FX6: The Sony ILME-FX6V Owners Club

jmone said:
Anyone using a Gimbal for the FX6? I've been following a thread over at DJI and the FX6 is still not supported for the RS2 (though I know that others seem to have the combination working).

I'm also a bit surprised there is not an adapter out yet to give audio via the IF on the top of the body (that the handle uses).

Thanks
Nathan

Edit: I see the Zhiyun-Tech CRANE 3S supports the FX9 with the 28-135 Lens but no mention of the FX6 (I have the 28-135 lens as well). Edit 2 nope, looks like with the FX9 "The maximum compatible lens is Sony E PZ 18-110mm F4 G OSS." which is kind of .....
Click to expand...

Just a bump to see if anyone is flying a the FX6 on a Gimbal, which one, and how well it works or otherwise.
Thanks
Nathan
 
I haven’t, but I’ve seen a bunch on the Facebook group flying on the RS2. The consensus is that with the small rig extension plate it works with no issue (other than no quality audio without the handle).
 
jmone said:
Just a bump to see if anyone is flying a the FX6 on a Gimbal, which one, and how well it works or otherwise.
Thanks
Nathan
Click to expand...

I tried to do it with a rig stripped to the minimum:

- Small cine prime
- Cforce RF motor
- Teradek TX

And had a hell of a time. Wasn't really able to get it properly balanced, even with bunch of counterweights. It could semi-hold it, but even just a small tilt up or down was enough for the motor's to give out and the whole camera to pitch forwards or backwards.

I'm sure with the bare body, and small AF lens it's probably doable. But if you've got someone pulling focus remotely, and need wireless monitoring - you're going to struggle a bit.
 
I've ordered a Zhiyun-Tech CRANE 3S PRO and I'll update on how this one goes with the FX6. I'm hoping with the size and weight on the S3 Pro I may be able to fly the FX6 maxed out with Handle + Audio + the 28-135.
 
jmone said:
I've ordered a Zhiyun-Tech CRANE 3S PRO and I'll update on how this one goes with the FX6. I'm hoping with the size and weight on the S3 Pro I may be able to fly the FX6 maxed out with Handle + Audio + the 28-135.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, I was able to fly my Fs5 with a Sigma 18-35 on the Crane 3S Pro but it felt like a stretch at times. Also it gets very heavy very quickly. This was with the top handle but without the side handle or a shotgun mic. If you have trouble getting it properly balanced let me know and I can try to dig up some of the tutorial videos I found useful.
 
Grug said:
Do people really have that much trouble with white balance? Even when I've been lumped with digital cameras that only give you 3200k or 5600k, or even film stocks at a single consistent white balance, it's really never been that big of an issue. Put a gel on the lights, or a filter in the mattebox.

Nowadays you can literally dial in exactly what you want in 50k increments. Surely any residual issues people were having are sorted now?
Click to expand...

I don't usually have a calibrated monitor with me, I'm often matching cameras, often passing footage to a client who won't do any grading, and I'm more concerned about green / magenta than temperature.
 
Every time I have executed a WB SET on my FX6 while shooting a suitable white or gray card and looking at the output on my Leader vectorscope the dot has been exactly right at the center. Perfectly accurate with no shifts.
 
Cine D have performed their rolling shutter, dynamic range, and latitude tests on the FX6. They tested both internal and ProRes RAW:
https://www.cined.com/sony-fx6-lab-test-external-prores-raw-vs-internal-xavc-intra/

- Rolling shutter (384x2160, 25p): 8.7 ms
- Rolling shutter (384x2160, 120p): 7.7 ms

- ProRes RAW 800 ISO
Dynamic range (SNR=2): 11.4
Dynamic range (SNR=1): 12.6

- Internal XAVC-Intra 4:2:2 800 ISO
Dynamic range (SNR=2): 11.7
Dynamic range (SNR=1): 12.8

- ProRes RAW 12800 ISO
Dynamic range (SNR=2): 10.5
Dynamic range (SNR=1): 12.3

- Internal XAVC-Intra 4:2:2 12800 ISO
Dynamic range (SNR=2): 11.2
Dynamic range (SNR=1): 12.6

Lab test archives for other cameras:
https://www.cined.com/lab-tests/
 
Teddy_Dem said:
Cine D have performed their rolling shutter, dynamic range, and latitude tests on the FX6. They tested both internal and ProRes RAW:
https://www.cined.com/sony-fx6-lab-test-external-prores-raw-vs-internal-xavc-intra/
Click to expand...

For me, this is the most interesting quote of their review:
"Sorry to say so, but from these lab results I do not see the point of ProRes RAW HQ. It is not supported by DaVinci Resolve, you only have rudimentary controls (exposure & gamma curve, no white balance, no tint, etc….) in Premiere Pro and the files are noisier – to an extend, that even advanced noise reduction in DaVinci Resolve cannot save them. In addition, no highlight recovery options are available."

I suspected that would be the case and is exactly the reason why I didn't waste time covering RAW in my master class. It is sad that some people are going to add 50% to the cost of their camera package (recorder, cards, batteries, mounting rig, etc) and deal with all the hassle of shooting with a Frankencamera for zero benefit. The emperor has no clothes and XAVC-I is a fantastic CODEC. Keep the camera simple and enjoy it.
 
Doug Jensen said:
For me, this is the most interesting quote of their review:
"Sorry to say so, but from these lab results I do not see the point of ProRes RAW HQ. It is not supported by DaVinci Resolve, you only have rudimentary controls (exposure & gamma curve, no white balance, no tint, etc….) in Premiere Pro and the files are noisier – to an extend, that even advanced noise reduction in DaVinci Resolve cannot save them. In addition, no highlight recovery options are available."

I suspected that would be the case and is exactly the reason why I didn't waste time covering RAW in my master class. It is sad that some people are going to add 50% to the cost of their camera package (recorder, cards, batteries, mounting rig, etc) and deal with all the hassle of shooting with a Frankencamera for zero benefit. The emperor has no clothes and XAVC-I is a fantastic CODEC. Keep the camera simple and enjoy it.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of dynamic range in digital cameras. I was sort of hoping that the Fx6 in raw would show up an extra half stop of DR. Seeing this is not really the case, I'm going to stick with higher end cameras for now. For me, the range between 12.5 and 14 stops DR is a huge transitional and pivotal range, that makes a big difference in the ability to shoot by eye.

That said, I still think the Fx6 is one of the better recent budget options, and Sony has done a lot with the colour science. If I were buying a new camera today, the Fx6 looks to be at the top. Totally capable of going up against Blackmagic and Komodo for image quality, while being waaaaaay more user friendly. 12hrs battery life, did I say that? haha

Alright, sorry to hijack this thread, I'll jump back out until I eventually buy one of these things. I am trying to resist, but I think eventually I'll cave in. Great thread here too!
 
Doug Jensen said:
For me, this is the most interesting quote of their review:
"Sorry to say so, but from these lab results I do not see the point of ProRes RAW HQ. It is not supported by DaVinci Resolve, you only have rudimentary controls (exposure & gamma curve, no white balance, no tint, etc….) in Premiere Pro and the files are noisier – to an extend, that even advanced noise reduction in DaVinci Resolve cannot save them. In addition, no highlight recovery options are available."

I suspected that would be the case and is exactly the reason why I didn't waste time covering RAW in my master class. It is sad that some people are going to add 50% to the cost of their camera package (recorder, cards, batteries, mounting rig, etc) and deal with all the hassle of shooting with a Frankencamera for zero benefit. The emperor has no clothes and XAVC-I is a fantastic CODEC. Keep the camera simple and enjoy it.
Click to expand...

What about the additional bit-depth and color information?
 
ahalpert said:
What about the additional bit-depth and color information?
Click to expand...

I think the negatives that they point out outweigh whatever positives there may be.
Has anyone posted any split screen side-by-side footage of internal vs. graded RAW that was shot simultaneously during some real-world situations? That is the only way to see the differences.
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
What about the additional bit-depth and color information?
Click to expand...

I did some comparison testing to see whether the advantages of the higher bit-depth and bit-rates shooting Prores Raw (or ProresHQ) were worth it for a feature I'm shooting at the moment. And they REALLY need to be worth it, to put up with the HORRENDOUS workflow required when shooting Prores Raw.

Processed into Prores4444 via FCPX (with it's newly upgraded batch processing capabilities). It's possible to do an accurate SLOG3/Sgamut3.cine transform for the Prores4444 masters. But it's a real pain in the arse.

That said, the improvements in bitdepth and bitrate are pretty readily apparent for any colour grading that requires more than just a few primary adjustments.

And latitude-wise, be aware of the methodology that CineD use in their tests. They're adding no noise reduction to the raw clips (which is why the slightly noise-processed XAVC footage, yields slightly better latitude results in their tests). But you can 100% pull out more shadow detail from the transcoded raw footage, than you can from XAVC footage. It's not a huge difference by any measure, but if you're zooming in 400% to compare the two, there's clearly more you can salvage from the thicker footage (if you apply a bit of noise reduction in post judiciously).

The workflow is still awful though. So I find it hard to recommend.
 
Interesting comments, Grug. It is always good to hear from people who have actually been hands-on with what they are talking about. I'm not surprised that there was more leeway in the RAW during grading, but like you say, is it worth it? And I still wonder if it really makes a noticable difference in the final graded output of footage that was shot pretty well in the first place. Nothing but some well-shot side-by-side, split-screen testing, that shows a significant difference is going to win me over. I already went through all this with the FS5 and I'm not going to assume anything about the "advantages" of RAW ever again. Just to be clear, I'm not against RAW in general. 99% of everything I shoot with my F55 is 16-bit RAW or XOCN-ST and there is defiintely a difference with those files.
 
Grug said:
I did some comparison testing to see whether the advantages of the higher bit-depth and bit-rates shooting Prores Raw (or ProresHQ) were worth it for a feature I'm shooting at the moment. And they REALLY need to be worth it, to put up with the HORRENDOUS workflow required when shooting Prores Raw.

Processed into Prores4444 via FCPX (with it's newly upgraded batch processing capabilities). It's possible to do an accurate SLOG3/Sgamut3.cine transform for the Prores4444 masters. But it's a real pain in the arse.

That said, the improvements in bitdepth and bitrate are pretty readily apparent for any colour grading that requires more than just a few primary adjustments.

And latitude-wise, be aware of the methodology that CineD use in their tests. They're adding no noise reduction to the raw clips (which is why the slightly noise-processed XAVC footage, yields slightly better latitude results in their tests). But you can 100% pull out more shadow detail from the transcoded raw footage, than you can from XAVC footage. It's not a huge difference by any measure, but if you're zooming in 400% to compare the two, there's clearly more you can salvage from the thicker footage (if you apply a bit of noise reduction in post judiciously).

The workflow is still awful though. So I find it hard to recommend.
Click to expand...

If you're on FCP, why is the workflow horrendous and awful?
 
Actually you're probably not and just using it to process...which I understand how you feel as I had to do the same with every RAW in Resolve (besides REDCODE and CRL) before taking it back to FCP and it was always a pain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top