Until the XAVC spec gets updated and 6K recording becomes standard. ( Now I'm curious as to what Panasonic is using to record 5.9K IPB footage in the S1H ? )
FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
Until the XAVC spec gets updated and 6K recording becomes standard. ( Now I'm curious as to what Panasonic is using to record 5.9K IPB footage in the S1H ? )
DendriteStudios
Active member
Same. Something 12 bit would have really opened this camera up. Still 10 bit 422 means no upgrade in that department.
The above bitrates only happen in S+Q. 600 is only for 60fps. 24 is 240 mbps in XAVC-I.
Even if they had given us the XAVC 480 that the F55 and Venice can do that would have been some kind of step up in codec that would have been an upgrade. No upgrade in codec is the only thing holding this camera back.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Nobody here thinks that shooting full-frame will be a useful marketing ploy, especially to corporate clients for whom overkill is never enough?
One of the things I like about the C500mk2 is the smaller form factor - much easier to mount on a gimbal, no?
And, all else being equal, isn't it a competitive advantage to have a camera that anyone can see is more expensive? I had a conversation with an agency a few years back who told me that they were interested in FS7s and C300mk2s but that they took the C300mk2 more seriously. That thinking changed as their demand for 4k60p increased, but now Canon finally has a camera that offers slow motion in its max resolution. And it bests the FS7 on resolution.
Re:color, I think that Cinetone looks really nice from what I've seen. Possibly cooler/moodier than the Canon? I don't think color science will hold either camera back.
One of the things I like about the C500mk2 is the smaller form factor - much easier to mount on a gimbal, no?
And, all else being equal, isn't it a competitive advantage to have a camera that anyone can see is more expensive? I had a conversation with an agency a few years back who told me that they were interested in FS7s and C300mk2s but that they took the C300mk2 more seriously. That thinking changed as their demand for 4k60p increased, but now Canon finally has a camera that offers slow motion in its max resolution. And it bests the FS7 on resolution.
Re:color, I think that Cinetone looks really nice from what I've seen. Possibly cooler/moodier than the Canon? I don't think color science will hold either camera back.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
This question about cameras and clients is raised all around the forum in different sections and the answer is the same; the decision is always in the hands of the people paying you.
Some won't know or won't care, others may only consider ARRI or RED, and/or some will only look for a specific camera (even an old one).
It's not the same world it was in 2014-2015-2016 (with the FS7) and there are no guarantees.
[And color science will definitely not make or break a camera.]
Some won't know or won't care, others may only consider ARRI or RED, and/or some will only look for a specific camera (even an old one).
It's not the same world it was in 2014-2015-2016 (with the FS7) and there are no guarantees.
[And color science will definitely not make or break a camera.]
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah, I think that if your clients don't care what camera you shoot on, it makes less sense to upgrade to the FX9. Although if you could make use of the AF and low-light performance, it could probably improve your footage. The upgrade from C300mk2 to C500mk2 seems like a clear win for slow-motion alone.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Why do you say more difficult? Less of a reason to upgrade because the C200 already has 4k 60p? Or you mean it's a big price difference? I thought the codecs were holding back the C200. I still see C300mk2s in NYC all the time and get requests to use them but I have never seen someone using or had requested a C200 on an FS7/C300mk2 type shoot.
cyvideo
Veteran
Well this is where the whole codec things gets bit interesting. Too many of us get swayed by the 'big numbers.' The bigger the bit rate the better it's got to be hasn't it? The answer is a categorically no when you look at the math.
I haven't researched the figures for 4K as the bulk of my work is still HD but if you take Apple's HD ProRes specs from their white paper as a benchmark of sorts where ProRes 422 has a frame data load of 2.34MB and ProRes 422HQ has a frame data load of 3.5MB. It's then interesting to look at Panasonic's 400Mbps 422 10-bit all Intra. At 25p 400Mbps 422 10-bit all Intra has a frame data load of 1.9MB per frame. This is well short of what Apple deems necessary.
All Intra 400 Mbps would fall short of Apple's recommended bit-rate for 422 10 bit colour. In effect what Apple is saying is that you are missing 0.44 MB from your ProRes 422 frame and 1.6 MB from ProRes 422 HQ and you have 0.3 MB more than ProRes LT.
If you are interested in getting the best out of the Panasonic's in 10 bit colour then you should look at the HD All Intra 200 Mbps codec as it has enough quality and headroom to allow manipulation. It is in fact the only codec that has a bit-rate higher than ProRes HQ in 24 and 25 fps.
Chris Young
You can do your own calculations here:
https://blog.frame.io/2017/03/06/calculate-video-bitrates/#formulasTarget
Last edited:
Liam Hall
Veteran
The FS7 draws 15w. It draws 30w if hooked up to the XDCA.
Grug
Veteran
I think that's probably a very accurate assessment Chris.
Grug
Veteran
I haven’t seen it reported anywhere, but I imagine it’s logarithmic raw. The FS7 being linear at 12-bit was what broke it (apparently)
This was specific limitation of Sony's 12-bit linear FS RAW which was derived from the superior F5/F55/F65 16 bit linear RAW. The C200/C500 support up to 12-bit log encoded RAW which is widely held to be the equivalent of 16-bit linear RAW and good enough for virtually any production use.
ARRIRAW is as good as it gets and it is also 12-bit log encoded as is indicated in the page linked below. "The sensor readout of our ALEV III is a raw Bayer frame provided as uncompressed, 12 bit log ARRIRAW data. To turn ARRIRAW data into RGB images, the files need to be processed (de-bayering and color processing)."
While the FS700, FS7 and FS5 all used the 12-bit linear RAW many users here at DVXuser and elsewhere reported the FS7 RAW was inferior to that of the FS700. If the Shogun 7 is indeed limited to 12-bit linear RAW when working with the FX9 I'm not sure how much better the RAW would be than that on the FS7.
Curiously, Sony says the HFR RAW on the FX9 is 10-bit. Per Sony at the product page linked below, "limited to 10-bit recording during 120fps high frame rate shooting within Super35 image circle." It will be interesting to see how that looks in practice.
https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/...y-asked-questions/arriraw-faq#accordion-44222
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...etween-12-bit-RAW-16-bit-RAW-amp-10-bit-S-Log
https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/handheld-camcorders/pxw-fx9#ProductSpecificationsBlock-pxw-fx9
Last edited:
There are so many threads that I'm sure if this has been noted elsewhere. Apparently the FX9 is only records DCI 4K and UHD using the full sensor at 30P and below. Sony says that when recording 4K at 60P the FX9 uses a 83% crop of the sensor. It sounds like it might be processing limitation.
It might not be an issue for most shooters but if you are switching between 24P/30P and 60P in the same setup it could make it difficult to match shots.
*** Supported in the future firmware update. Scanning area is cropped around 83% of full-frame and 122% larger than S35. (diagonal)
https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/handheld-camcorders/pxw-fx9#ProductSpecificationsBlock-pxw-fx9
It might not be an issue for most shooters but if you are switching between 24P/30P and 60P in the same setup it could make it difficult to match shots.
*** Supported in the future firmware update. Scanning area is cropped around 83% of full-frame and 122% larger than S35. (diagonal)
https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/handheld-camcorders/pxw-fx9#ProductSpecificationsBlock-pxw-fx9
NorBro
Major Contributor
For $11K - and in 2020 - I would expect it to be full-frame, but it's also not surprising as we have enough fingers to count the amount of cameras in the world that offer full frame 4K/60p.
Usually if they don't get you with a crop they'll drop the data rate or codec (applies to S35 4K/60p too).
The technology is still fairly uncommon, believe it or not. (Another reason why the FS7 was so great in 2014.)
For cinematic production the Canon definitely looks better in specs. The FX9 is really just a beefed up or upated FS7, which has always been more of a video camera than a cinema camera. It's a workhorse for corporate and other low and mid tier work. So it doesn't really need RAW and I understand why Sony didn't put it in the FX9 to record internally either. It's a FS7 update.
But as good as the Canon looks in specs I have never really seen anything from a Canon C300, C200 or C500 which had a cinema mojo in the way the Alexa or F35 do. So I'm not sure I would go with the 500 MKII for cinematic stuff. Unless it looks considerably better and more mojoey than the other Canons. Haven't seen anything yet.
But for Canon imagery, even Need For Speed didn't convince me. It as a multi million dollar Hollywood movie. Guys walk around their house with a F35 and make magic. I have an Alexa and know it's just as easy to produce mojo too, without throwing a lighting truck and a ton of set design at it. Besides Need For Speed was Alexa too.
So for cinematic I would rather buy an used Alexa or F35. So the 500 MKII would probably be dead on the water for me. Cinematic doesn't need 4K, 6K, 8K etc. It just needs mojo. The Alexa and F35 have that in spades.
If not for cinematic, then the FX9 is probably the better buy if you just need a good practical video camera. It doesn't have the mojo either. But at least it looks to be as great a video camera as the FS7 was. Maybe it has the mojo. Still to be seen. So far none. Even the Venice, which I had thought got the mojo down has been a bit off in some spots lately.
The FX9 has a nicer look than the FS7 for sure though. I sold my FS7 and bought a used Alexa because I was tired of fighting the video look. At least the FX9 with this new S color seems better. But I still haven't felt like I could be watching film as I do sometimes with the F35 and Alexa if I'm not pixel peeping. I still get that slap on the face I'm watching video. The same slap I get from any Varicam, Canon or Sony, other than the F35. Venice jury is still out. So let's see. Jury is still out on the FX9 too. Need to see more.
This is how I'm seeing it so far.
But as good as the Canon looks in specs I have never really seen anything from a Canon C300, C200 or C500 which had a cinema mojo in the way the Alexa or F35 do. So I'm not sure I would go with the 500 MKII for cinematic stuff. Unless it looks considerably better and more mojoey than the other Canons. Haven't seen anything yet.
But for Canon imagery, even Need For Speed didn't convince me. It as a multi million dollar Hollywood movie. Guys walk around their house with a F35 and make magic. I have an Alexa and know it's just as easy to produce mojo too, without throwing a lighting truck and a ton of set design at it. Besides Need For Speed was Alexa too.
So for cinematic I would rather buy an used Alexa or F35. So the 500 MKII would probably be dead on the water for me. Cinematic doesn't need 4K, 6K, 8K etc. It just needs mojo. The Alexa and F35 have that in spades.
If not for cinematic, then the FX9 is probably the better buy if you just need a good practical video camera. It doesn't have the mojo either. But at least it looks to be as great a video camera as the FS7 was. Maybe it has the mojo. Still to be seen. So far none. Even the Venice, which I had thought got the mojo down has been a bit off in some spots lately.
The FX9 has a nicer look than the FS7 for sure though. I sold my FS7 and bought a used Alexa because I was tired of fighting the video look. At least the FX9 with this new S color seems better. But I still haven't felt like I could be watching film as I do sometimes with the F35 and Alexa if I'm not pixel peeping. I still get that slap on the face I'm watching video. The same slap I get from any Varicam, Canon or Sony, other than the F35. Venice jury is still out. So let's see. Jury is still out on the FX9 too. Need to see more.
This is how I'm seeing it so far.
Last edited:
And even fewer fingers are required to count the cameras that can do full frame 6K/60P RAW. That's one of the things that makes the C500 MK II special. It can do in high quality RAW at 6K what the FX9 can't do with a compressed codec at 4K.
This isn't to take way from the FX9 which may far outsell the C500 MK II. I just think the cameras are in different categories.