Sony Cinema Line & FX6

Being small and light should benefit from faster RS because you're more likely to wave it around, you mean?

It necessarily has faster RS than the FX9 because it can do 120p without a crop whereas the FX9 requires a slight crop to do 60p.

I think there are too many matching specs with the A7SIII to be a coincidence and so it's probably the same sensor, which I think is a good thing
 
ahalpert said:
Being small and light should benefit from faster RS because you're more likely to wave it around, you mean?
Click to expand...
Yes. The FX9 I notice when I took it off the shoulder the RS would show up. The Fx6 is small enough that I might on the occasion throw it around all shaky cam like.

ahalpert said:
It necessarily has faster RS than the FX9 because it can do 120p without a crop whereas the FX9 requires a slight crop to do 60p.

I think there are too many matching specs with the A7SIII to be a coincidence and so it's probably the same sensor, which I think is a good thing
Click to expand...

Yeah, looks like you are getting good stuff with that sensor.
 
Well, I think that the A7SIII readout can withstand a whip pan at least. A strobe light, of course not. I'm not crazy about the motion cadence at higher frame rates (is it just me or does this camera and many cameras look a bit smeary in slow motion?) But I like the motion cadence in 24p. the ISO 12800 performance is astounding. Personally, I like the colors in certain modes but I suppose it's subjective. I like the s-cinetone I've seen from the FX9 very much. I dont think the detail level from the 4K sensor is on par with what you see with the R5 8K sensor...of course. But I think it's fine. No camera is perfect. If the FX6 AF is on par with the A7SIII (which it may be since it claims to have "4D" AF which is what the stills cameras have) - that would be great for fans of AF. I thought that sony was going to release proper cinema lenses with autofocus motors but so far they haven't. Interesting times.

Does anyone know if the FX6 has SDI out?
 
ahalpert said:
Well, I think that the A7SIII readout can withstand a whip pan at least. A strobe light, of course not. I'm not crazy about the motion cadence at higher frame rates (is it just me or does this camera and many cameras look a bit smeary in slow motion?) But I like the motion cadence in 24p. the ISO 12800 performance is astounding. Personally, I like the colors in certain modes but I suppose it's subjective. I like the s-cinetone I've seen from the FX9 very much. I dont think the detail level from the 4K sensor is on par with what you see with the R5 8K sensor...of course. But I think it's fine. No camera is perfect. If the FX6 AF is on par with the A7SIII (which it may be since it claims to have "4D" AF which is what the stills cameras have) - that would be great for fans of AF. I thought that sony was going to release proper cinema lenses with autofocus motors but so far they haven't. Interesting times.

Does anyone know if the FX6 has SDI out?
Click to expand...

A few more pics have leaked online, and if they are to be believed, it has a single SDI out:

FX6-Sony 2.jpg

FX6-Sony 3.jpg

FX6-Sony 4.jpg

FX6-Sony 5.jpg
 
ahalpert said:
Well, I think that the A7SIII readout can withstand a whip pan at least. A strobe light, of course not. I'm not crazy about the motion cadence at higher frame rates (is it just me or does this camera and many cameras look a bit smeary in slow motion?) But I like the motion cadence in 24p. the ISO 12800 performance is astounding. Personally, I like the colors in certain modes but I suppose it's subjective. I like the s-cinetone I've seen from the FX9 very much. I dont think the detail level from the 4K sensor is on par with what you see with the R5 8K sensor...of course. But I think it's fine. No camera is perfect. If the FX6 AF is on par with the A7SIII (which it may be since it claims to have "4D" AF which is what the stills cameras have) - that would be great for fans of AF. I thought that sony was going to release proper cinema lenses with autofocus motors but so far they haven't. Interesting times.

Does anyone know if the FX6 has SDI out?
Click to expand...

I've kinda fallen in love with the Sony Venice's image and also the FX9's which is similar. I was/am hoping for something in the ballpark with the FX6, but I guess we will see on Tuesday.
 
Teddy_Dem said:
I've kinda fallen in love with the Sony Venice's image and also the FX9's which is similar. I was/am hoping for something in the ballpark with the FX6, but I guess we will see on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Do venice and FX9 have the same sensor? It seems like they might. Even with a different sensor, I bet sony could match the look. I dunno though - there are so many steps in the image processing pipeline, most of which I'm probably not even aware of. And compromises are made to get the costs down, or ar least lesser QC.

Nevertheless, I'm optimistic. Even if it were just an A7SIII with eND in a video camera form factor, that would be cool
 
I mean, it kind of feels like a DVX100 with the lens cut off and a 4K FF35 sensor stuck in there. not the worst thing in the world.
 
ahalpert said:
Do venice and FX9 have the same sensor? It seems like they might. Even with a different sensor, I bet sony could match the look. I dunno though - there are so many steps in the image processing pipeline, most of which I'm probably not even aware of. And compromises are made to get the costs down, or ar least lesser QC.

Nevertheless, I'm optimistic. Even if it were just an A7SIII with eND in a video camera form factor, that would be cool
Click to expand...

The Venice has a good stop or more DR. If they are the same, then Sony is limiting the Fx9.... which would be F5 F55 all over again.
 
ahalpert said:
Do venice and FX9 have the same sensor? It seems like they might.
Click to expand...

I think they are very similar in terms of internal design but not exactly the same in shape: FX9 is DCI aspect ratio (17:9) while Venice is vertically larger and more square shaped to allow for proper anamorphic mode.
 
lexicon said:
I think they are very similar in terms of internal design but not exactly the same in shape: FX9 is DCI aspect ratio (17:9) while Venice is vertically larger and more square shaped to allow for proper anamorphic mode.
Click to expand...

Conversely, the a7siii sensor is taller than the FX6 sensor, but if you had the same horizontal pixel number as the A7SIII in a 16:9 sensor, I believe you would end up with the 10.2MP of the fx6
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
I'm not crazy about the motion cadence at higher frame rates (is it just me or does this camera and many cameras look a bit smeary in slow motion?)
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm hoping a little tighter shutter angle will help.

I'm also hoping Sony will tune the highlight roll-off etc of the FX6 to match the FX9, and keep the HDMI 16bit raw out.

By the way I calculate that the fx6 body is only 13cm long from the mount to the back, quite a bit shorter than the fx9 and even my EVA1. Good for gimbal work.
 
That makes sense as the fs5 was 17.2cm long with the EVF. The A7SIII is 7cm deep, so the FX6 would be like 2 stacked together
 
ahalpert said:
A7SIII... the ISO 12800 performance is astounding....the detail level from the 4K sensor is...fine. No camera is perfect....
Click to expand...

I agree about A7SIII 12800, detail level and color. However as I do more A7SIII testing in SLog3, the noise from the big ISO 2nd stage gap is significant. I would say very roughly my A7RIII has about equal noise at ISO 3200 in SLog2, and from there to 10,000 the A7RIII is better until the SIII's 2nd gain stage kicks in at 12,800.

Another issue is the fine-grained noise if using ProRes RAW in some exposure/lighting conditions. Visually it doesn't look bad and Neat Video cleans it up perfectly, but (a) it imposes a significant post production cost, and (b) it interferes with color masks, whether in FCPX or on exported ProRes 4444XQ material in Resolve. I don't remember any other reviewer reporting this.

When using a "picker" tool to define the color mask, you can definitely feel the additional selectivity from the 12-bit ProRes RAW (or transcoded 4444XQ) data. But you can't really use that due to the background noise. It must first be de-noised with Neat Video, then exported as 4444XQ, then re-imported, otherwise it's too slow to interactively draw the mask. After that it is great. It will be interesting to see if the FX6 is any different in (a) the "gain gap", or (b) ProRes RAW noise behavior.

Does anyone have experience using Resolve's color picker tool to define an HSL color mask on lower-light BRAW material? Does that same issue exist there?
 
joema said:
I agree about A7SIII 12800, detail level and color. However as I do more A7SIII testing in SLog3, the noise from the big ISO 2nd stage gap is significant. I would say very roughly my A7RIII has about equal noise at ISO 3200 in SLog2, and from there to 10,000 the A7RIII is better until the SIII's 2nd gain stage kicks in at 12,800.

Another issue is the fine-grained noise if using ProRes RAW in some exposure/lighting conditions. Visually it doesn't look bad and Neat Video cleans it up perfectly, but (a) it imposes a significant post production cost, and (b) it interferes with color masks, whether in FCPX or on exported ProRes 4444XQ material in Resolve. I don't remember any other reviewer reporting this.

When using a "picker" tool to define the color mask, you can definitely feel the additional selectivity from the 12-bit ProRes RAW (or transcoded 4444XQ) data. But you can't really use that due to the background noise. It must first be de-noised with Neat Video, then exported as 4444XQ, then re-imported, otherwise it's too slow to interactively draw the mask. After that it is great. It will be interesting to see if the FX6 is any different in (a) the "gain gap", or (b) ProRes RAW noise behavior.

Does anyone have experience using Resolve's color picker tool to define an HSL color mask on lower-light BRAW material? Does that same issue exist there?
Click to expand...

Considering the niche of the A7S is for low light, for me, that gain gap is a preferred compromise to get to those super high iso's.

The A7 and A7R are also really nice cameras, and I think they are often the better choice for many hybrid shooters.

If the A7S could find a way to have a 3rd gain stage, that might be interesting in a future model.


However, a gain gap on the FX6 may be less fun.
 
Last edited:
assuming that it takes consecutive readouts and merges them, it's not going to do anything to help its motion cadence...

but arri and canon pull off good dgo, right? it could be amazing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top