FS5: Sony PXW-FX6

For the chargers, I compared this one with the Sony.
The aftermarket chargers have only 2 pins for the power. When the charger is ON, the charge is active you have 19V between the pins (without load)
With the Sony, there is no power between the power pins. I guess the Sony needs the feedbacks trom the battery to activate the charge. The aftermarket chargers don't need the battery identification, so they work with any battery.
I tried to charge the Hedbox battery with my Sony charger, it still does not work
The communication with the camera works (the % is displayed), but not with the charger.
 
I've skimmed through the thread but there are just so many videos. Are there any particular clips that people love grading / color wise? I'm coming from Blackmagic and an FX6 makes a lot of sense but I just can't get past the video look. Maybe it's the 10bit color.

Purely opinion of course - I know some people love it.

BMD / RED / ARRI / VENICE just seem to be a cut above the rest.
 
Hi Joshua, there is some interesting info in the Q&A section of your link
One is about 'one standard' Sony charger in Oct 2018. I don't what type it is, but it seems ok with this one
 
Quested said:
I just can't get past the video look. Maybe it's the 10bit color.
Click to expand...


To be honest I don't think that is a thing.

Aside from some of the Sony Japan clips I don't think there is much wow out there but that's because all the people that got their hands on it are vloggers and not DOPs and colourists.

My stuff online isn't decent because that's not what I was testing.

Yes, it's not a £60,000 cinema rig but if you can't get pretty images out of this camera the camera isn't the problem.
 
I keep hearing that there is amazing FX9 / FX6 / C300 footage out there that looks just as good as the brands mentioned but I've never seen it.

You can get pretty images out of almost anything these days, phone included. I agree. It's just that the footage from BMD / RED / ARRI looks much better. I don't know if it's the even color response across the range, highlight rolloff, or just latitude in post when it goes down the pipe, but it's different.

Canon and Sony make amazing cameras, but the footage looks like (great) video. The Venice looks good, but it also records in X-OCN and costs a house.

Maybe I need to try ProRes RAW out of an Atomos and see if that makes a difference. I've just brought up the bitrate question because thats the most easily identifiable difference. Of course a sample size of one person with an opinion is hardly science.

For reference I shoot a C200 for work.

I'd love to be wrong because using my pocket is arduous - but damn it looks good.
 
Quested said:
I keep hearing that there is amazing FX9 / FX6 / C300 footage out there that looks just as good as the brands mentioned but I've never seen it.

You can get pretty images out of almost anything these days, phone included. I agree. It's just that the footage from BMD / RED / ARRI looks much better. I don't know if it's the even color response across the range, highlight rolloff, or just latitude in post when it goes down the pipe, but it's different.

Canon and Sony make amazing cameras, but the footage looks like (great) video. The Venice looks good, but it also records in X-OCN and costs a house.

Maybe I need to try ProRes RAW out of an Atomos and see if that makes a difference. I've just brought up the bitrate question because thats the most easily identifiable difference. Of course a sample size of one person with an opinion is hardly science.

For reference I shoot a C200 for work.

I'd love to be wrong because using my pocket is arduous - but damn it looks good.
Click to expand...


It's much more than most Arri/Venice/Red shoots have budgets for lens packages, lighting and production design (and more experienced DOPs) that FX6 shoots most likely won't have.

They are better cameras for sure in terms out outright image quality/colour science etc. But you could absolutely shoot a feature on an FX6. But why would you if you have the budget to shoot a feature the camera package price is inconsequential?

I've seen tons of awful looking Arri footage and seen (and shot!) just as much awful looking Red footage.
 
Last edited:
Ben Scott said:
It's much more than most Arri/Venice/Red shoots have budgets for lens packages, lighting and production design (and more experienced DOPs) that FX6 shoots most likely won't have.

They are better cameras for sure in terms out outright image quality/colour science etc. But you could absolutely shoot a feature on an FX6. But why would you if you have the budget to shoot a feature the camera package price is inconsequential?

I've seen tons of awful looking Arri footage and seen (and shot!) just as much awful looking Red footage.
Click to expand...

I agree I've seen lots of terrible ARRI footage, I don't even want to mention the beauty TVC I was on the other day. Shot on Alexa Mini, looks awful.

Production makes a huge difference you're right, but I think the biggest difference to me is you can get great looking footage stripped down from Red / Arri etc. I recently watched the CVP Komodo test (I'm in the queue for one, not sure if I'll take it) and the footage over the cliffs in the UK looks great and not at all like video - I know im using that term loosely. I don't think it's seen a pro colorist as blogs have pretty tight turn around. Glass looks ultra clean / Zeiss but I'm sure it wasn't supremes.

Stuff like that, filmed quickly without rigging, is where I see the biggest difference because you can't glam it up. Ironically its the least appropriate setting for cinema cameras outside an Amira.

Watch The Rider by Chloe Zhao. Done on a shoestring with very little lighting using an Amira, I'm not sure any amount of work with a Canon or Sony would have had the latitude to become so beautiful.

I'm not trying to argue here, as I'm mulling the Komodo / C300 III decision as we speak, and the Canon is much, much more convenient. However for the stuff I love to do, short films, doco and fashion, I think the difference is night and day.

Maybe I'm just really picky or it's all in my head.
 
Quested said:
Maybe I'm just really picky or it's all in my head.
Click to expand...

No, you're not picky. There is a look to Arri, Red and a lot of the time Sony cameras do not look like they can do the look.

The FX6 can do it, you just have to subscribe to a certain way of working and not get lost in the crazy amount of options Sony gives you to f**k up your image. Sony tries to straddle both the old-school broadcast world and the new digital cinema world. The options can make a Sony camera look real bad real fast.

The key is to shoot Slog3/Sgamut.cine, monitor while shooting with a known good LUT, and then use that LUT again as a starting point in the grade. This is the Arri/Alexa "model" of working, but since Sony has alternately left out/changed over time/not educated their users on the various flavors of SLog over the years, users of the lower-end SLog capable cameras have taken it upon themselves to invent and re-invent the wheel over and over again in search of a good image. Handmade LUTs made by Youtubers without calibrated displays, etc etc; it's the wild west.

I was using Sony though the F3, then the F55 years, then switched to Arri (Amira then and now Alexa Mini), so I know how it's supposed to work and where Sony aspires to greatness but sometimes drops the ball. I also know how to get my FX6 to match my Mini :-). (or as close as it's going to get)

To get the best images out of Sony, Slog3, then using one of the LUTs developed by the colorists at the Sony Digital Motion Picture center (LC709, LC709-A) is the way. Arri does this, did this, but they made sure way back in 2010 that everybody using their cameras, both cinematographers, and the post people knew how it was supposed to work and provided them with the correct tools to get the right image. Sony never really did that...and when they did word travelled slowly.

If you want a Red/Arri look the cheapest and fastest way is probably a Komodo. But it can be done with the FX6 for sure, esp if you need/want some of the other Sony perks like AF, small batts, etc etc.
 
Quested said:
I agree I've seen lots of terrible ARRI footage, I don't even want to mention the beauty TVC I was on the other day. Shot on Alexa Mini, looks awful.

Production makes a huge difference you're right, but I think the biggest difference to me is you can get great looking footage stripped down from Red / Arri etc. I recently watched the CVP Komodo test (I'm in the queue for one, not sure if I'll take it) and the footage over the cliffs in the UK looks great and not at all like video - I know im using that term loosely. I don't think it's seen a pro colorist as blogs have pretty tight turn around. Glass looks ultra clean / Zeiss but I'm sure it wasn't supremes.

Stuff like that, filmed quickly without rigging, is where I see the biggest difference because you can't glam it up. Ironically its the least appropriate setting for cinema cameras outside an Amira.

Watch The Rider by Chloe Zhao. Done on a shoestring with very little lighting using an Amira, I'm not sure any amount of work with a Canon or Sony would have had the latitude to become so beautiful.

I'm not trying to argue here, as I'm mulling the Komodo / C300 III decision as we speak, and the Canon is much, much more convenient. However for the stuff I love to do, short films, doco and fashion, I think the difference is night and day.

Maybe I'm just really picky or it's all in my head.
Click to expand...


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Not about whether an Arri Alexa has nicer highlight rolloff than a camera costing 10-20% of it, but whether the FX6/FS7etc have some intrinsic 'video' look. They look as good as what you put in front of them and how you treat the footage. The nuance of that might be different camera to camera and workflow to workflow.

When I bought my first Red what you're describing is exactly what the majority of people who didn't own one were saying about the Red compared to the Alexa and it was untrue then as well.
 
Nate Weaver said:
No, you're not picky. There is a look to Arri, Red and a lot of the time Sony cameras do not look like they can do the look.

The FX6 can do it, you just have to subscribe to a certain way of working and not get lost in the crazy amount of options Sony gives you to f**k up your image. Sony tries to straddle both the old-school broadcast world and the new digital cinema world. The options can make a Sony camera look real bad real fast.

The key is to shoot Slog3/Sgamut.cine, monitor while shooting with a known good LUT, and then use that LUT again as a starting point in the grade. This is the Arri/Alexa "model" of working, but since Sony has alternately left out/changed over time/not educated their users on the various flavors of SLog over the years, users of the lower-end SLog capable cameras have taken it upon themselves to invent and re-invent the wheel over and over again in search of a good image. Handmade LUTs made by Youtubers without calibrated displays, etc etc; it's the wild west.

I was using Sony though the F3, then the F55 years, then switched to Arri (Amira then and now Alexa Mini), so I know how it's supposed to work and where Sony aspires to greatness but sometimes drops the ball. I also know how to get my FX6 to match my Mini :-). (or as close as it's going to get)

To get the best images out of Sony, Slog3, then using one of the LUTs developed by the colorists at the Sony Digital Motion Picture center (LC709, LC709-A) is the way. Arri does this, did this, but they made sure way back in 2010 that everybody using their cameras, both cinematographers, and the post people knew how it was supposed to work and provided them with the correct tools to get the right image. Sony never really did that...and when they did word travelled slowly.

If you want a Red/Arri look the cheapest and fastest way is probably a Komodo. But it can be done with the FX6 for sure, esp if you need/want some of the other Sony perks like AF, small batts, etc etc.
Click to expand...


I definitely agree the key to best workflow with a Sony is to turn a load of stuff off.

As an aside I'm having joy with the new S709 LUT as a starting place.
 
I exclusively used my FS7 in Cine EI mode with Slog3 since launch and always got great looking footage out of it. Sure white balance wasn't spot on as I had to pick one of the three options available. Cine EI on the FS7 did lock down the camera so one couldn't really fu ck it up. It worked great.

On the FX6 the S-Cinetone is really tempting as it looks so nice as is, so I have to explore when to use S-Cinetone and when it's best to do Cine EI. Handing material of to a client can sometimes just come out looking bad if they treat Slog3 footage wrong.
 
Ben Scott said:
you could absolutely shoot a feature on an FX6. But why would you if you have the budget to shoot a feature the camera package price is inconsequential?
Click to expand...

That was what I thought. But last year, John Brawley said he shot a feature with 3 UMP 12Ks (which are like $10k/apiece). The alternative was to shoot with just 2 Alexa SXTs, I think. So, it would seem that the cost of the camera package is still relevant at that level.

But of course - the price difference between a UMP 12K and an FX6 is inconsequential.
 
Quested said:
I've skimmed through the thread but there are just so many videos. Are there any particular clips that people love grading / color wise? I'm coming from Blackmagic and an FX6 makes a lot of sense but I just can't get past the video look. Maybe it's the 10bit color.

Purely opinion of course - I know some people love it.

BMD / RED / ARRI / VENICE just seem to be a cut above the rest.
Click to expand...

This Sony FX3 promo video looks quite nice, unlike the Sony's video promoting FX6 which looked awful (the dancers video). FX6 gives even better image because of better noise reduction control, less digital sharpening, slightly better color science, etc. Someone could tell me this was shot on Alexa and I'd believe it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkNX0Dkn74
 
ahalpert said:
That was what I thought. But last year, John Brawley said he shot a feature with 3 UMP 12Ks (which are like $10k/apiece). The alternative was to shoot with just 2 Alexa SXTs, I think. So, it would seem that the cost of the camera package is still relevant at that level.

But of course - the price difference between a UMP 12K and an FX6 is inconsequential.
Click to expand...

John Brawley who has has an extremely close relationship with Blackmagic and has been an ambassador for most of their cameras?
 
Last edited:
J.Brown said:
I exclusively used my FS7 in Cine EI mode with Slog3 since launch and always got great looking footage out of it. Sure white balance wasn't spot on as I had to pick one of the three options available. Cine EI on the FS7 did lock down the camera so one couldn't really fu ck it up. It worked great.

On the FX6 the S-Cinetone is really tempting as it looks so nice as is, so I have to explore when to use S-Cinetone and when it's best to do Cine EI. Handing material of to a client can sometimes just come out looking bad if they treat Slog3 footage wrong.
Click to expand...


The worst thing about the FS7 for the way I liked to work at the time was lack of info in the shadows. Led me to me dealing with Sony and Convergent Design and other people trying to find solutions when ultimately the solution for my needs was a different camera.

The FX6 (so far) feels like a tiny FS7 with all the quirks removed, higher frame rates and a larger sensor and much better low light performance.

I'm a long way away from putting it alongside the best Red footage I have shot with a crew and graded properly though due to lockdown. That said it's clearly 'good enough' for most things I need it for.
 
Ben Scott said:
John Brawley who has has an extremely close relationship with Blackmagic and has been ambassador for most of their cameras?
Click to expand...

the key thing is 2 cameras vs 3. he got to use 3 cameras.

and I mean, he shot the improvisationally-operated handheld takes on the Great with a UMP G2 because the form factor is conducive to that handicam type shooting, and it mixed into the alexa footage swimmingly. i don't think he'd go about compromising the quality of the footage for the sake of a manufacturer relationship. and I believe he said he doesn't get paid anything by blackmagic. but given that he has design input on the cameras, it's no surprise that he likes using them
 
broughtonfilm said:
This Sony FX3 promo video looks quite nice, unlike the Sony's video promoting FX6 which looked awful (the dancers video). FX6 gives even better image because of better noise reduction control, less digital sharpening, slightly better color science, etc. Someone could tell me this was shot on Alexa and I'd believe it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkNX0Dkn74
Click to expand...


I think it's really nicely shot but the grade could have really brought it to life more and evened out some skintones a wee bit.

On that subject I feel there is a difference between shooters who treat the post-pipeline as part of the process to achieve the result they are aiming for and those looking to get everything they want and need straight out of the camera.

Two completely valid but contrasting approaches that sort of travel along the broadcast/narrative schools of thought.

Just as an example here's an example of what I think about when I shoot. FYI the example was deliberately not meant to be a fab shot or anything, just a quick one-light plonk my son down and film situation.

This is straight out of the camera with a S709 LUT. Single LED panel too hot (on purpose for the test) on unwilling subject and with a weird cast. It certainly has less depth and is flatter and has more of those 'video' attributes people speak of.

Original S709 -

5rnVeQXl.jpg


Desaturated image overall. Vignette to make the subject come out of the background more. Re-saturated yellow top and gave colour to blown out face and some fine film grain added just for fun.

AuSnSqRl.jpg



And there I ended up with something that is eminently useable for my needs and took about 2mins to do and if I were to do similar with a properly composed shot I'd end up v happy with the results.


EDIT: Just to add it's not important if the above is a good shot or not (spoiler: It's not) but rather that there is a consistent methodology in place before you start turning over. ie shooting for how you (or A.N. Other) intend to treat your material.
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
the key thing is 2 cameras vs 3. he got to use 3 cameras.

and I mean, he shot the improvisationally-operated handheld takes on the Great with a UMP G2 because the form factor is conducive to that handicam type shooting, and it mixed into the alexa footage swimmingly. i don't think he'd go about compromising the quality of the footage for the sake of a manufacturer relationship. and I believe he said he doesn't get paid anything by blackmagic. but given that he has design input on the cameras, it's no surprise that he likes using them
Click to expand...


Not having a pop at him or questioning his ethics. It's just if you said to me 'guess which cinematographer shot an entire feature on Blackmagic cameras' it would immediately be John Brawley anyone would think of. In my consciousness he's sort of inseparable from BM, which I appreciate might be doing him a disservice.
 
Ben Scott said:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Not about whether an Arri Alexa has nicer highlight rolloff than a camera costing 10-20% of it, but whether the FX6/FS7etc have some intrinsic 'video' look. They look as good as what you put in front of them and how you treat the footage. The nuance of that might be different camera to camera and workflow to workflow.

When I bought my first Red what you're describing is exactly what the majority of people who didn't own one were saying about the Red compared to the Alexa and it was untrue then as well.
Click to expand...

Please don't think I'm just saying "stuff doesn't look like an Arri". Arri / Red / BMD it doesn't matter, those developed raw pipelines are what I *believe* it is. I grade footage quite hard and like latitude, I'm not trying to make things lifelike.

I've enjoyed Red footage since the Red One and I think the current offerings look great.

broughtonfilm said:
This Sony FX3 promo video looks quite nice, unlike the Sony's video promoting FX6 which looked awful (the dancers video). FX6 gives even better image because of better noise reduction control, less digital sharpening, slightly better color science, etc. Someone could tell me this was shot on Alexa and I'd believe it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkNX0Dkn74
Click to expand...

The image looks pretty decent here NR / digital wise but the colours are still a bit flat, and skin tonality is all over the place depending on exposure.

Nate Weaver said:
No, you're not picky. There is a look to Arri, Red and a lot of the time Sony cameras do not look like they can do the look.

The FX6 can do it, you just have to subscribe to a certain way of working and not get lost in the crazy amount of options Sony gives you to f**k up your image. Sony tries to straddle both the old-school broadcast world and the new digital cinema world. The options can make a Sony camera look real bad real fast.

The key is to shoot Slog3/Sgamut.cine, monitor while shooting with a known good LUT, and then use that LUT again as a starting point in the grade. This is the Arri/Alexa "model" of working, but since Sony has alternately left out/changed over time/not educated their users on the various flavors of SLog over the years, users of the lower-end SLog capable cameras have taken it upon themselves to invent and re-invent the wheel over and over again in search of a good image. Handmade LUTs made by Youtubers without calibrated displays, etc etc; it's the wild west.

I was using Sony though the F3, then the F55 years, then switched to Arri (Amira then and now Alexa Mini), so I know how it's supposed to work and where Sony aspires to greatness but sometimes drops the ball. I also know how to get my FX6 to match my Mini :-). (or as close as it's going to get)

To get the best images out of Sony, Slog3, then using one of the LUTs developed by the colorists at the Sony Digital Motion Picture center (LC709, LC709-A) is the way. Arri does this, did this, but they made sure way back in 2010 that everybody using their cameras, both cinematographers, and the post people knew how it was supposed to work and provided them with the correct tools to get the right image. Sony never really did that...and when they did word travelled slowly.

If you want a Red/Arri look the cheapest and fastest way is probably a Komodo. But it can be done with the FX6 for sure, esp if you need/want some of the other Sony perks like AF, small batts, etc etc.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting perspective. Do you have any footage (or know of any floating around) from the Sonys that it might be good for me to see?

Ben Scott said:
I think it's really nicely shot but the grade could have really brought it to life more and evened out some skintones a wee bit.

On that subject I feel there is a difference between shooters who treat the post-pipeline as part of the process to achieve the result they are aiming for and those looking to get everything they want and need straight out of the camera.

Two completely valid but contrasting approaches that sort of travel along the broadcast/narrative schools of thought.

.
Click to expand...

I agree here Ben, there are 2 schools of thought and I fall FIRMLY into the "creating assets to turn into art later" pool. Thats why I love R3D and to a lesser extent, BRAW. The RED IPPT2 pipeline is great and I'm not surprised they used it for Queens Gambit, which has color work I adore.

FX6's are in short supply in Australia but I'd love to rent one for a project and see how far the footage can be pushed assuming its exposed correctly and shot in Slog3. I've heard the arguments from both the "raw or the door" squad and those who think 10-bit Log grades just as well but to be honest I am too inexperienced with Sony files to firmly draw my own conclusions about what can and can't be achieved.

From a purely grading perspective, could Queen's Gambit look near as nice from a canon / Sony?
I'd love the answer to be yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top