion, which left many of them disillusioned and bitter at Kennedy. A group of them called Alpha 66 likely were Oswald accomplices for an earlier, unsuccessful attempt on the life of Army General Edwin Walker in Dallas seven months prior to the assassination. Nothing was found to dispute Oswald as the lone Kennedy shooter in Dealy Plaza, but pretty solid findings Alpha 66 were accomplices in his plan of escape and harboring in the aftermath, foiled by Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit who was gunned down by Oswald, leading to the chase and his eventual capture in the Texas Theater. The FBI had been aware of the activities of Alpha 66 including the whereabouts of the secret hideout where Oswald was to be harbored, but ended their investigation at the death of Oswald instead of pursuing the role of others who were involved in the escape plans.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
What about the magic bullet? https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-lab...he-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/
And why are so many Kennedy investigation records still sealed?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I think that if there is clear evidence of a second shooter or other complexities to the shooting and if the investigators then suppressed that information or cast doubt on it, that implies both that Oswald was part of a conspiracy and also that his co-conspirators were probably governmental or else government officials wouldn't participate in a cover-up.
Also, coups are their thing.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
didn't you post another reply here? did the CIA take it down? has this thread been compromised? also, you have to tell me if you're a cop
my belief in the conspiracy hinges on the ballistic evidence. if my doubts were settled about that, I'd be less skeptical of the official line
regarding the Castro connection -- which is it? were Oswald's accomplices angry at JFK for not getting Castro? Or were they carrying out Castro's wishes to kill Kennedy?
If Oswald had accomplices, why weren't they hunted down and prosecuted? If Castro was involved in the plot, why didn't we declare war on Cuba? Those would both be an uncharacteristic lack of reaction
for Epstein, I don't even have questions about hard evidence. it's all circumstantial. but there are so many issues there. they didn't assign him a cellmate, but left excess linens in his cell that were supposedly used in his suicide. none of the security cameras watching his cell were working. both of the guards were supposedly asleep. meanwhile, a long list of the world's most powerful men wanted to shut him up.
Former CIA Operative Argues Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cuba Connections Went Deep
Ahead of the debut of his series, Baer spoke to TIME about why Oswald could have wanted to work with the Soviets and Cubans:
TIME: Why did you start looking into declassified government files on Lee Harvey Oswald?
BAER: I went through CIA files on it when I was working there, and there was Cuban-related stuff that didn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. When I got into the CIA, George H.W. Bush signed a release [of files] to me, and the archives came back and said they couldn’t find [the files I requested] anymore. Documents on it that shouldn’t have disappeared had disappeared. So that raised an alarm bell. But what really got me into it was meeting a defector from Cuba and one of the best agents the CIA has ever had. He said that on the 22nd of November 1963, four hours before the assassination, he was at an intelligence site in Havana when he got a call from Castro’s office, saying, “Turn all of your listening ability to high frequency communications out of Dallas because something’s going to happen there.”
What are the biggest revelations in the documentary?
Our hypothesis was that the Cubans knew [about Oswald’s plan] in advance. We have eyewitnesses putting Oswald with Cuban intelligence in Mexico City. And the last people that Oswald was hanging out with before the assassination were Alpha 66. I do believe that, after the assassination, Oswald was heading for a safe house that was owned by Alpha 66. Now, according to the FBI, CIA and Cuban intelligence sources we talked to, in November 1963, info about anything that Alpha 66 did in the U.S. was sent back to Cuba. So if, in fact, Oswald told Alpha 66 he was going to kill the president — and we do have witnesses saying he told them this — then Castro knew. And the borders were all shut down at that point, so our assumption is he was going to this Cuban safe house, where he had been before. Whether the Cuban dissidents of Alpha 66 knew he was coming or not, we don’t know.
But I do not think that [Castro] furthered the plot. I think the Cuban dissidents reporting back to Havana informed him that there’s this American, Lee Harvey Oswald, who says he’s going to kill the president. The fact that this stuff has never been looked into I find extraordinary.
Why didn’t they?
The Warren Commission did mention it, but they just said that it was a coincidence that he met with the KGB’s head of assassinations for North America in Mexico City. They didn’t look into how peculiar it is for an American, on a weekend, to meet with three KGB officers during their time off. The Warren Commission said he only went to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and met a local employee. But I believe his Cuban connections are much deeper than the Warren Commission shows. I think [the commission] just didn’t want to make that public. Johnson told the FBI that if they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Russians and the Cubans were involved in this, then they shouldn’t drag their suspicions into the public eye. But they sort of suspected it.
What was going on in Cold War history at this point that caused this controversy to play out the way that it did?
My assumption at the end is that Castro had every reason in the world to [want to] kill Kennedy. It’s risky if there are actual Cuban agents shooting the President, that’s Armageddon, nuclear war. But if you simply hear rumors of this, you don’t do anything. I’ve seen that happen in the CIA, where we heard stuff and didn’t pass the details to another government because it was a hostile government.
What about the Soviet side? Did you find any evidence that they encouraged Oswald?
There’s no evidence that the Russians took that risk, providing him money weapons or training, and I don’t think the Russians encouraged him. What we think is that they were like three times removed. I think they simply monitored Oswald as best they could. The Russians probably thought, “We can’t afford to deal with an American crazy person,” but Cuban intelligence deals with a lot of crazy people. The Cubans didn’t give money or guns to agents; they were just looking for fellow believers.
Why did Oswald want to defect to the Soviets in the first place?
I think he was at a dead end. He had a broken childhood, and he joined the Marines to become somebody. He wanted to become a historical figure, and he thought he deserved to be one. He needed some sort of anchor to his life and that thing in 1959 was communism. When he gets there [to the Soviet Union], they don’t want him at first. And when they have to accept him after he attempts suicide, they send them to Minsk. It’s sort of the end of the earth. He’s a factory worker, not what he expected at all, so he comes back. That’s the context of the whole series, what was going through his mind at each one of these steps.
Are there any unanswered questions you still have or now have after doing the documentary?
I’d look for further confirmation that Cubans knew about this to confirm our thesis. We don’t know exactly what the Cubans told him in Mexico City — was it to go back to Louisiana and Dallas and tell us what Cuban dissidents there were doing? And what did Oswald mean when he said he was a “patsy” when he was being questioned by the Dallas police? A patsy for whom?
I know the general relationship was that Russians and Cubans shared everything in those days. So did this get back to Moscow? I don’t know, I don’t have the evidence. Do I suspect it did? Yes. It’s sort of like if an American went to Syria, spent a month with the Islamic State, and came back and assassinates the President. Would anyone call him a lone wolf? That’s what happened with Kennedy.
Ahead of the debut of his series, Baer spoke to TIME about why Oswald could have wanted to work with the Soviets and Cubans:
TIME: Why did you start looking into declassified government files on Lee Harvey Oswald?
BAER: I went through CIA files on it when I was working there, and there was Cuban-related stuff that didn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. When I got into the CIA, George H.W. Bush signed a release [of files] to me, and the archives came back and said they couldn’t find [the files I requested] anymore. Documents on it that shouldn’t have disappeared had disappeared. So that raised an alarm bell. But what really got me into it was meeting a defector from Cuba and one of the best agents the CIA has ever had. He said that on the 22nd of November 1963, four hours before the assassination, he was at an intelligence site in Havana when he got a call from Castro’s office, saying, “Turn all of your listening ability to high frequency communications out of Dallas because something’s going to happen there.”
What are the biggest revelations in the documentary?
Our hypothesis was that the Cubans knew [about Oswald’s plan] in advance. We have eyewitnesses putting Oswald with Cuban intelligence in Mexico City. And the last people that Oswald was hanging out with before the assassination were Alpha 66. I do believe that, after the assassination, Oswald was heading for a safe house that was owned by Alpha 66. Now, according to the FBI, CIA and Cuban intelligence sources we talked to, in November 1963, info about anything that Alpha 66 did in the U.S. was sent back to Cuba. So if, in fact, Oswald told Alpha 66 he was going to kill the president — and we do have witnesses saying he told them this — then Castro knew. And the borders were all shut down at that point, so our assumption is he was going to this Cuban safe house, where he had been before. Whether the Cuban dissidents of Alpha 66 knew he was coming or not, we don’t know.
But I do not think that [Castro] furthered the plot. I think the Cuban dissidents reporting back to Havana informed him that there’s this American, Lee Harvey Oswald, who says he’s going to kill the president. The fact that this stuff has never been looked into I find extraordinary.
Why didn’t they?
The Warren Commission did mention it, but they just said that it was a coincidence that he met with the KGB’s head of assassinations for North America in Mexico City. They didn’t look into how peculiar it is for an American, on a weekend, to meet with three KGB officers during their time off. The Warren Commission said he only went to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and met a local employee. But I believe his Cuban connections are much deeper than the Warren Commission shows. I think [the commission] just didn’t want to make that public. Johnson told the FBI that if they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Russians and the Cubans were involved in this, then they shouldn’t drag their suspicions into the public eye. But they sort of suspected it.
What was going on in Cold War history at this point that caused this controversy to play out the way that it did?
My assumption at the end is that Castro had every reason in the world to [want to] kill Kennedy. It’s risky if there are actual Cuban agents shooting the President, that’s Armageddon, nuclear war. But if you simply hear rumors of this, you don’t do anything. I’ve seen that happen in the CIA, where we heard stuff and didn’t pass the details to another government because it was a hostile government.
What about the Soviet side? Did you find any evidence that they encouraged Oswald?
There’s no evidence that the Russians took that risk, providing him money weapons or training, and I don’t think the Russians encouraged him. What we think is that they were like three times removed. I think they simply monitored Oswald as best they could. The Russians probably thought, “We can’t afford to deal with an American crazy person,” but Cuban intelligence deals with a lot of crazy people. The Cubans didn’t give money or guns to agents; they were just looking for fellow believers.
Why did Oswald want to defect to the Soviets in the first place?
I think he was at a dead end. He had a broken childhood, and he joined the Marines to become somebody. He wanted to become a historical figure, and he thought he deserved to be one. He needed some sort of anchor to his life and that thing in 1959 was communism. When he gets there [to the Soviet Union], they don’t want him at first. And when they have to accept him after he attempts suicide, they send them to Minsk. It’s sort of the end of the earth. He’s a factory worker, not what he expected at all, so he comes back. That’s the context of the whole series, what was going through his mind at each one of these steps.
Are there any unanswered questions you still have or now have after doing the documentary?
I’d look for further confirmation that Cubans knew about this to confirm our thesis. We don’t know exactly what the Cubans told him in Mexico City — was it to go back to Louisiana and Dallas and tell us what Cuban dissidents there were doing? And what did Oswald mean when he said he was a “patsy” when he was being questioned by the Dallas police? A patsy for whom?
I know the general relationship was that Russians and Cubans shared everything in those days. So did this get back to Moscow? I don’t know, I don’t have the evidence. Do I suspect it did? Yes. It’s sort of like if an American went to Syria, spent a month with the Islamic State, and came back and assassinates the President. Would anyone call him a lone wolf? That’s what happened with Kennedy.
In 1960 Eisenhower ordered the CIA to make plans to overthrow the Castro government. The plan required air and sea assets of the AF and Navy to support exiled Cubans on the ground. In 1961 JFK approved the plan, which included the invasion force of expats, U.S. air and sea support. But when reports of the land invasion going badly became known, JFK cancelled the operation, the air and sea assets were not provided and the Cuban expats were badly defeated by Castro. A grudge ensued that had existed prior, that U.S. was not supportive of Cuba.
Castro had double agents inside Alpha66 and knew of their moves. The CIA had created several secret training bases to train anti-Castro operatives. This is where Oswald was thought to have received some of his training but even if he didn't he had already been trained by the U.S. Marines and carried a sniper ranking of "Marksman." Regardless, his connections with Alpha66 are strongly suspected by Baer as accomplices to Oswald's escape plan. Some of the people from that period are still alive, including the lady who rented Oswald at the rooming house in Dallas, where she observed him on day of assassination having a phone conversation in "Spanish" after the assassination, but before he was known to be the suspect. His movements after the assassination were on the bus, he left the rooming house whereupon he had the encounter with the Dallas policeman that he killed, setting loose the chain of events ultimately leading to his capture, not for killing President but for killing the policeman. The connection to the JFK shooting came after.
If it happened today, the response would have been different. In those times, there were not the instant communications. As far as I know, the assassinations of Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley, were not investigated for conspiracies or accomplices either.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
"Eight conspirators were tried by a military commission for Abraham Lincoln's murder. David Herold, Lewis Powell, George Atzerodt, and Mary Surratt were found guilty and hanged, while Samuel A. Mudd, Michael O'Laughlen, and Samuel Arnold were sentenced to life imprisonment. Edman Spangler received a six-year sentence."
https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-Abraham-Lincoln
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The CIA blaming Castro for JFK's assassination:
"Major Strasser has been shot! Round up the usual suspects."
cyvideo
Veteran
Yes, sort of expected that. The fact that Sony have telegraphed a firmware update roadmap that starts next year for the FX6 sort of made me think no new FX6 II in the near future. I doubt we will see an updated FX9 as the whole chipset base of that camera shares more in common with the older FS7 ASICs and FPGs. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see another 'video' camera model sharing the A9III's Global shutter sensor. Much like the F55 differentiated itself from the FS7 / F5 sensor.
Though at patch range of medium at 11.4 stops of dynamic range at SNR 2 in FF mode, that 9III global shutter is one whole stop behind the A7SIII and a good 1.5 stops behind its lowly stablemate the A7IV. That's a massive trade-off in dynamic range, just massive. With a rolling shutter of 8.7 and a DR of 12.4 unless there is some amazing magic visually out of that 9III sensor, I would take the A7SIII first every day, especially if 4K was my top criteria. Though, the 9III sensor does offer very good latitude at around 9 stops, which up there with some of the best sensors around.
I need dynamic range in almost every shoot I do, almost without exception. Not rolling shutter performance, which hasn't affected 95% of the material I've shot since we went digital.
Though for controlled film situations where lighting is controlled to fit the DR of the camera being used, a lower DR is totally acceptable. But for the shooter who has to be mobile and work with whatever lighting ranges he is going to land in, DR is king. Well for me, it is, as I just find it easier to pull well exposed images with more DR on hand.
Chris Young