FX6: The Sony ILME-FX6V Owners Club

Newsguy said:
Hey, I’m just complaining about gear, no argument from me lol. I do use the 28-135 a lot more lately on the FX6. The weight balances well with a V or gold mount on the back when shoulder mounted. The F4 speed is also not an issue as the high base is 12,000 �� Even in S-cinetone I believe it’s 5000 on high base, so the lens is very versatile for that little camera. The other feature I love about that lens, and these new cine lenses Sony is working on, is the ring push for AF. For certain types of man on the street stuff I focus manually and will push it forward once I’m tight on a person just to be sure the eye is sharp. Unfortunately, based on that 16-35, it seems like these new cine lenses will be in that 5-6k range.
Click to expand...

Im not being sarcastic .. I read your post and your right .. :)
 
Used the FX6 on its first livestream yesterday.

All worked flawlessly with a progressive signal which I wasn't expecting.


One thing I'd note is how hilariously out of whack all the colours were when we tested Cinetone. Blue became very much turquoise.
 
Last edited:
I've started using my FX6 with a Sony 35mm f/1.8 and a ECM-680 shotgun as my webcam for meetings. Yesterday I left it in CINE EI mode with no MLUT and I liked the way the ungraded S-LOG looked. All made possible by the excellent eye-detect AF tracking that never misses the mark.
 
I've got the Blackmagic web presenter and ATEM switcher for added flexibilty and mixing sources. If I'm doing training or a presentation it is nice to be able to switch between the "webcam" view and the menu/video output of whatever other camera is the actual focus of the meeting.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I've started using my FX6 with a Sony 35mm f/1.8 and a ECM-680 shotgun as my webcam for meetings. Yesterday I left it in CINE EI mode with no MLUT and I liked the way the ungraded S-LOG looked. All made possible by the excellent eye-detect AF tracking that never misses the mark.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be super flat and with colors that require a transform?
 
That Twitter person needs to watch more content.

Half of earth's footage is like that and is perfectly acceptable.

I too like plain S-Log (3 in this case). Maybe only with just a touch of contrast (10%).
 
Doug Jensen said:
I like the look of pure S-LOG. A creative choice. :-)
Click to expand...

I love the look of S-LOG in the morning. It looks like...victory.

But I mean, it's hard to talk about your WYSIWYG gamma without talking about the lighting and contrast ratios. And while 2 of my WYSIWYG profiles are crushed-blacks s-log2 and s-log3, they're not using s-gamut, they use "Movie" color (on a7siii) with a good amount of saturation
 
By the same token just because someone thinks log footage which is never meant to be seen uncorrected, looks nice uncorrected, it doesn't mean they don't have bad taste. :)
 
If someone's brain is wired that simply then for sure.

I would just call it different taste.
 
Ah this is a can of worms....

There's a huge difference between low contrast finished material and uncorrected log footage. One is an aesthetic. The other is a mistake.

EDIT: I'll leave it there i have nothing more to contribute to that one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top