Other: Is Your Sony FX6 Soft?

Ben Scott said:
You're having an argument with someone that isn't arguing with you or disagreeing with you. But if you want to be an ass, go ahead.
Click to expand...
I'm not having an argument with anyone. I'm telling someone who thinks they are clever or witty how it is. It is their choice what to do with that information.
 
Doug, don’t you have both cameras? Or just the 6? I see you asking everyone else who clearly doesn’t care enough, to do these tests. Can you do the tests and put up the examples? I have access to the cams and lenses, but don’t have the time or the care to do that test.
 
Ben Scott said:
Man I bet you have a T-shirt made up with that on somewhere.

Enjoy your evening. I'll just go back to my one thread.
Click to expand...

If you want to start a blog and tell us all what you think without any disucssion or questions, please do so. But in a forum you should expect to be challenged when you've said something other people disagree with or would like to have some clarification on. That's the way a dissussion works. Time and time again you bristle when you think you can just post something and walk away without some questions being asked or other pushback to what you have said. If you feel my testing criteria is flawed for the FX6 and FX9, please explain how you'd do it. To say that I'm "anal" because I want to elimnate variables tells us something about you, but it's not really helpful to the discussion.
 
Newsguy said:
Doug, don’t you have both cameras? Or just the 6? I see you asking everyone else who clearly doesn’t care enough, to do these tests. Can you do the tests and put up the examples? I have access to the cams and lenses, but don’t have the time or the care to do that test.
Click to expand...

I've got an FX6 but I only had a demo FX9 for a few days when it first came out. I have my opinions about the differences between the cameras, but I keep them to myself because I have never had the two cameras side by side to compare them. If someone seriously wanted to send me an FX9 (with matching lenses) and also pay for shipping I'd be happy to donate my time to compare the two cameras as scientfically as possible. And I wouldn't waste time shooting charts, I'd get them out in the field on real stuff. But I doubt is it really worth anyone's money to actually do it.
 
Doug Jensen said:
If you want to start a blog and tell us all what you think without any disucssion or questions, please do so. But in a forum you should expect to be challenged when you've said something other people disagree with or would like to have some clarification on. That's the way a dissussion works. Time and time again you bristle when you think you can just post something and walk away without some questions being asked or other pushback to what you have said. If you feel my testing criteria is flawed for the FX6 and FX9, please explain how you'd do it. To say that I'm "anal" because I want to elimnate variables tells us something about you, but it's not really helpful to the discussion.
Click to expand...

I didn't disagree with your testing criteria. It is completely spot on.
I didn't say you were anal.

I was neither talking to or about you personally. I made a general point about testing that it can be an endless rabbit hole.


Replace the word 'you' with 'one' if that helps make it clearer.


Christ on a bike....
 
I haven't read all through this thread and have no idea what you guys are arguing about. I will only contribute that I did experience an FS7 that was soft for no reason we could figure out. We tested side by side with another FS7 and we used the same settings and lenses and went through them again and again. One of them - brand new - was unaccountably soft. My friend sent it back to Sony who of course said it was fine, but he demanded a replacement and that camera was fine. never figured out the problem.

By the way if I was comparing 2 cameras for sharpness I wouldn't use Slog. Just go Std gamma with the same settings. Simpler unless someone (Doug?) has a good reason to prefer Slog which I would be open to hearing.

Again without reading everything though I do tend to agree with Doug . Comparing 2 cameras is pretty useless unless you really have them next to each other with the same lens, lighting settings, blah blah blah. I laugh when people complain they haven't seen anything "cinematic" from one camera or another based on a bunch of random youtube videos .
 
Last edited:
By the way if I was comparing 2 cameras for sharpness I wouldn't use Slog. Just go Std gamma with the same settings. Simpler unless someone (Doug?) has a good reason to prefer Slog which I would be open to hearing.


There is the detail (?) circuit which should be off with Slog and 0-x with STD. Im not clear when that is actually "off" or if "0" is the same as "off". Sharpening should not be baked in in 'proper' raw shooting but added in post. This is why one should or should not test in Slog or STD

THe concept 'shoud' be that Slog/raw need sharpening in post while STD does not.

Surely they'd both be sharper without an OLPF (but more susceptible to moire)

Thats exactly how it works with RGB sensors which are blind to R and G and B over 2/3 (approximately) of thier surface.. ie the blus pixels can only see blue etc

This means that miree will occur at some point with any RGB sensor. The OPLF blurs the image until this 'doesnt' happen

The 'only' way to have a sensor that doesnt moiree without an OPLF would be a 3chip camera with a beam splitter (2/3 cams?)
 
LennyLevy said:
By the way if I was comparing 2 cameras for sharpness I wouldn't use Slog. Just go Std gamma with the same settings. Simpler unless someone (Doug?) has a good reason to prefer Slog which I would be open to hearing.
Click to expand...

If sharpness is all that matters, then STD gamma might be okay. But I thought this discussion had evolved to being more about the overall look and image quality of the FX6 and FX9? When I made the offer to do some testing if someone loaned me an FX9, that's what I was intending to look at -- the overall image quality. Anyone shooting with one of the STD gammas has already given up on getting the best performance, so what difference does it make which camera looks better?

Personally, I don't care how the cameras compare in CUSTOM mode because I already know the FX9 is going to beat the pants off the FX6 in that area. The FX9 has roughly 3x more paint menus with far more choices for the primary settings that matter most. If you painted the FX9 to look its best in a wide range of shooting situations (indoors, outdoors, sunny, low-light, human faces, etc.) there is no way you could match it with the FX6. I'm not saying you couldn't match the two cameras, but only if you dumbed down the FX9 and didn't allow it to perform at its best.

The one exception to what I just said about the CUSTOM shooting mode might be to compare the two cameras with S-Cinetone. I think that would be interesting to see how they compare with the same exposure, WB, etc. while running S-Cinetone. But once again, the resuls of that testing wouldn't interest me too much because S-Cinetone is also a dumbing down of the cameras and neither one will be performing at their best unelss all the testing is pretty much limited to only human faces in subdued/controlled lighting.

On the other hand, comparing the cameras while running S-LOG3 in the CINE EI mode should really level the playing field. You can come very close to having the exact same settings on both cameras, so any differences in image quality that remain can be attributed to the camera itself. It would also allow indvidual people the ability to grade the raw footage to their own taste and then make their evaluation as to which one was easier/better to work with. Afterall, it is the final grade that matters most.
 
Last edited:
Big images from a small cam.

Love 16-35mm on a full-frame sensor.

Using it on the wider end has what is becoming what I call the new Netflix look, the new Hollywood look.

 
NorBro said:
Big images from a small cam.

Love 16-35mm on a full-frame sensor.

Using it on the wider end has what is becoming what I call the new Netflix look, the new Hollywood look.

Click to expand...

I still feel the A7s3 and Fx6 are a stop behind the Gemini/Venice/Arri cameras. Same goes for the Komodo. C500mk2 is close, maybe a half stop behind, behind, but also does that shitty desaturated highlights and the FPN in the shadows shows up a fraction of a stop too early. but yeah, not really ready to stay in the past. Alexa has been king for 11 years now. ready to move on.
 
NorBro said:
I'm about one bid away from a classic. LOL
Click to expand...

do it


edit: it's probably more subtle than most would like to admit, but the Alexa is sort of the baseline. I don't think any digital camera these days should be worse than Alexa.


Vernice and Gemini and in other ways the Monstro do offer some benefits over Alexa, and in that sense they are equals, but I still wish that in the 15+ years of "film is dead" someone would hurry the F up and do a good 4K digital camera. Gemini, Venice, and Mini LF are great, but expensive as all get out.
 
Fx8
Komodo
Black magic


they all get close. but they still fail in the basic needs of "cinema"


F35 is on an island, since they got a lot right with that camera, the only thing was dynamic range was stuck at 12 stops more or less.

the uncanny valley for me is the difference between the C500mk2 and the Red Gemini. Anything below the Gemini is stupid as an "A cam". justo reason to shot a film with anything less, because the gemini is so freakin cheap to rent. the Venice is a touch better and has the 1 stop internal ND's. The Alexa is 2K, and the Mini LF is $80K. So, at the end of the day, a Red Gemini rents for the same price as a Sony Fx6, so why not just rent a Gemini and be done with it. or buy an Fx6 and rent.

if brute image quality matters, the Alexa classic is the best deal right now.
 
I know I'm in the minority saying this, but it all looks underexposed and somewhat murky to me with muted colors and flat highlights. Yeah, I get this is one of today's most popular "looks" for Youtube, but I don't buy into it for real work. I can't think of a single feature film or television show that I admire that looks like this. Is there actually a demand for this look outside of indy films and endless videos of pretty girls prancing around in slow-mo? Am I dinosaur? Maybe.
 
I'm with you Doug, ASside from being jealous of how gorgeous everyone's girlfriends seem to be its been old for awhile. I think for gender balance its about time we got some dreamy slow mo videos showing overweight guys with beards in muscle shirts.

Afterthought - I should have said in my post originally : No slur intended to your video NorBro. Its very lovely.
 
Last edited:
The combo FX6 + 16-35 (or Sigma 14-24) looks far better than all those crappy films with cheapo plastic anamorphic lenses :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top