Thanks .. sorry just saw your post sir
FS7: New Sony PXW-FX9 with venice features and 6k full frame
- Thread starter J.Brown
- Start date
Thanks .. sorry just saw your post sir
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Stunning footage!
G
Guest
Guest
Someone down voted me recognizing you on youtube! Haha
starcentral
Veteran
x-rite color chart and DaVinci resolve to match. one time and you can save it as a power grade or even export to LUT. Matching cameras really not so much an issue anymore. Same color space helps, but again, its a thing of the past.
JPNola
Veteran
I don’t see how anyone could have any complaint about those colors / skin-tones / whatever. That looks fantastic to my eye.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I also posted that one last month in the other thread, and I think it's by far the most cinematic piece that I have seen out of the FX9.
Any displeasure for colors or skin-tones would be a scientific assessment regarding what's technically correct (or should be), but the bottom line is that is an incredible example of what the camera can provide.
Any displeasure for colors or skin-tones would be a scientific assessment regarding what's technically correct (or should be), but the bottom line is that is an incredible example of what the camera can provide.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
I know, right? They must have been like "HOW DARE YOU RECOGNIZE HIM?!?!" lol
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I assume this was Slog3.Cine with some good CC and grade or is it possible this was S-Cinetone?
C500-2 and FX9 exposure range (cinematography.net)
C500-2 and FX9 exposure range (cinematography.net)
"The dynamic range of these cameras is pretty much identical, the C500-2 may have 1/4 of a stop more shadow response but it's too small to call. Both cameras are good from +3.5 to -2 stops."
I would say that FX9 has better color rendition.
https://cinematography.net/LED-Camera/C500-2-and-FX9-exposure-range.html
C500-2 and FX9 exposure range (cinematography.net)
"The dynamic range of these cameras is pretty much identical, the C500-2 may have 1/4 of a stop more shadow response but it's too small to call. Both cameras are good from +3.5 to -2 stops."
I would say that FX9 has better color rendition.
https://cinematography.net/LED-Camera/C500-2-and-FX9-exposure-range.html
G
Guest
Guest
cyvideo
Veteran
Boredom here! Non stop rain and and I thought what the heck let's have a look.
I would agree with the comment that the Sony biases towards green, a common Sony bias. Same has been said of the Venice. That's why there are -Green 1 and -Green 2 LUT sets floating around for the Sonys. Having downloaded both files and done a lot of wipe comparisons at different exposure levels it's fairly obvious. There again on the CamBelles chart the blue skies and white/grey clouds have a very definite bias towards magenta on the Canon. The Canon is warmer for sure going by these examples. You can even see it on this page if you drag the search bars on both videos and pause them both on ZERO. Zoom in on the browser if you need a closer look and don't want to go to the trouble of downloading the files. White balancing them helps bring them closer. On the vectors the Sony pushes towards Green/Yellow and the Canon pushes towards Red/Magenta. There again Canon have always had their own way of working towards the red end, many feel it's more flattering and part of Canon's stock OOC skin tone look reputation. With a bit of finessing both quite easily cross matched on wipes. Could work with either of them quite easily. Boyle doesn't mention on CML if the Canon was RAW or encoded 709. I hope it was the 709 encoded output because if you have to go through a RAW workflow to get to these very similar results I see little benefit in working with RAW on this camera. At least for general work... that would be my general observation. Give me either one and I'll be happy
Chris Young
To add to what Chris said about the FX9 being a tad green, and the C500II bias towards magenta. As exposure lessens, the FX9 shifts noticeably greener, and the C500 stays largely neutral.
Geoff says the cameras were shot with a "preset" but doesn't go beyond that. The results would indicate possibly a WideDR preset, as I'm getting nearly 5 stops highlights using Log or Raw on the C500. But other notes would indicate its an aces workflow, so that should be raw, or at the minimum, Log.
He also doesn't mention whether this is full frame or s35 (the primary test group this year revolves around lighting and for that test, they used s35 for all cameras). Typically, he posts raw images at some point, but he missed the tests due to surgery and has said he will be getting around to delivering results as he's able...so some things might not come as usual.
here's all the exposures lined up for direct comparison.
G
Guest
Guest
Very cool edit!
I felt that wideDR hit almost a stop in the highlights? Are you finding that log raw goes a little further than wideDR shows?
I like how the Sony Fx9 fades to blow out in the highlights more gently. The trade off is noise starting just a little earlier in the shadows. Like the Venice, you start seeing faint noise in the shadows at -1 stop under. at -2 that noise gets tasteful, and then by -3, it is now at the threshold of unusable. But that highlight roll off is very very nice. I've never seen that finesse in a mid tier camera. Bravo!
Last edited:
I'll have to look at it again...to me it seems like the FX9 clips skin tones just a tad earlier than the C500 (at +4 stops the control patch clips on both cameras, and the C500 skin looks good, the pale girl on the FX9 just starts to clip), and that the saturated colors start clipping, unevenly, quite a bit earlier as well on the FX9..not sure how that would be a good thing..sort of the opposite of a roll off...but maybe I'm just not looking at what you're seeing.
Although I think it's what we should expect from these cameras, I was really surprised at how little difference there was between them on this one...still wondering what that "preset" was, because that could factor into what we're seeing...a lot.
"...I felt that wideDR hit almost a stop in the highlights? Are you finding that log raw goes a little further than wideDR shows? "
Just looking at canon's curves...Wide DR matches Rec709 at the bottom, and then splits the difference between CLog and "normal1 (rec709) through the mids, and then rolls off the highlight detail (retaining the same Highlight stops as original CLog). So that would mean WideDR has a stop or so less in the highlights than the Raw, which is Clog2. I haven't tested this, but usually canon's published curves are good illustrations of what their gamma's do.
Grug
Veteran
A couple of points to consider. Both cameras have been exposed for 400ISO, with the grey card used to set a consistent exposure across the test. And the C500ii has been exposed half a stop darker than the FX9 to achieve that.
G
Guest
Guest
I was speaking from my personal experience. Sorry i didn’t specify that. I don’t take CML shoot outs too biblical. They tend to seek out a common baseline, and i would never shoot an Alexa the same way i’d shoot a Gemini, F35, or a A7sii etc. and yet all of those cameras i like.
In my personal testing, Sony s-cinetone rolled off the highlights better than wide dr. I believe, in part that wide dr is not using that last stop in the highlights, and may be clipping early on the C500ii, vs say log. But i haven’t been able to get back to the footage to double check that.
G
Guest
Guest
Thanks, would be interested if we come to the same observations. I may end up making a LUT for the C500ii. I am not the biggest fan of wideDR. Even on the C100, i preferred Clog. But for a manufacturer desing picture style, it is one of the better ones.