Why are 4k cameras sharper than some best 1080p cameras like F3?

[AmbiSonde]

FX30 XAVC-HS has 200 mbps at most, XAVC-SI has 600 mbps. How come XAVC-SI is noiser than XAVC-HS? If using XAVC-HS 200, grading may be an issue, in camera adjustment may be the way to go.

You are ignoring the fact XAVC-HS is HEVC which is 2x as efficient as h264 so 200 Mbps performs like 400 Mbps, HS is also long GOP whereas XAVC-I is intra frame so XAVC-I is actually at a bitrate disadvantage per frame.

I have thoroughly tested XAVC-HS against XAVC-I and HS wins across the board, as I said, it is less compressed there are almost zero compression artefacts and therefore more robust in post production. In comparison XAVC-I destroys fine detail and has a significant amount of mosquito noise. The only advantage to shooting XAVC-I is if you have an older computer that does not have GPU acceleration of XAVC-HS. If you have a modern PC with quicksync XAVC-HS edits like intra frame anyway.

What I found surprising was that XAVC-S was also better than XAVC-I on the FX30. I was not expecting that. I only tested that at 25p though.

The FX3 and FX30 have Sony's latest codecs, they're better quality and much more efficient than those in the FX9 and FX6 so only the FX9 recording externally to RAW will beat the FX30 for detail. I've seen plenty of owners of both the FX3 and FX30 say the FX30 clearly has a more detailed image. I've seen a number of FX3 owners who bought the FX30 as a cheap B camera who've ended up using it as the A cam and the FX3 as the B cam. The image coming out of the FX30 is exceptional.

If you're considering a new camera then you'd be crazy not to take a good look at the FX30. The advantages the FX3 has is low light performance, it can do full sensor RAW and if it's important it is a full frame. Sony has limited the FX30's RAW output to 4.7K crop which will be like S16. I don't begrudge them that, if they'd given full 6k S35 16 bit RAW out they'd kill the FX9 and no one would buy their expensive detachable sensor block for the Venice.

I would wait to buy a Mark II FX9 or FX6 as Sony will surely bring XAVC-HS (they'll probably call it XAVC-H) to new camera models when they refresh the line-up which will also bring all the AI auto-focus enhancements. It almost feels like the FX30 is the first camera in the next series rather than the last camera in the current series and it signals what to expect next from Sony.

I don't think Sony had much choice but to release the FX30 with these specs, the competition for small and hybrid cameras is intense, the Fuji cameras are also excellent in this price range which are also worth looking at. If Sony had released a crippled S35 camera no one would've bought it and they would've lost huge numbers of sales in a very important segment. As it happens Sony can't keep up with demand for the FX30, it's flying off the shelves.

I forgot to say it's not all good news about the FX30. I forgot to say the audio recording is sub-par, the audio pre-amps are absolute shite so having a good audio recorder is vital if you have any concern whatsoever for audio. I have a Sony A10 that I mount on the rig and pass through audio into the FX30 via the 3.5mm jack and I sync and replace audio in post. Sony in camera audio has always been, at best, barely satisfactory so I doubt any of the FX cameras are anything to write home about.

 

[zlfan]

You are ignoring the fact XAVC-HS is HEVC which is 2x as efficient as h264 so 200 Mbps performs like 400 Mbps, HS is also long GOP whereas XAVC-I is intra frame so XAVC-I is actually at a bitrate disadvantage per frame.

I have thoroughly tested XAVC-HS against XAVC-I and HS wins across the board, as I said, it is less compressed there are almost zero compression artefacts and therefore more robust in post production. In comparison XAVC-I destroys fine detail and has a significant amount of mosquito noise. The only advantage to shooting XAVC-I is if you have an older computer that does not have GPU acceleration of XAVC-HS. If you have a modern PC with quicksync XAVC-HS edits like intra frame anyway.

What I found surprising was that XAVC-S was also better than XAVC-I on the FX30. I was not expecting that. I only tested that at 25p though.

The FX3 and FX30 have Sony's latest codecs, they're better quality and much more efficient than those in the FX9 and FX6 so only the FX9 recording externally to RAW will beat the FX30 for detail. I've seen plenty of owners of both the FX3 and FX30 say the FX30 clearly has a more detailed image. I've seen a number of FX3 owners who bought the FX30 as a cheap B camera who've ended up using it as the A cam and the FX3 as the B cam. The image coming out of the FX30 is exceptional.

If you're considering a new camera then you'd be crazy not to take a good look at the FX30. The advantages the FX3 has is low light performance, it can do full sensor RAW and if it's important it is a full frame. Sony has limited the FX30's RAW output to 4.7K crop which will be like S16. I don't begrudge them that, if they'd given full 6k S35 16 bit RAW out they'd kill the FX9 and no one would buy their expensive detachable sensor block for the Venice.

I would wait to buy a Mark II FX9 or FX6 as Sony will surely bring XAVC-HS (they'll probably call it XAVC-H) to new camera models when they refresh the line-up which will also bring all the AI auto-focus enhancements. It almost feels like the FX30 is the first camera in the next series rather than the last camera in the current series and it signals what to expect next from Sony.

I don't think Sony had much choice but to release the FX30 with these specs, the competition for small and hybrid cameras is intense, the Fuji cameras are also excellent in this price range which are also worth looking at. If Sony had released a crippled S35 camera no one would've bought it and they would've lost huge numbers of sales in a very important segment. As it happens Sony can't keep up with demand for the FX30, it's flying off the shelves.

I forgot to say it's not all good news about the FX30. I forgot to say the audio recording is sub-par, the audio pre-amps are absolute ****e so having a good audio recorder is vital if you have any concern whatsoever for audio. I have a Sony A10 that I mount on the rig and pass through audio into the FX30 via the 3.5mm jack and I sync and replace audio in post. Sony in camera audio has always been, at best, barely satisfactory so I doubt any of the FX cameras are anything to write home about.

Thanks for the sharing. Seems very few people will buy FX9 and FX6 now.

 

[zlfan]

You are ignoring the fact XAVC-HS is HEVC which is 2x as efficient as h264 so 200 Mbps performs like 400 Mbps, HS is also long GOP whereas XAVC-I is intra frame so XAVC-I is actually at a bitrate disadvantage per frame.

I have thoroughly tested XAVC-HS against XAVC-I and HS wins across the board, as I said, it is less compressed there are almost zero compression artefacts and therefore more robust in post production. In comparison XAVC-I destroys fine detail and has a significant amount of mosquito noise. The only advantage to shooting XAVC-I is if you have an older computer that does not have GPU acceleration of XAVC-HS. If you have a modern PC with quicksync XAVC-HS edits like intra frame anyway.

What I found surprising was that XAVC-S was also better than XAVC-I on the FX30. I was not expecting that. I only tested that at 25p though.

The FX3 and FX30 have Sony's latest codecs, they're better quality and much more efficient than those in the FX9 and FX6 so only the FX9 recording externally to RAW will beat the FX30 for detail. I've seen plenty of owners of both the FX3 and FX30 say the FX30 clearly has a more detailed image. I've seen a number of FX3 owners who bought the FX30 as a cheap B camera who've ended up using it as the A cam and the FX3 as the B cam. The image coming out of the FX30 is exceptional.

If you're considering a new camera then you'd be crazy not to take a good look at the FX30. The advantages the FX3 has is low light performance, it can do full sensor RAW and if it's important it is a full frame. Sony has limited the FX30's RAW output to 4.7K crop which will be like S16. I don't begrudge them that, if they'd given full 6k S35 16 bit RAW out they'd kill the FX9 and no one would buy their expensive detachable sensor block for the Venice.

I would wait to buy a Mark II FX9 or FX6 as Sony will surely bring XAVC-HS (they'll probably call it XAVC-H) to new camera models when they refresh the line-up which will also bring all the AI auto-focus enhancements. It almost feels like the FX30 is the first camera in the next series rather than the last camera in the current series and it signals what to expect next from Sony.

I don't think Sony had much choice but to release the FX30 with these specs, the competition for small and hybrid cameras is intense, the Fuji cameras are also excellent in this price range which are also worth looking at. If Sony had released a crippled S35 camera no one would've bought it and they would've lost huge numbers of sales in a very important segment. As it happens Sony can't keep up with demand for the FX30, it's flying off the shelves.

I forgot to say it's not all good news about the FX30. I forgot to say the audio recording is sub-par, the audio pre-amps are absolute ****e so having a good audio recorder is vital if you have any concern whatsoever for audio. I have a Sony A10 that I mount on the rig and pass through audio into the FX30 via the 3.5mm jack and I sync and replace audio in post. Sony in camera audio has always been, at best, barely satisfactory so I doubt any of the FX cameras are anything to write home about.

Have you compared XAVC-HS vs XAVC 480 (960 for 60p)? It is about 5 times difference of size. XAVC 960 supposes to have some advantage.

Can FX30 export ProRes? How about ProRes HQ 880 (1760 for 60p) vs XAVC-HS?

 

[AmbiSonde]

Have you compared XAVC-HS vs XAVC 480 (960 for 60p)? It is about 5 times difference of size. XAVC 960 supposes to have some advantage.

Can FX30 export ProRes? How about ProRes HQ 880 (1760 for 60p) vs XAVC-HS?

No, I only compared XAVC-HS, XAVC-S and XAVC-SI. XAVC-HS is amazing and produces tiny files so there's no need for ProRes or XAVC 960 and the massive files they produce, if anything, the future is higher bitrate XAVC-HS. I expect the next series of cameras will boost the bitrate for XAVC-HS and it will become the preferred codec, I wonder if they could do XAVC-HI an intra-frame HEVC that might be easier to edit for those without the necessary GPU acceleration?

I have seen the 16bit RAW from the FX30 but, as I said, it's 4.7k using an S16-ish size crop of the sensor. It looks amazing but for the work I do I don't want to lug around more kit as that will defeat the object of buying such a small camera.

On your point about the FX6 and FX9, They've been around a while so there is going to be less new sales of these cameras and if Sony play the same game as they did with the FS series they'll get a refresh in a while. There's always going to be a market for cameras with pro IO so the FX6 and FX9 have their market but I think those markets are shrinking as more people decide that small hybrid cameras do as much as they need.

 

[zlfan]

No, I only compared XAVC-HS, XAVC-S and XAVC-SI. XAVC-HS is amazing and produces tiny files so there's no need for ProRes or XAVC 960 and the massive files they produce, if anything, the future is higher bitrate XAVC-HS. I expect the next series of cameras will boost the bitrate for XAVC-HS and it will become the preferred codec, I wonder if they could do XAVC-HI an intra-frame HEVC that might be easier to edit for those without the necessary GPU acceleration?

I have seen the 16bit RAW from the FX30 but, as I said, it's 4.7k using an S16-ish size crop of the sensor. It looks amazing but for the work I do I don't want to lug around more kit as that will defeat the object of buying such a small camera.

On your point about the FX6 and FX9, They've been around a while so there is going to be less new sales of these cameras and if Sony play the same game as they did with the FS series they'll get a refresh in a while. There's always going to be a market for cameras with pro IO so the FX6 and FX9 have their market but I think those markets are shrinking as more people decide that small hybrid cameras do as much as they need.

s16 4k raw is actually interesting. not many cameras have this capability.

 

[zlfan]

No, I only compared XAVC-HS, XAVC-S and XAVC-SI. XAVC-HS is amazing and produces tiny files so there's no need for ProRes or XAVC 960 and the massive files they produce, if anything, the future is higher bitrate XAVC-HS. I expect the next series of cameras will boost the bitrate for XAVC-HS and it will become the preferred codec, I wonder if they could do XAVC-HI an intra-frame HEVC that might be easier to edit for those without the necessary GPU acceleration?

I have seen the 16bit RAW from the FX30 but, as I said, it's 4.7k using an S16-ish size crop of the sensor. It looks amazing but for the work I do I don't want to lug around more kit as that will defeat the object of buying such a small camera.

On your point about the FX6 and FX9, They've been around a while so there is going to be less new sales of these cameras and if Sony play the same game as they did with the FS series they'll get a refresh in a while. There's always going to be a market for cameras with pro IO so the FX6 and FX9 have their market but I think those markets are shrinking as more people decide that small hybrid cameras do as much as they need.

from your experience, if you bring out the fx30, will clients doubt you more, than you bring the fs7?

 

[AmbiSonde]

from your experience, if you bring out the fx30, will clients doubt you more, than you bring the fs7?

Maybe that could've been true a few years ago but clients also share the same world and see cameras getting smaller and better themselves. You can pimp the FX30 out with cage, handle and matte box etc and it no longer looks like a point and shoot camera.

Jobs are not won and lost of the camera you use they are won on the basis that clients are confident in your ability to deliver a well made production based on your showreel or examples of your work or reputation. The important thing to remember it's my skills and the finished project that the client is paying for not the equipment used to make it and I'm not going to be charging less because I'm using a £2k camera, I'm expensive.

If the client has issues with the size of the camera then it's an opportunity to engage and explain to them the benefits of using such a small compact system, heck a Hollywood blockbuster was just shot on the FX3. If I thought I needed a different camera or more expensive I would own that camera, I just don't see a better camera than the FX30 right now, it's that simple. Other points of view are available.

Don't look at the price of the FX30 compared to say the FX9 and think it's a lesser camera, it isn't. There's no feature in the FX9 that would enhance my life over the FX30 so to me they're on the same level. If you need pro IO then it's worth buying a camera with those connections, I don't. Just accept that the FX30 is dirt cheap for what it offers and enjoy all the winning all the way to the bank.

 

[zlfan]

Maybe that could've been true a few years ago but clients also share the same world and see cameras getting smaller and better themselves. You can pimp the FX30 out with cage, handle and matte box etc and it no longer looks like a point and shoot camera.

Jobs are not won and lost of the camera you use they are won on the basis that clients are confident in your ability to deliver a well made production based on your showreel or examples of your work or reputation. The important thing to remember it's my skills and the finished project that the client is paying for not the equipment used to make it and I'm not going to be charging less because I'm using a ã2k camera, I'm expensive.

If the client has issues with the size of the camera then it's an opportunity to engage and explain to them the benefits of using such a small compact system, heck a Hollywood blockbuster was just shot on the FX3. If I thought I needed a different camera or more expensive I would own that camera, I just don't see a better camera than the FX30 right now, it's that simple. Other points of view are available.

Don't look at the price of the FX30 compared to say the FX9 and think it's a lesser camera, it isn't. There's no feature in the FX9 that would enhance my life over the FX30 so to me they're on the same level. If you need pro IO then it's worth buying a camera with those connections, I don't. Just accept that the FX30 is dirt cheap for what it offers and enjoy all the winning all the way to the bank.

in most cases, pro i/o is nice, but not deal breaker.

 

[AmbiSonde]

in most cases, pro i/o is nice, but not deal breaker.

Indeed. If you need on-set IO then the FX9 makes perfect sense and is well worth the premium.

What I like about the Cinemaline of cameras is that each camera can be complemented by another camera in the line-up. Sony hasn't crippled any camera in the line-up like they have done in the past, each camera makes sense and has its own market but can easily be paired with another cam. The FX30 would be a great B-cam, drone cam and gimbal cam for an owner of an FX9 for example. I hope Sony continue this philosophy of not crippling cameras into the next series.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with Sony as the competition (Nikon and Panasonic) has worked out a way around the RED compressed RAW patent, I just hope Sony doesn't do something stupid like cripple RAW recording to 12 bit. An FX30 level camera with internal 16 bit compressed RAW would be awesome.

 

[Tom Roper]

Cherry pie is so much better with cinnamon sprinkles.

 

[AmbiSonde]

Hot treacle tart is only enhanced by vanilla ice cream.

 

[zlfan]

Hi, guys: I am not a food guru. Better use something I understand. Cars are good analogies. Or computers.

 

[zlfan]

Indeed. If you need on-set IO then the FX9 makes perfect sense and is well worth the premium.

What I like about the Cinemaline of cameras is that each camera can be complemented by another camera in the line-up. Sony hasn't crippled any camera in the line-up like they have done in the past, each camera makes sense and has its own market but can easily be paired with another cam. The FX30 would be a great B-cam, drone cam and gimbal cam for an owner of an FX9 for example. I hope Sony continue this philosophy of not crippling cameras into the next series.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with Sony as the competition (Nikon and Panasonic) has worked out a way around the RED compressed RAW patent, I just hope Sony doesn't do something stupid like cripple RAW recording to 12 bit. An FX30 level camera with internal 16 bit compressed RAW would be awesome.

An FX30 level camera with internal 16 bit compressed RAW is a mini Red Komodo, at $2000 it will sell like hot cake.

 

[AmbiSonde]

An FX30 level camera with internal 16 bit compressed RAW is a mini Red Komodo, at $2000 it will sell like hot cake.

I didn't think you were a food guru? Hot cakes!

If Sony does bring compressed RAW in their next series of cameras they will also come with all of Sony's magic autofocus developments which could make next-gen cameras real competition for RED.

I was initially extremely sceptical about autofocus, in my experience it had never worked in video and even the best would blip out of focus ruining shots. Well, the autofocus in the FX30 has completely changed my mind and I understand the new A6700 has further improved the system. The autofocus is now so reliable you're crazy not to take advantage of it, it feels like it's one step ahead of the user unlike the old systems which were two steps behind. I realise I'm late to the Sony autofocus party but it is one of the biggest changes I've ever noticed in camera developments in my career.

I expected the image out of the FX30 to be much better than the FS7 but biggest surprise has been the reliability of autofocus which was completely unreliable in the FS7 to being 99.9% reliable in the FX30, it's a culture shock for someone who never used autofocus in the entirety of their career. I was able to track one of my friends walking through a busy street towards the camera with people obscuring his face and the camera held focus all the way right up to the camera. I would never have attempted that shot with manual focus, I would probably have ended up cutting that shot in two with a cutaway just to cover my focussing mishaps. The game has changed while I've been away.

I wonder how long it'll be before Cooke makes their first autofocus cine lens for cine cameras with AI autofocus systems?

 

[zlfan]

I didn't think you were a food guru? Hot cakes!

If Sony does bring compressed RAW in their next series of cameras they will also come with all of Sony's magic autofocus developments which could make next-gen cameras real competition for RED.

I was initially extremely sceptical about autofocus, in my experience it had never worked in video and even the best would blip out of focus ruining shots. Well, the autofocus in the FX30 has completely changed my mind and I understand the new A6700 has further improved the system. The autofocus is now so reliable you're crazy not to take advantage of it, it feels like it's one step ahead of the user unlike the old systems which were two steps behind. I realise I'm late to the Sony autofocus party but it is one of the biggest changes I've ever noticed in camera developments in my career.

I expected the image out of the FX30 to be much better than the FS7 but biggest surprise has been the reliability of autofocus which was completely unreliable in the FS7 to being 99.9% reliable in the FX30, it's a culture shock for someone who never used autofocus in the entirety of their career. I was able to track one of my friends walking through a busy street towards the camera with people obscuring his face and the camera held focus all the way right up to the camera. I would never have attempted that shot with manual focus, I would probably have ended up cutting that shot in two with a cutaway just to cover my focussing mishaps. The game has changed while I've been away.

I wonder how long it'll be before Cooke makes their first autofocus cine lens for cine cameras with AI autofocus systems?

I guess that Cooke will maintain MF, just like Rolls Royce. MF still dominates, although in a very narrow niche!

 

[zlfan]

sony is following canon's business model. c300 and c100 have similar iq, but different levels of pro i/o.

 

[zlfan]

I didn't think you were a food guru? Hot cakes!

If Sony does bring compressed RAW in their next series of cameras they will also come with all of Sony's magic autofocus developments which could make next-gen cameras real competition for RED.

I was initially extremely sceptical about autofocus, in my experience it had never worked in video and even the best would blip out of focus ruining shots. Well, the autofocus in the FX30 has completely changed my mind and I understand the new A6700 has further improved the system. The autofocus is now so reliable you're crazy not to take advantage of it, it feels like it's one step ahead of the user unlike the old systems which were two steps behind. I realise I'm late to the Sony autofocus party but it is one of the biggest changes I've ever noticed in camera developments in my career.

I expected the image out of the FX30 to be much better than the FS7 but biggest surprise has been the reliability of autofocus which was completely unreliable in the FS7 to being 99.9% reliable in the FX30, it's a culture shock for someone who never used autofocus in the entirety of their career. I was able to track one of my friends walking through a busy street towards the camera with people obscuring his face and the camera held focus all the way right up to the camera. I would never have attempted that shot with manual focus, I would probably have ended up cutting that shot in two with a cutaway just to cover my focussing mishaps. The game has changed while I've been away.

I wonder how long it'll be before Cooke makes their first autofocus cine lens for cine cameras with AI autofocus systems?

From my experience on still photography, like no pro io, without af is not a deal breaker, except in narrow niches like sports and car racing, etc. I use manual focus and manual exposure most of the time. I enjoy using manual focus. For manual exposure, as long as I get used to it, it is fine, as the exposure does not change much during several hours of the day in most cases. I am not locked in any system. Being free makes me feel very well.

 

[Tim Peck]

Exposure changes all of the time, if you're shooting outside and it's not a cloud covered day - or if there's a cloudless sky, which isn't common in the UK.

 

[zlfan]

Exposure changes all of the time, if you're shooting outside and it's not a cloud covered day - or if there's a cloudless sky, which isn't common in the UK.

I know in changing weather, it is more difficult. But still it is not as hard as imagined. I just take an initial photo, check the histogram on lcd, and retake another after adjusting the exposure. Typically two shots are enough, at most three shots. And I also realize that once you do manual exposure, you are more sensitive to light, you can guess the exposure much faster and more accurate than when using in camera metering. We lost our potential of the sensing to the light, because the cameras are so automated now. But our potential is amazing.
Another reason I like manual exposure, is because when there is shade and there is sunlight, you want to exposure the human face right, it is almost impossible for in camera metering, even using matrix metering. But manual exposure can do it right easily.

 

[Tim Peck]

"the exposure does not change much during several hours of the day"
Sorry but you just contradicted yourself there.