Other: Is Your Sony FX6 Soft?

Andy9 said:
""Thicker" is one of the terms that has been used over the years to ambiguously mean better-looking without being able to explain why."

Over a decade ago I started shooting and editing raw photos. The first time I opened a raw file and played around with it was a revelation. It looked amazing! And suddenly I could make major colour and exposure adjustments with everything still looking 'right'. After half an hour I realised that I wasn't in raw mode. I'd been playing around with a jpeg.
Click to expand...

I actually had to stifle a laugh at this (it's late where I am and my beagles are sleeping).

What a great story. Thank you.
 
This thick... the "I only need 1080p on YouTube" kind of thick.

[Great song they chose too.]

 
broughtonfilm said:
Meanwhile... some pretty nice images shot on FX6 here and a comparison with Alexa at the end of the video. Looks plenty thick to me and this is just XAVC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxfUNRv_yLk
Click to expand...

broughtonfilm, thanks for posting. That's great footage showing what the FX6 can do in the right hands. So much garbage on the net but then something like that comes along. And about the Alexa showreel, wow, they really like saturated images. I guess each to their own.
 
300mbps XAVC from the FX9 and FX6 seems to be really close to indistinguishable in most circumstances. Which I suspect has to be a limitation of the recording codec. XAVC Class 300 does seem to be quite “thin” as far as video files go.

I have a suspicion that, if you’re externally recording raw or prores from the FX9, the benefits of its 6k sensor will be more readily apparent.

It’s a real shame the FX6 and FX9 don’t have XAVC Class 480, that seems to be bitrate required for XAVC (as a codec) to pull level with Prores 4:2:2 for quality.
 
stewhem said:
And about the Alexa showreel, wow, they really like saturated images. I guess each to their own.
Click to expand...

This is how blockbusters have looked for the last decade, lol.

Totally do not need to like it at all, but you just sound surprised and like you've never seen something like this before.
 
Hi Norbro. Not surprised and yes, I have seen a "blockbuster" once or twice, though to be honest I find them pretty shallow as a genre. Take away people shooting other people, or blowing them up or causing their cars to do multiple somersaults in a crowded city and what have you got? Not a lot usually. And my point was, if I was making one, that that particular showreel was heavily saturated for my tastes, which is why I added "to each their own". There are dozens, actually hundreds of films shot on Arris that are not so saturated and that is more to my taste. But I'm really quite relaxed if people don't agree with me. It'd be pretty boring if we all liked the same stuff, no?
 
As soon as I see CG I'm viscerally not impressed by the effect because its obviously phony so how can you get excited by it. I don't get it at all. Rather read a comic book, at least there a human being drew it and i feel the artists presence. Thought Avatar was boring.
 
Please answer the question. Is your fx6 soft or not! Or is your lens soft. This question is killing me. (I have an FX7 and more is better so I am not that worried.)
 
To me it's just silly to put an Arri 65 demo reel consisting entirely of clips from multimillion dollar productions against an FX6 video shot casually by someone (as if just the large format wasn't enough, the lenses, lighting, all the crew and hundreds of hours of high end post production did not matter either).
 
I showcased the ARRI reel to provide an understanding of what "thick" may mean when the context of the discussion changed; not to disparage the FX6 or its image, which I shared that I thought it was sharp on the first page of this thread.

And I also created post #58 in advance to set the tone of my general thoughts.
 
Even the FX3...all of these new Sony cameras are the best cameras Sony has ever had for less than $10K.

 
Just skimming through...one error I came across is a mention of the FX9 and Venice sharing the same sensor.

Supposedly the FX9 is 35.7 x 18.8 mm, so that appears and continues to be a misconception (if FX9's sensor size is true on random websites, which would also make it the same size as the FX6 based on what they are saying).
 
To the best of my knowledge, these are the sensor specs for both the Venice and the FX9 respectively: Venice 36.2 x 24.1 mm (Full-Frame) FX9 35.7 x 18.8 mm (Full-Frame). Whereas I believe the Sony A7SIII sensor, supposedly the same as used in the FX6 has the dimensions of 35.6 x 23.8 mm (Full-Frame).

Chris Young
 
As far as sharpness goes I see little difference to my FS7 in real use in sharpness. I don't like overly sharp footage from the camera and think it's much better to add some sharpness sparkle in post if needed.
 
I suppose, you shot slog3/slog3.cine in Cine EI?

Did you use the s709 monitor LUT from Sony for grading?

If so, just for the fun of it, try the ACES color management.

I did this, because I had a hunch similar like you do, about the image and sharpness of my FX9 (lens is ZEISS CP.3 35mm).

A LUT is always stepped, and ACES does not use LUTs. The difference was huge in my case.
Much sharper than with the s709 LUT.

Best regards
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top