While I had the light meter and exposure test chart out for the FX6 I decided to do the same exposure level confirmation test for the FX9. No nasty surprises, the FX9’s ISO ratings certainly appear to be correct. Again using a DSC Labs exposure reference chart with 18% middle grey and 90% white plus my trusty Sekonic I tested the FX9 at both 800 ISO and 4000 ISO and my light meter and the camera were in good agreement. At 800 ISO the light meter was saying f4.01 while the camera was at f4, I suspect this tiny difference is probably down to transmission losses in the lens.
FX9 Exposure rating test at 800 ISO.FX9 Exposure ISO rating test at 4000 ISO.
I have already done this a few times, but having seen some other tests suggesting the FX6’s ISO ratings were incorrect. So I decided to re-confirm my previous findings, which is that the ratings Sony give their cameras is correct. For the test I used a DSC labs exposure calibration chart which is an extremely accurate 18%/90% reflectivity chart and my trusty Sekonic light meter. As you can see at both 800 ISO and 12,800 ISO the light meters indicated exposure settings perfectly match the camera’s ISO ratings, shutter speed and aperture. For the 12,800 ISO test, as my light meter doesn’t go up to 12,800 ISO I set the light meter to 6400 ISO which is one stop lower than the cameras 12,800. The light meter indicated f11 which is one stop below the f16 required by the camera – confirming that the ISO rating is correct.
800 ISO FX6 exposure calibration test. FX6 12,800 ISo exposure calibration test.
I often hear people saying that XAVC-I isn’t good enough or that you MUST use ProRes or some other codec. My own experience is that XAVC-I is actually a really good codec and recording to ProRes only ever makes the very tiniest (if any) difference to the finished production.
I’ve been using XAVC-I for over 8 years and it really worked very well for me. I’ve also tested and compared it against ProRes many times and I know the differences are very small, so I am always confident that when using XAVC-I that I will get a great result. But I decided to make this video to show just how close they are.
It was shot with a Sony FX6 using internal XAVC-I (class 300) on an SD card alongside an external recording using ProResHQ on a Shogun 7. I deliberately chose to use Cine EI and S-Log3 at the cameras high base ISO of 12,800 as noise will stress any codec that little bit harder and adding a LUT adds another layer of complexity that might show up any issues all just to make the test that little bit tougher. The slightly higher noise level of the high base ISO also allows you to see how each codec handles noise more easily.
A sample clip of each codec was place in the timeline (DaVinci Resolve) and a caption added. This was then rendered out, ProRes HQ rendered using ProRes HQ and the XAVC-I files rendered to XAVC-I. So for most of the examples seen the XAVC-I files have been copied and re-encoded 5 times plus the encoding to the file uploaded to YouTube, plus YouTubes own encoding, a pretty tough test.
Because in most workflows I don’t believe many people will use XAVC-I in post production as an intermediate codec I also repeated the tests with the XAVC-I rendered to ProResHQ 5 times over as this is probably more representative of a typical real world workflow. These examples are shown at the end of the video. Of course the YouTube compression will restrict your ability to see some of the differences between the two codecs. But, this is how many people will be distributing their content. Even if not via YouTube, via other highly compressed means, so it’s not an unfair test and reflects many real world applications.
Where the s709 LUT has been added it was added AFTER each further copy of the clip, so this is really a “worst case scenario”. Overall in the end the ProRes HQ and XAVC-I are remarkably similar in performance. In the 300% blow up you can see differences between the XAVC-I that is 6 generations old compared to the 6th generation ProRes HQ if you look very carefully at the noise. But the differences are very, very hard to spot and going 6 generations of XAVC-I is not realistic. It was designed a s a camera codec. In the same test where the XAVC was rendered to ProRes HQ for each post production generation any difference is incredibly hard to find even when magnified 300%. I am not claiming that XAVC-I Class 300 is as good as ProRes HQ. But I think it is worth considering what you need when shooting. Do you really want to have to use an external recorder, do you really want to have to deal with files that are 3 to 4 times larger. Do you want to have to remember to switch recording methods between slow motion and normal speeds? For most productions I very much doubt that the end viewer would ever be able to tell the difference between material shot using XAVC-I class 300 and ProResHQ. And that audience certainly isn’t going to feel they are watching a substandard image, and that’s what counts.
There is so much emphasis placed on using “better” codecs that I think some people are starting to believe that XAVC-I is unusable or going to limit what they can do. This isn’t the case. It is a pretty good codec and frankly if you can’t get a great looking image when using XAVC then a better codec is unlikely to change that.
Sony has launched an entirely new division called Airpeak. Airpeak have produced a large drone that can carry an Alpha sized camera. They claim that this is the smallest drone capable of carrying an Alpha sized camera. It’s unknown at this time whether the Airpeak division will purely focus on larger drones capable of carrying non integrated cameras or whether they will also produce smaller drones with integral cameras. It would certainly make sense to leverage Sony’s sensor expertise by creating dedicated cameras for drones and then drones to carry those cameras.
The drone market is going to be a tough one to make inroads into. There are already a couple of very well regarded drone manufacturers making some great drones such as the DJI inspire or Mavic Pro. But most of these are small and cannot carry larger external cameras. However the cameras that these drones are equipped with can deliver very high quality images – and they continue to get better and better. The use of larger drones for video applications is more specialist, however globally it is a large market. Whether Sony can compete in the more specialist area of larger drones that carry heavier payloads is yet to be seen. I hope the succeed.
One thing I intend to do in the next few years as the Sun enters the more active phase of it’s 11 year solar cycle is to shoot the Aurora from a drone and a camera like the A7S III and a larger, stable drone would be perfect. But there is no indication of pricing yet and a drone of this size won’t be cheap. So unless I decide to do a lot more drone work than I do already, perhaps it will be better to hire someone with the right kit. But that’s not as much fun as doing it yourself!
For more information on Airpeak do take a look at their website. There is already some impressive footage of it being used to shoot a Vision-S car on a test track.
Chrosziel FX6 Kit. Top plate, base plate and arm for the FX6
In the video below I take a look at the Chrosziel FX6 kit as well as the Chrosziel Quick Lock plate. The FX6 Kit includes a very nice lightweight top cheese plate that doesn’t get in the way of the existing handle.
There is a lightweight base plate with a highly adjustable soft and comfortable shoulder pad specifically designed for the FX6 that is compatible with Sony VCT type quick release plates (but can also be used with other base plates) as well as an extension arm and extension cable for the hand grip.
This versatile kit will be great for anyone wishing to shoulder mount the FX6 as well as those that like to use a VCT quick release plate on a tripod etc.
Chrosziel Quick Lock Plate and superior alternative to a VCT type QR plate.
As an alternative to the usual slightly wobbly Sony VCT quick release plate I also take a look at the Chrosziel Quick Lock Plate. This is designed to replace the Sony style tripod plates and is a significant upgrade. It is vey light but far, far more rigid than a normal VCT plate thanks to a completely redesigned locking system. The Quick Lock Plate is fully compatible with all shoulder mounts and base plates that you would normally use with a VCT plate, not just Chrosziel. While expensive it is a piece of kit that will last for years and years and if you use long lenses or simply want an exceptionally stable mounting system worth every penny.
How much can I fit on a SD card, CFExpress card, SxS or XQD card is a question that comes up regularly. So I have prepared a table of the typical record times for most of the different XAVC-I and XAVC-L codecs and frame rates . Originally drawn up for the FX6 this table applies equally to any other Sony camcorder that uses the same codecs, including the PXW-FX9, PMW-F5 and F55 as well as the FS7 and many others. Do note that the times given are approximate and do not include proxies. Not every frame rate and codec is included but you should be able to figure out the approximate record time for most cards, codecs and frame rates using this table.
Here are some links to a couple of videos and some information on shooting Anamorphic with the PXW-FX9 that I prepared for Sony. The first video is a guide to how to shoot Anamorphic with the FX9 and then the second video is a short example video of som 2x Anamorphic content that I shot in some pretty grim weather conditions in the UK’s Lake District. Here’s the link to the “How To” guide to anamorphic with the FX9.
Here is what could be a nice option for Anamorphic on the FX9 (or any other Super 35mm capable camera. The new Sirui 24mm 1.33x anamorphic lens. I have not tried these yet, but at only $999 or $749 with the early bird offer it’s certainly an affordable way into the world of Anamorphic. 1.33x lenses are designed to provide a final aspect ratio of 2.40:1 when used with a 16:9 sensor. Here’s the info from the press release.
SIRUI launch 24mm F2.8 1.33x anamorphic lens in Micro Four Thirds, Sony E, Canon EF-M, Nikon Z and Fujifi?lm X Mounts
New wide-angle anamorphic optic from SIRUI revolutionizes affordable cinematography
NEW YORK, January 4, 2021 – SIRUI have today introduced a groundbreaking new 24mm F2.8 1.33x lens that redefines what is possible from a wide-angle anamorphic optic. It features the beautiful stretched oval bokeh and streaked lens flares that Sirui’s affordable anamorphic lenses have become known for, combined with a new wider field of view.
Options for affordable wide anamorphic shooting have been very limited until now. Traditional wide-angle anamorphic cinema lenses have cost tens of thousands of dollars, while DIY anamorphic adapters based on optics designed for projection don’t cover wider angles. In addition, most of these solutions have limited close focus.
The SIRUI 24mm F2.8 is designed from the ground up to address these needs. The lens features a 1.33x squeeze factor and has an imaging circle that covers APS-C sized sensors. It is available in native mounts for Micro Four Thirds, Sony E, Canon EF-M, Nikon Z, and Fujifilm X cameras and is sturdily built with an all-metal body. Front filter size is 77mm and the lens barrel is non-rotating which allows for easy use of variable ND and other filters. With persistent efforts, the SIRUI R&D team resolved key technical problems to deliver a previously impossible 0.6m minimum focusing distance – all without the need for additional diopters.
The fast F2.8 aperture of the 24mm lens allows foreground objects to stand out against smoothly blurred backgrounds and night scenes to be perfectly captured. Combining the fast aperture with the 0.6m close focus also makes for interesting close-up options.
The SIRUI 1.33x Anamorphic line-up consists of 24mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses.
The new 24mm joins the company’s existing 50mm and 35mm 1.33x anamorphic lenses to form a set of lenses that share common aesthetics and handling. Cinematographers can now use the lens trio to tell complete cinematic stories with SIRUI’s signature look, switching freely between scenes while maintaining common background rendering.
Sirui lenses truly enhance the artistic appeal of your footage and immerse your audience in an anamorphic world.
Specifications for SIRUI 24mm F2.8 Anamorphic 1.33X:
Focal length: 24mm
Maximum aperture: F2.8
Minimum aperture: F16
Lens structure: 13 elements in 10 groups
Aperture blades: 8
Maximum support frame: APS-C
Shooting distance: 0.6m (2 ft) – infinity
Focus method: Manual focusing
Maximum magnification: 1:21.99(V),1:29.07 (H)
Filter spec: M72 x 0.75
Rotation angle of the focus ring: 189.6°
Max. diameter: 74mm (2.91 inches)
Diameter of focus ring: 64.6mm (2.54 inches)
Weight(g/lbs): MFT Mount: 770/1.70; E Mount: 780/1.72; X Mount: 780/1.72; EF-M Mount: 780/1.72; Z Mount: 810/1.79
Total length (lens cap not included) (mm/inch): MFT Mount: 124.9/4,92; E Mount: 126.1/4.96; X Mount: 126.4/4.98; EF-M Mount: 126.1/4.96; Z Mount: 128.1/5.04
Price and Availability:
The SIRUI 24mm F2.8 1.33x anamorphic lens is available for super early bird price on the Indiegogo crowdfunding project at USD 749. Super early bird orders are estimated to ship by January.
Since 2001, SIRUI has always strived to move forward towards expanding the SIRUI Brand. With innovative R&D, SIRUI has become a global enterprise to develop, manufacture and market photographic products.
The way the coax cables used for SDI works is very different to the way an HDMI cable works. HDMI cables are indeed constructed quite differently between early HDMI 1.0 – 1.4 classes and the more recent 2.0+ classes. So with HDMI you will find that an old, early version HDMI cable won’t work with the latest standards.
SDI cables are nothing fancy.
SDI uses nothing more sophisticated than a single core coax cable that is no different in it’s basic design, construction and mode of operation to an ordinary TV aerial down lead. It is a very simple type of cable and really nothing fancy.
Frequency matters.
The SDI signal is very high frequency; in effect it is a radio signal. From a cabling point of view the ONLY difference between the original SDI standard and the latest standards is the frequency. The way the cable works is no different between the original SDI standard and the latest and a camera or monitor has no way of telling or knowing what type of cable you are using.
Frequency is important because the higher the frequency, the more lossy ANY coax cable will become (leaky kind of describes what’s going on). Low quality cable – more signal leaks out, high quality cable less leaks out so the signal will go further.
But even the very earliest SDI cables were normally made using good quality very low loss coax. These original SDI cables are perfectly capable of carrying the higher frequencies used by 12G SDI. BUT over very long lengths there will be more loss at 12G than at 1.5G.
It’s not the “G” that counts, it’s the quality.
So really when looking for SDI cables, the question isn’t – “is it 12G” the question should be “what are the cable losses” or more simply “is it a good quality cable”. There are plenty of original SDI cables that can be used at 50m at 12G without issue. At the same time I have also seen cables marketed as “12G” that are nowhere near as well screened, with much higher losses, that barely work at 10m.
Just as important as the cable losses is the construction. Have the connectors been fitted correctly? Are the connectors correctly sized for the cable that’s being used, has the crimping or soldering been done well? Most coax cable failures are due to poor connector assembly or the use of low-quality connectors.
Impedance Matter.
One other thing to watch for is the cable impedance. SDI cables should be made using 75 ohm impedance cable and connectors. Radio cables for radio communications normally use 50 ohm cables and connectors and the two are not really compatible. But often cheaper cables sold for SDI and video applications may be made using 50 ohm parts as often these are cheaper. These cables will fit and more often than not they appear to work. BUT the pins in the BNC plugs are a different size and this can result in intermittent connections and over time can even damage the connectors on cameras and monitors etc. So do make sure your cables really are 75 ohm.
In the real world:
For most shorter cables, up to 5m cable losses are rarely an issue unless the cable is of particularly low quality or badly made. For between 5m and 10m you should avoid the very thin coax cables as the losses become more significant. Above 10m use only low loss cables with good quality screening. A cable sold as a “12G” cable should indicate good quality low loss cable, but it is not a guarantee. And the vast majority of well-constructed normal SDI cables will work just as well unless you want extremely long runs in which case you need ultra-low loss cable.
Atomos have release a firmware update for the Shogun 7 to correctly implement raw recording from the FX6 at up to 60fps.
AtomOS 10.43 is a free update for the Shogun 7 that enables up to DCI 4Kp60 full-frame ProRes RAW recording from Sony’s FX6 camera!
Now available: Apple ProRes RAW recording support for Sony’s new FX6 professional camera with full-frame image sensor; which natively outputs RAW over SDI. This is all made possible with the Atomos Shogun 7 AtomOS 10.43 update which now allows users to record pristine ProRes RAW images at up to DCI 4Kp60. The resulting images have amazing detail and a high degree of latitude to utilize in post-production – optimal for HDR finishing or to give greater flexibility in SDR (Rec.709).
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Atomos have release a firmware update for the Shogun 7 to correctly implement raw recording from the FX6 at up to 60fps.