In the course of my tests with the FX3 and comparing it with the FX6 and FX9 I discovered a strange anomaly with the FX3 and A7SIII ISO ratings when compared to the FX6 and FX9.
The FX3’s default picture profile is PP11 and S-Cinetone. If you have an FX6 or FX9 these cameras also default to S-Cinetone in SDR mode. In the FX6 and FX9 the base ISO for S-Cinetone is 320 ISO. Therefore you would assume that if you also set the A7SIII or the FX3 to 320 ISO and expose all the cameras the same, same aperture, shutter etc that the exposures would match.
BUT THE EXPOSURES DON’T MATCH!!
The FX3 and the A7SIIII are just over 1 stop brighter than the FX6 and FX9 when all the exposure settings are matched. I tested all the cameras with the same lens to ensure this wasn’t a lens issue, but it isn’t the lens.
I then went on to test other gamma/picture profile settings and I found a just over 1 stop difference between the FX3 and my FX6/FX9 in any similar combination EXCEPT S-LOG3!
When using Picture Profile 2 on the FX3 which is uses Sony’s “Still” gamma and then using the “Still” Profile on the FX6 there is a difference of around 1 stop. If I set the FX3 to PP3 (ITU-709) and the FX6 to ITU-709 then the difference is again around 1 stop, in every case the FX3 is brighter except when you select S-Log3 where the FX3 and the FX6/FX9 match almost perfectly!
I find this very strange. They should not be different. My light meter suggests to me that the FX6/FX9 are correct.
Comparing to my light meter I believe the FX6/FX9 ratings to be correct and the FX3 to be between 1 and 1.3 stops brighter than it should be when using gammas that are not S-Log3. What I really don’t understand is why the FX3/A7SIII match the FX6/FX9 when using S-Log3 but do not match when using the other profiles, normally I would expect to see a consistent offset. This further makes leads me to be sure this is not a problem with my light meter, but something else.
I would love to hear from anyone else that’s able to take a look at the ISO ratings of the A7SIII and compare it with an FX6 or FX9.
The bottom line is – DON’T EXPECT TO PUT THE SAME EXPOSURE SETTINGS INTO BOTH AN FX3 AND AN FX6/FX9 AND GET THE SAME RESULTS, because you won’t, unless you are using S-Log3, then they match.
Also in the clip metadata I found that 0dB for S-Cinetone is 100 ISO, and whether this is a coincidence or not, if I set the FX3 to 100 ISO and the FX6 to 320 ISO and then match shutter speed and aperture then the exposures are very close.
With the new FX6 making use of SD cards to record higher bit rate codecs the number of gigabytes of SD card media that many user will will be getting through is going to be pretty high. The more gigabytes of memory that you use, the more the chance of coming across a duff memory cell somewhere on your media.
Normally solid state media will avoid using any defective memory areas. As a card ages and is used more, more cells will become defective and the card will identify these and it should avoid them next time. This is all normal, until eventually the memory cell failure rate gets too high and the card becomes unusable – typically after hundreds or even thousands of cycles.
However – the card needs to discover where any less than perfect memory cells are and there is a chance that some of the these duff cells could remain undiscovered in a card that’s never been completely filled before. I very much doubt that every SD card sold is tested to its full capacity, the vast volume of cards made and time involved makes this unlikely.
For this reason I recommend that you consider testing any new SD cards using software such as H2Testw for windows machines or SDSpeed for Mac’s. However be warned to fully test a large card can take a very, very long time.
As an alternative you could simply place the card in the camera and record on it until its full. Use the highest frame rate and largest codec the card will support to fill the card as quickly as possible. I would break the recording up into a few chunks. Once the recording has finished check for corruption by playing the clips back using Catalyst Browse or your chosen edit software.
This may seem like a lot of extra work, but I think it’s worth it for piece of mind before you use your new media on an important job.
I know this is something A LOT of people have been asking for. For a long time it has always seemed odd that only the Shogun 7 was capable of recording raw from the FX9 and then the FX6 while the the little Ninja V could record almost exactly the same raw form the A7SIII.
Well the engineers at Atomos have finally figured out how to pass raw via the AtomX SDI adapter to the Ninja V. The big benefit of course being the compact size of the Ninja V.
There are a couple of ways of getting the kit you need to do this.
If you already have a Ninja V (they are GREAT little monitor recorders, I’ve taken mine all over the world, from the arctic to Arabian deserts) you simply need to buy an AtomX SDI adapter and once you have that buy a raw licence from the Atomos website for $99.00.
If you don’t have the Ninja V then you can buy a bundle called the “Pro Kit” that includes everything you need including a Ninja V with the raw licence pre-installed, The AtomX SDI adapter, a D-Tap power adapter cable, a mains power supply and a sun hood. The cost of this kit will be around $950 USD or £850 GBP + tax, which is a great price.
On top of that you will need to buy suitable fast SSD’s.
Like the Shogun 7 the Ninja V can’t record the 16 bit raw from the FX6 or FX9 directly, so Atomos take the 16 bit linear raw and convert it using a visually lossless process to 12 bit log raw. 12 bit log raw is a really nice raw format and the ProResRaw codec helps keep the files sizes nice and manageable.
This is a really great solution for recording raw from the FX6 and FX9. Plus if you already have an A7SIII you can use the Ninja V to record via HDMI from that too.
Here’s the press release from Atomos:
The Atomos Ninja V Pro Kit is here to equip you with increased professional I/O, functionality and accessories.
The Ninja V Pro Kit has been designed to bridge the gap between compact cinema and mirrorless cameras that can output RAW via HDMI or SDI. Pro Kit also pushes these cameras’ limits, recording up to 12-bit RAW externally on the Ninja’s onboard SSD. Additionally, Pro Kit provides the ability to cross covert signals providing a versatile solution for monitoring, play out and review.
What comes in the Pro Kit?
Ninja V Monitor-Recorder with pre-activated RAW over SDI
AtomX SDI Module
Locking DC to D-Tap cable to power from camera battery
AtomX 5″ Sunhood
DC/Mains power with international adaptor kit
Ninja V Pro Kit offers a monitor and recording package to cover a wide range of workflows.
Why choose Ninja V Pro Kit?
More powerful and versatile I/O for Ninja V – Expand your Ninja V’s capability with the Pro Kit with the ability to provide recordings in edit-ready codecs or as proxy files from RED or ARRI cameras.
Accurate and reliable daylight viewable HDR or SDR – To ensure image integrity, the AtomX 5″ Sunhood is included and increases perceived brightness under challenging conditions or can be used to dial out ambient light to increase the view in HDR
HDMI-to-SDI cross conversion – HDMI or SDI connections can be cross converted, 4K to HD down converts RAW to video signals to connect to other systems without the need for additional converters.
Record ProRes RAW via SDI to selected cameras*:
Three ways to power your Ninja: – DC power supply – perfect for in the studio. – DTap cable – perfect for on-set, meaning your rig can run from a single power source. – Optional NPF battery or any four-cell NPF you might have in your kit bag.
The ProRes RAW Advantage
ProRes RAW is now firmly established as the new standard for RAW video capture, with an ever-growing number of supported HDMI and SDI cameras. ProRes RAW combines the visual and workflow benefits of RAW video with the incredible real-time performance of ProRes. The format gives filmmakers enormous latitude when adjusting the look of their images and extending brightness and shadow detail, making it ideal for HDR workflows. Both ProRes RAW and the higher bandwidth, less compressed ProRes RAW HQ are supported. Manageable file sizes speed up and simplify file transfer, media management, and archiving. ProRes RAW is fully supported in Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid Media Composer 2020.10 update, along with a collection of other apps including ASSIMILATE SCRATCH, Colorfront, FilmLight Baselight, and Grass Valley Edius.
Existing Ninja V and AtomX SDI module owners
While the Pro Kit offers a complete bundle, existing Ninja V owners can enhance their equipment to the same level by purchasing the AtomX SDI module for $199, and the New RAW over SDI and HDMI RAW to SDI video feature can also be added to the Ninja V via separate activation key from the Atomos website for $99.
Existing AtomX SDI module owners will receive the SDI < > HDMI cross conversion for 422 video inputs in the 10.61 firmware update for Ninja V update. You will also be able to benefit from RAW over SDI recording with the purchase of the SDI RAW activation key. This feature will be available from the Atomos website in February 2021.
Special Offer for Pro Kit buyers
The first batch of Ninja V Pro Kits will include a FREE Atomos CONNECT in the box. Connect allows you to start streaming at up to 1080p60 directly from your Ninja V!
I’ve added some updates to my guide to using the Cine EI Mode in the FX6 (towards the bottom) to cover the strange playback behavior where the EI levels are reversed. This can result in some very misleading brightness levels during playback that might make you think you exposed incorrectly. http://www.xdcam-user.com/2020/12/a-guide-the-the-fx6s-cineei-mode/
I have designed a custom, robust, yet lightweight microphone mount for the Sony ILME-FX6 camcorder (it will also fit the FS5). It’s low cost and it replaces the existing microphone mount and provides a strong and flexible mounting solution for a wide range of microphones with very good vibration and handling noise isolation properties. It is fitted to the camera by unscrewing the two screws that attach the factory supplied mic mount and using the same screws to attach this mount in the same place (do not over tighten the screws).
This mount will take heavier microphones than the standard mount which is prone to becoming floppy and breaking over time.
There are two sets of mounting holes so you can have the microphone at two different distances from the carry handle to suit your individual needs. The microphone mount will not obstruct or block the MI Shoe as many other 3rd party mic mounts will.
This mount will take any microphone up to approx 32mm in diameter. You will need 4 “O” rings to loop over the slots in the mic holder to act as the suspension for the microphone. these should be 2 or 3mm thick with an inside diameter of between 28mm and 32mm (30mm recommended). The O rings will not be supplied by Shapeways, you must source these for yourself. These are very cheap and are normally available on ebay, from car spares stores, plumbing suppliers and DIY stores. If you can’t find the right O rings it is also possible to use elastic bands, but these don’t tend to support the microphone as well as O rings.
Good news, you can use the FX9’s viewfinder assembly on the FX6. Not just the loupe/magnifier, but the entire viewfinder including the LCD. It all fits straight on to the FX6 and is full functional. Overlays, menus and the touch screen are all good. The only small thing is the display is initially upside down, but that is easily resolved using the “rotate” switch that is at the bottom of the FX9’s LCD screen.
So – if you have an FX9 and an FX6 you can swap viewfinders between both cameras. We already know that if you simply add the loupe/magnifier from the FX9 to the FX6’s LCD that it fits, but tends to be a bit “droopy” because of the weak hinges on the FX6 LCD. You can buy the FX9 LCD as a spare part along with the loupe if you want, but it won’t be cheap!
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.
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.
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.
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.
UHD/4K XAVC-I 24/25p
UHD/4K XAVC-I 30p
UHD/4K XAVC-I 50p
UHD/4K XAVC-I 60p
UHD XAVC-I 100fps
UHD XAVC-I 120fps
UHD XAVC-L 24/25/30p
UHD XAVC-L 50/60p 8bit
UHD XAVC-L 24/25/30p 100fps S&Q 8 bit
UHD XAVC-L 50/60p 120fps S&Q 8 bit
UHD XAVC-L 50/60p 100fps S&Q 8 bit
UHD XAVC-L 50/60p S&Q 120fps 8 bit
HD CODEC/FRAME RATE
HD XAVC-I 24/25/30p
HD XAVC-I 50/60p
HD XAVC-I 100fps
HD XAVC-I 120fps
HD XAVC-I 240fps (lower quality)
HD XAVC-L50 24/25/30p
HD XAVC-L50 50/60p
HD XAVC-L50 24/25/30p S&Q 120fps
HD XAVC-L50 50/60p S&Q 240fps
HD XAVC-L30 24/25/30p
HD XAVC-L30 50/60p
HD XAVC-L30 120fps
HD XAVC-L30 240fps
Camera setup, reviews, tutorials and information for pro camcorder users from Alister Chapman.