FS7: New Sony PXW-FX9 with venice features and 6k full frame

Grug said:
Surely that's the beauty (and primary function) of objective testing? Taking subjective assessments out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Yes. Well - all that matters at the end of the day is how the pictures look, not what the computer says. But obviously the two are related.

But such a step backward in DR when we would expect it to go forward? Why why why?

And in the grander scheme of things, I wonder what it says about Sony's engineering approach and if they will continue to lag. Or maybe everybody keeps getting better and soon enough any performance disparity will be immaterial because both brands surpass what is required of them
 
ahalpert said:
Yes. Well - all that matters at the end of the day is how the pictures look, not what the computer says. But obviously the two are related.
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why the hysteria over this stuff is so ridiculous. Which sensor has the highest dynamic range on the market in 2020? Arri's AlevIII... from 2010.

How much progress has been made in overall dynamic range since cheaper cameras like Sony's $16,000 F3 got up to 12.5 stops in 2012? About a stop at best. Which is why the performance of all of the cameras these days is so close as for it to make little difference overall. Sony's Venice seems to be the only camera that's really managed to get within firing range of the Alexa.

They all offer very wide dynamic range these days, enough to make lighting most situations pretty easy - and that matters so much more than precisely how their respective images fall off the cliff at the extremities of exposure.

ahalpert said:
But such a step backward in DR when we would expect it to go forward? Why why why?

And in the grander scheme of things, I wonder what it says about Sony's engineering approach and if they will continue to lag. Or maybe everybody keeps getting better and soon enough any performance disparity will be immaterial because both brands surpass what is required of them
Click to expand...

Have you heard of a single person who's been disappointed in the image quality or dynamic range that they're getting out of the FX9? I certainly haven't. I've heard complaints about rolling shutter and frame rate limitations, but not a word against the general image quality or exposure range of the camera.

I think that (more than anything) speaks to why we should ignore the "mine's bigger than yours" chart-waving that goes on online, and focus on the things that do matter.

The FX9 shares essentially the same pixel pitch as the FS7, so it shouldn't be all that surprising to people, that has similar hard limits to the older camera. What matters is that does more within those limits. To me, that's progress.
 
Other than the codec seeming weaker, the Fx9 appears to go toe to toe with the C500ii in DR.

S-cinetone is noticeably less DR than Slog.

1. Arri Alexa Mini LF
2. Canon Eos C500mII
3. Red Monstro
4. Sigma FP
5. Sony FX9 (S-Cinetone)
6. Sony FX9 (S-Log3)
7. Sony Venice
8. Red Gemini
9. Red Helium

49493112746_fbb7f0acf5_c.jpg

49492613598_643908f73d_c.jpg


original video with an HQ download:

https://vimeo.com/388805758
 
Thanks, James. There was also this ACS evaluation published in newsshooter where they tested the FX9 against the FS7 and found:

"In the committees opinion, the FX9 probably has a about a stop to a stop and a half advantage over the FS7 in the shadows."

Obviously, their over/under test is more of a subjective evaluation than CineD's Xyla test. But I feel like something is amiss with CineD's findings.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/01/02/acs-technical-committee-evaluation-of-the-sony-fx9/
 
“Cinetone less Dr than Slog”
“More DR in the shadows”

Maybe people need to go to college before worrying about the value of upgrading from a gh2
 
morgan_moore said:
“Cinetone less Dr than Slog”
“More DR in the shadows”

Maybe people need to go to college before worrying about the value of upgrading from a gh2
Click to expand...

you might have to explain this one. haha, not following the logic.
 
James0b57 said:
you might have to explain this one. haha, not following the logic.
Click to expand...

THis is basic failing of understanding digital cameras 123.

“Cinetone less Dr than Slog”

Of course it bloody has. Any profile that looks OK has more colour and contrast than log. More contrast = less DR.

“More DR in the shadows”

Open the iris and you have more DR in the shadows and less in the highlights. Any tester who does not understand this is er not qualified to test.

Anyone not across these basics could save some cash and stick with a Gh2 or FS100.
 
morgan_moore said:
THis is basic failing of understanding digital cameras 123.

“Cinetone less Dr than Slog”

Of course it bloody has. Any profile that looks OK has more colour and contrast than log. More contrast = less DR.

“More DR in the shadows”

Open the iris and you have more DR in the shadows and less in the highlights. Any tester who does not understand this is er not qualified to test.

Anyone not across these basics could save some cash and stick with a Gh2 or FS100.
Click to expand...

Ah! you're one of those.

I am sorry, but cameras are designed with tone curves, and even log profiles have a curve built in.

Sure, technically speaking it is all relative, but in actual use, it is completely valid to say things like "an extra stop in the shadows".

Cinetone does not have less DR because of an S-curve, it has less because they don't fully utilize the potential DR for roll-off. Every person who has graded log knows that they can used most or all of the available image data in the roll-off, and just keep the meat of the contrast in the midtones. Canon's wide DR also cuts off at a certain point. They could be using more, but they don't. And while Arri also seems to cut off earlier in their Rec709 profile, they still use quite a bit more DR in their rec709 image style and it looks better than most other rec709 profiles.
 
Grug said:
Agreed, which is why the hysteria over this stuff is so ridiculous. Which sensor has the highest dynamic range on the market in 2020? Arri's AlevIII... from 2010.

How much progress has been made in overall dynamic range since cheaper cameras like Sony's $16,000 F3 got up to 12.5 stops in 2012? About a stop at best. Which is why the performance of all of the cameras these days is so close as for it to make little difference overall. Sony's Venice seems to be the only camera that's really managed to get within firing range of the Alexa.

They all offer very wide dynamic range these days, enough to make lighting most situations pretty easy - and that matters so much more than precisely how their respective images fall off the cliff at the extremities of exposure.



Have you heard of a single person who's been disappointed in the image quality or dynamic range that they're getting out of the FX9? I certainly haven't. I've heard complaints about rolling shutter and frame rate limitations, but not a word against the general image quality or exposure range of the camera.

I think that (more than anything) speaks to why we should ignore the "mine's bigger than yours" chart-waving that goes on online, and focus on the things that do matter.

The FX9 shares essentially the same pixel pitch as the FS7, so it shouldn't be all that surprising to people, that has similar hard limits to the older camera. What matters is that does more within those limits. To me, that's progress.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it is a case of price-point. That is, the cost of putting greater DR into the camera drives the price up to where they are no longer able to hit the sweet-spot target they wanted. it would drive the cost up to where they were no longer undercutting the price of the C500mkiii. Putting the FX9 more into the $14k range. They weighed how much DR is important to their target consumer, and decided it isn't that important for their target consumer. Corporate video. Low budget commercials. Reality-tv.

I think Sony is geared towards how they can dominate a market sector. With the FX9 they wanted a repeat, in the FF market, of what the Fs7 did. It creamed the C300mkii in sales. And they wanted the FX9 to do the same to the c500mkiii.

They sacrificed some DR to be able to repeat the price-point strategy that was so successful with the Fs7.

Most are not going to spend 30% more just to get, what? a stop and a half more DR? a stop, in real world application?
 
JPNola said:
I wonder if it is a case of price-point. That is, the cost of putting greater DR into the camera drives the price up to where they are no longer able to hit the sweet-spot target they wanted. it would drive the cost up to where they were no longer undercutting the price of the C500mkiii. Putting the FX9 more into the $14k range. They weighed how much DR is important to their target consumer, and decided it isn't that important for their target consumer. Corporate video. Low budget commercials. Reality-tv.

I think Sony is geared towards how they can dominate a market sector. With the FX9 they wanted a repeat, in the FF market, of what the Fs7 did. It creamed the C300mkii in sales. And they wanted the FX9 to do the same to the c500mkiii.

They sacrificed some DR to be able to repeat the price-point strategy that was so successful with the Fs7.

Most are not going to spend 30% more just to get, what? a stop and a half more DR? a stop, in real world application?
Click to expand...

I think it's absolutely a case of price-point. Price-point vs feature-set - and on that front, the FX9 seems plenty appealing to most people who have been living in an FS7 world. It does everything the FS7 can, with some really tasty extras (genuinely usable AF, full-frame shallow DoF, "better" 4k and gorgeous colours).

There are some distinct compromises that come with those benefits (which is why the camera holds no real appeal to me personally) but for the section of the market that they're targeting, it seems to be doing just fine.

I think the interesting thing now, is that the cameras are already so good, I don't think many producers care (as much as they used to) what camera is being used - if everything can deliver results that are up to par (which FS7s, F5s, F55s etc. all still very much do) then how motivated are they going to be to pay more for a few bells and whistles?

It'll be interesting to see if the upgrade mania cools somewhat due to that fact (I'm certainly seeing evidence that it has).
 
Grug said:
I think the interesting thing now, is that the cameras are already so good, I don't think many producers care (as much as they used to) what camera is being used - if everything can deliver results that are up to par (which FS7s, F5s, F55s etc. all still very much do) then how motivated are they going to be to pay more for a few bells and whistles?

It'll be interesting to see if the upgrade mania cools somewhat due to that fact (I'm certainly seeing evidence that it has).
Click to expand...

Agreed. Diminishing returns to further upgrades. The needs basically remain the same. People wont necessarily design higher-contrast and lower-light scenarios at higher fps because the camera can do them. (Unlike in the computing world where there's still a lot of room for more complex video games to be designed, faster transfer speeds, etc.)

FX9 has same codecs as FS7 (correct me if I'm wrong), so they're both up to spec for the deliverables.

Yes - the FX9 is a superior camera. (Although FF is not always a better choice than S35.)

eND is a killer feature (though the fs7mk2 already had it). The big upgrades are sensitivity and AF.

Both are very useful. I think AF is a game-changer. If it lets you run 2 or 3 interview cameras at shallow DOF and hold focus on a shifting subject, that's a boon for an OMB.

Also great for gimbal, though I'd rather fly an A7SIII.

That's why (on top of price) I feel great about an fs7/a7siii pairing. I can pull manually on the FS7 on shoulder or tripod. (And with a speedbooster I can do pretty well in low-light.)

Then as a gimbal cam, b interview cam, or super low-light shooter, the A7SIII rounds out the package and gives me access to some of the tools of the FX9 for 1/3 the price. And then some, considering that it shoots 4k120p with no crop.

I dont want to get ahead of myself, but I might not need to upgrade this set unless/until I move up to a higher-tier camera or 8K becomes the required deliverable.
 
Is not Dr inversely proportionate to pixel size - naturally ff6k is not amazing compared to lower resolutions of the Sam collection area

Arri have always had big pixels and low resolutions - as have “pro” stills cameras
 
morgan_moore said:
Is not Dr inversely proportionate to pixel size - naturally ff6k is not amazing compared to lower resolutions of the Sam collection area

Arri have always had big pixels and low resolutions - as have “pro” stills cameras
Click to expand...

"Effects on Dynamic Range
You might think the effects of pixel size on dynamic range should be similar to that of noise, discussed above. However, dynamic range seems to be the area where manufacturers are making the greatest strides – at least with reasonably sized pixels. When measured at ideal ISO (ISO 200 for most cameras) dynamic range varies more by how recently the camera was produced than by how large the pixels are (at least until the pixels get quite small). If you look at DxO Mark’s data for sensor dynamic range the cameras with the best dynamic range are basically newer cameras, not those with the largest pixels.

There is no simple formula for calculating the effect of pixel size on dynamic range, but in general both large and medium size pixel sensors do well at low ISOs, but dynamic range falls more dramatically at higher ISOs for smaller pixels."

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...sor size doesn't matter,as on a larger sensor.
 
Editing Sony FX9 MXF metadata for stabilisation? Is it possible?

Editing Sony FX9 MXF metadata for stabilisation? Is it possible?

Is it possible to edit MXF metadata from the Sony FX9?

I would love to use the stabilisation feature of the Sony FX9 with Sony Catalyst Browse but as I don't use Sony glass it doesn't seem possible as the SCB software needs to know the focal length and attributes. Is there any workaround to this that anyone knows about? It's driving me crazy that this can't be done

I feel it could be a bit of code writing as it can't seem to be changed in the Sony software.....
 
the_nutz said:
Is it possible to edit MXF metadata from the Sony FX9?

I would love to use the stabilisation feature of the Sony FX9 with Sony Catalyst Browse but as I don't use Sony glass it doesn't seem possible as the SCB software needs to know the focal length and attributes. Is there any workaround to this that anyone knows about? It's driving me crazy that this can't be done

I feel it could be a bit of code writing as it can't seem to be changed in the Sony software.....
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you can just manually input the focal length you're using in the menus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top