Sony Cinema Line & FX6

[puredrifting]

That is cool. The Mixpre3ii is amazing. Tiny and easy enough to use for a novice on small gigs and fun projects. The Zoom recorders had the hit record a second time to actually record, and red and red blinking meaning different things, and then other recorders of theirs just being one tap of record.... made me so unconfident renting a zoom or handing it off to anyone. But the Mixpre’s just hit the big ole REC button and it goes red and time code a running.... easy peasey lemon squeezy!

I'm not a pro sound mixer, but lately I've been doing quite a bit with my Mix Pre 3 I. I used it on our Katzkin SEMA video, used it on a few live streams,
I just recorded a documentary VO on location with it. What an awesome, simple to use, versatile and cool little mixer/recorder, I am so glad I bought it a few years ago.

I've been tempted to upgrade to the MixPre 10 II but then I ask myself, "why"? Same with upgrading to Lectros, they are so damn good but why? If I am shooting material
that needs ten channels and Lectros, I am hiring a pro to do it. I will keep my little Mix Pre 3 just for low budget jobs where I can't afford a sound mixer.
And those always involve a single or perhaps two talent, that's it. I was thinking about getting a 633 and a few Lectro SRCs with some LT transmitters and going out
as a sound mixer but I am making more than I could make doing that in producing livestreams. I live in LA and there hundreds of great sound mixers here looking for work.

If I lived in the boonies or a smaller city, I think I would go for sound mixing, at least part time, doing sound is kind of fun and so different than DPing or producing.

 

[Guest]

I'm not a pro sound mixer, but lately I've been doing quite a bit with my Mix Pre 3 I. I used it on our Katzkin SEMA video, used it on a few live streams,
I just recorded a documentary VO on location with it. What an awesome, simple to use, versatile and cool little mixer/recorder, I am so glad I bought it a few years ago.

I've been tempted to upgrade to the MixPre 10 II but then I ask myself, "why"? Same with upgrading to Lectros, they are so damn good but why? If I am shooting material
that needs ten channels and Lectros, I am hiring a pro to do it so. I will keep my little Mix Pre 3 just for low budget jobs where I can't afford a sound mixer.
And those always involve a single or perhaps two talent, that's it. I was thinking about getting a 633 and a few Lectro SRCs with some LT transmitters and going out
as a sound mixer but I am making more than I could make doing that in producing livestreams. I live in LA and there hundreds of great sound mixers here looking for work.

If I lived in the boonies or a smaller city, I think I would go for sound mixing, at least part time, doing sound is kind of fun and so different than DPing or producing.

It seems like the more stable career, as a good sound recordist is still coveted. I've been on more than one shoot where the sound people/person was making more than the DP.

 

[puredrifting]

It seems like the more stable career, as a good sound recordist is still coveted. I've been on more than one shoot where the sound people/person was making more than the DP.

I think it can be but go read the threads over on JW Sound, I see a LOT of guys not working at all this year or working very little. The problem is that a lot of dumb
producers/clients, esepcially in the mid level to lower end are seeing gimmicks like 32-bit floating point and actually writing sound mixers out of the budget, thinking that
they can get away with an inexperienced PA type using the miracle new technology to hang mics on people and boom because "it's impossible to set the wrong levels". Between
Dugan, automix, 32-but FP audio, all of these technologies are great but are largely aimed at shrinking or eliminating the sound department to a point. Not on higher budget
projects but in the mid to low level, you know, where the bulk of production gets done, the technology definitely is aimed at reducing and paring down the crew positions.

That's the thing, it's just like when higher ISO cameras started becoming popular, dumb producers and clients took that as a sign that they could stop budgeting for 5-10 tons and could
rent a high ISO camera and just a very small or modest G&L package instead of the big stuff. They cut the amount of gaffers and grips too and rented faster lenses. Shortsighted neophytes
will always try to replace talented crew positions with cheap technology, that's what producers do but the end result usually suffers.

Film < Digital Cinema
Tungsten/HMI < LED of every flavor and type
Stuntmen and women < digital stunts
Green screen and compositing for photorealistic digital > real sets, practical effects, optical composites
Armorers with real guns, blanks, squibs < rubber guns and digital muzzle flashes and hits
And soon, professional sound mixers with professional sound gear < 32-bit FP audio and other technologies that make recording sound a more passive, lower skill job

They still have problem solving, bending and tricking physics, microphone selection and placement but how long until producers listen to what a lower skill person
can do in ideal conditions with inexpensive, highly capable gear and just basically start making wholesale cuts to sound mixing teams. Not because it's smart or
good business, but because the producers know just enough to be dangerous?

 

[Guest]

I think it can be but go read the threads over on JW Sound, I see a LOT of guys not working at all this year or working very little. The problem is that a lot of dumb
producers/clients, esepcially in the mid level to lower end are seeing gimmicks like 32-bit floating point and actually writing sound mixers out of the budget, thinking that
they can get away with an inexperienced PA type using the miracle new technology to hang mics on people and boom because "it's impossible to set the wrong levels". Between
Dugan, automix, 32-but FP audio, all of these technologies are great but are largely aimed at shrinking or eliminating the sound department to a point. Not on higher budget
projects but in the mid to low level, you know, where the bulk of production gets done, the technology definitely is aimed at reducing and paring down the crew positions.

Woah! that is awful! Every working pro knows that mic handling and knowledge of electronics and acoustics is more important than the dynamic range of the recorder!

I fear this may trickle to cameras. lightweight Komodo style camera bodies on robot tracking operators and AF with 18stops DR.....

That's the thing, it's just like when higher ISO cameras started becoming popular, dumb producers and clients took that as a sign that they could stop budgeting for 5-10 tons and could
rent a high ISO camera and just a very small or modest G&L package instead of the big stuff. They cut the amount of gaffers and grips too and rented faster lenses. Shortsighted neophytes
will always try to replace talented crew positions with cheap technology, that's what producers do but the end result usually suffers.

Can we just replace those stupid decision makers with AI. I feel like AI would understand talent more than those neophytes!

 

[Guest]

Anyways, I have live during the best time to be a camera person, so I can count myself lucky. The experiences I have been able to have and the places and people we get to meet, is absolutely fantastic!

 

[ahalpert]

The end result usually suffers - but if all the producers lower the quality of their output simultaneously, the audience doesn't even notice a difference. Like boiling a frog. And eventually people forget what it ever felt like to gaze on something beautiful

 

[ozmorphasis]

It seems like the more stable career, as a good sound recordist is still coveted. I've been on more than one shoot where the sound people/person was making more than the DP.

That's actually more than anything else because soundies protect each other. They refer their colleagues for gigs all the time, but if a young and up-n-coming recordist goes and accepts a job for BS rates, watch how fast that same circle will be calling him/her up to read them the riot act. You can get chewed out a couple of times, but if it persists, you're out of the circle. Not getting calls. In other words, they help maintain their rates and protect each other.

Shooters don't do this and arguably they CAN'T do this quite like the audio guys.

Very few people get into audio just because they either have a rich uncle (yay, I'll pick up a Monstro and now want experience shooting and will charge nothing), or because of "the democratization of gear."

Shooters, on the other hand come into this from all angles. Capable cameras are cheap. The allure is MUCH more universal than capturing audio. The audio equivalent is like making beats. Everyone with garageband can practice building up the backing track for a friend to rap over, even if it's crap. Everyone can get an affordable camera and make "cinematic" short content of whatever they like (skating, travel, etc). How many people actually WANT to go hold a boom pole, lav up several people, and mix audio for picture? It's not a huge scene. More of a niche interest.

So yeah. I just hired a recordist and a 2nd camera op for the same gig. I definitely paid the recordist more. That's the market. He also brought way more gear, way more experience, and needed way less handholding.

 

[Guest]

So yeah. I just hired a recordist and a 2nd camera op for the same gig. I definitely paid the recordist more. That's the market. He also brought way more gear, way more experience, and needed way less handholding.

Well, I sure hope you pay the main sound person more than the 2nd cam op!!!! They are half the production!

 

[DLD]

... Can we just replace those stupid decision makers with AI. I feel like AI would understand talent more than those neophytes!

I've had AI write all my DVX User posts since 2017.

Including this joke too.

 

[Guest]

I've had AI write all my DVX User posts since 2017.

Including this joke too.

Self aware AI is the best.

 

[ozmorphasis]

Well, I sure hope you pay the main sound person more than the 2nd cam op!!!! They are half the production!

Yes, absolutely. However, the point is that the 2nd cam op who wasn't paid as well will go on to be the main guy on a project and will still get paid the same that I paid him to be the 2nd cam because he/she is willing to do it and because there is no one telling him/her not to do it. The audio guy doesn't need to do that because of all of those reasons that I mentioned. Not just because he's half of the production. Those other factors are a big part of it. It's not just a question of how important the role is. Composers are an incredibly important role in film/TV, but they too are a field with no protection, no union, no banding together to keep rates where they should be, and thus a race to the bottom. And in that case as well, the cost of entry (equipment) is easy and the interest (lots of kids want to be the next Hans Zimmer) is widespread, so everyone in a producer role gets used to the idea that the labor can come cheap. You don't see that with a boom op.

 

[Clermond]

does the FX6 have a PsF monitor signal like the FS7 or is it finally progressive? I couldn't find any hints.

 

[lambert]

Pretty soon one will be able to dump cameras, lights with wheels and have a virtual assistant far away making 2$ an hour do all the technical stuff. Won’t that be the cat’s meow. Yikes.

 

[andykwilkinson]

Anyone aware yet of any tests using the Clear Image Zoom function of the FX6? One thing I'm curious about (and I know a few others are too) is the possibility to narrow the image circle and so, potentially (if you have no other alternative!) allow the use of S35 lenses. It's more out of curiosity as to if it's usable - not something I would plan on using routinely. I have mostly full frame Canon EF glass but a couple of EF-S lenses (Tokina 14-20mm F2 and Canon 17-55mm IS F2.8).

I know Alister Chapman has mentioned this in his blog but I've not seen any actual examples yet. I'm certainly not expecting any miracles! But on my FS5, Clear Image Zoom works better than you might expect. On that camera, in UHD you can zoom in 1.5x (and 2x in HD) using the grip handle's zoom rocker (or top handle rocker). I have used it very occasionally when doing run & gun and definitely did n't have time to change lenses/just had to get the shot - Corporate stuff is what I do. Of course, on the FX6 you're also going to get considerably less than 4K/UHD "real" resolution, which is definitely going to hit image quality, but since I (still) mostly deliver in HD it might be usable.

 

[alaskacameradude]

Anyone aware yet of any tests using the Clear Image Zoom function of the FX6? One thing I'm curious about (and I know a few others are too) is the possibility to narrow the image circle and so, potentially (if you have no other alternative!) allow the use of S35 lenses. It's more out of curiosity as to if it's usable - not something I would plan on using routinely. I have mostly full frame Canon EF glass but a couple of EF-S lenses (Tokina 14-20mm F2 and Canon 17-55mm IS F2.8).

I know Alister Chapman has mentioned this in his blog but I've not seen any actual examples yet. I'm certainly not expecting any miracles! But on my FS5, Clear Image Zoom works better than you might expect. On that camera, in UHD you can zoom in 1.5x (and 2x in HD) using the grip handle's zoom rocker (or top handle rocker). I have used it very occasionally when doing run & gun and definitely did n't have time to change lenses/just had to get the shot - Corporate stuff is what I do. Of course, on the FX6 you're also going to get considerably less than 4K/UHD "real" resolution, which is definitely going to hit image quality, but since I (still) mostly deliver in HD it might be usable.

One reviewer showed exactly this. He put on a
super 35 lens and used clear image zoom to lose
the vignetting. But if you are just shooting in HD,
you can just switch the FX6 to super 35 mode.
It will do HD in Super 35 it’s only 4K where you
must use the ‘clear image zoom’ hack.

 

[alaskacameradude]

Anyone aware yet of any tests using the Clear Image Zoom function of the FX6? One thing I'm curious about (and I know a few others are too) is the possibility to narrow the image circle and so, potentially (if you have no other alternative!) allow the use of S35 lenses. It's more out of curiosity as to if it's usable - not something I would plan on using routinely. I have mostly full frame Canon EF glass but a couple of EF-S lenses (Tokina 14-20mm F2 and Canon 17-55mm IS F2.8).

I know Alister Chapman has mentioned this in his blog but I've not seen any actual examples yet. I'm certainly not expecting any miracles! But on my FS5, Clear Image Zoom works better than you might expect. On that camera, in UHD you can zoom in 1.5x (and 2x in HD) using the grip handle's zoom rocker (or top handle rocker). I have used it very occasionally when doing run & gun and definitely did n't have time to change lenses/just had to get the shot - Corporate stuff is what I do. Of course, on the FX6 you're also going to get considerably less than 4K/UHD "real" resolution, which is definitely going to hit image quality, but since I (still) mostly deliver in HD it might be usable.

One reviewer showed exactly this. He put on a
super 35 lens and used clear image zoom to lose
the vignetting in 4K. But if you are just shooting in HD,
you can just switch the FX6 to super 35 mode.
It will do HD in Super 35 it’s only 4K where you
must use the ‘clear image zoom’ hack.

 

[IronFilm]

I use my FS5 frequently on a gymbal (Letus Helix Junior), often with a Sennheiser G3 receiver plugged into the FS5's one XLR) as you'd expect getting audio from a lav on the talent. Whilst it's easily doable, it would be a bit of a pain to match up audio recorded elsewhere to camera narrative - and sure, the onboard scratch mic will help a bit. But really Sony, who did you ask when designing your cameras and this one in particular? Please don't ask the people who said this would be a good idea ever again!!!

Just use a timecode box, as you should be.

I too would be interested in some kind of small, reasonably light 3rd party plug in box that sits on the top of the FX6 (or has a short cable and a mounting point that allows you to position it where you want). The way out of this has got to be an add-on that uses that (proprietary) top connection socket for the handle (I assume its similar to the one on my FS5 - looks it from the videos I've seen). I wonder if Sony would release the connection pin data?

A timecode box is more common place, already exists, is cheaper, and is smaller & lighter.

^^^^That's the pro move right there!

The "pro move" is using timecode.

 

[andykwilkinson]

Thanks IronFilm, will look into that.

 

[IronFilm]

That is cool. The Mixpre3ii is amazing. Tiny and easy enough to use for a novice on small gigs and fun projects. The Zoom recorders had the hit record a second time to actually record, and red and red blinking meaning different things, and then other recorders of theirs just being one tap of record.... made me so unconfident renting a zoom or handing it off to anyone. But the Mixpre’s just hit the big ole REC button and it goes red and time code a running.... easy peasey lemon squeezy!

You should use Zoom F Series recorders as well (totally different class to the H Series, radically different class of field recorders), they're also "easy peasey lemon squeezy" while also being packed with powerful features.

It seems like the more stable career, as a good sound recordist is still coveted. I've been on more than one shoot where the sound people/person was making more than the DP.

Am not surprised, because aspiring DoPs are too willing to let themselves go out dirt cheap! (or even free) And throwing in the house for free as well, just to get content "for the reel".

Of course Sound Mixers (or Gaffers, or Grips, etc) don't care about "their reel"!! Such a thing doesn't exist at all.

 

[Guest]

You should use Zoom F Series recorders as well (totally different class to the H Series, radically different class of field recorders), they're also "easy peasey lemon squeezy" while also being packed with powerful features.

I felt the Zoom F series was better for a working audio person, but for a simple recorder, the mixpre3 makes a better camera person's companion. The Mixepre 3 is even lightweight enough to mount to the camera, but featured enough to get through essential tasks.