cameras, FX30, Review

Testing the Sony ILME-FX30

18 Comments

 

Please watch the video to see my video review or read on:

A few weeks ago I borrowed an FX3 from Sony for some testing in order to better understand the performance of this budget Cinema Line camera. I used it over a long weekend to shoot some circus acts and to perform some basic tests. By the end of the weekend of testing I decided to get one for myself even though I already own an FX3 and FX6. 

I shot various circus acts with the FX30.

 

So what made me buy the FX30?

For a start it’s cheap. At around $2000 for the body only you get a lot of camera for the money. If you want the same handle as the FX3 with XLR inputs, add another approx $500 to the base price. But as well as the low price I also I really like the fact that it is super 35 rather than full frame. The FX30’s 6K APSC sized sensor delivers really good oversampled 4K from a scan area very similar to super 35mm film. This means you can use it with almost any classic cinema lens, of which there are many to choose from. You can use it with zoom lenses designed for s35 (again which there are many to choose from) as well as lower cost APSC lenses.  A combination that I am particularly fond of is the FX30 plus the Sony 18-105mm f4 G APSC power zoom. While this combination isn’t ever going to win an award for the ultimate in image quality it is very reasonable.  It gives me great look images at a wide range of focal lengths in a surprisingly small package. 

But just how good is the image quality?

Sony advertise the FX6 and FX3 as having 15+ stops of dynamic range, while only claiming 14+ stops for the FX30. So one of the first tests that I did was to compare the dynamic range of both the FX6 and FX30 using my home made dynamic range tester. While this device isn’t necessarily ultra accurate, it is consistent and it allows me to visually compare the DR of the two cameras. I also thought it would be interesting to include the FS7, another s35 camera in my tests.

Dynamic range test to compare the FX30 to the FX6

As you can see from the above image, the dynamic range of the FX30 is extremely close to that of the FX6, so close in fact that I was unable to measure a difference with my home made tester. There is a 15th stop buried deep in the noise of both cameras and at 800 ISO the noise is very similar from both camera, if anything, visually I prefer the look of the very fine noise from the  FX30, probably a result of the 6K over sampling.

But what about compared to the FS7? In this image you can see how in the shadows the FS7 produces a lot of coloured chroma noise compared to the FX30. It is this chroma noise that makes it desirable to expose the FS7 a bit brighter than Sony’s base recommendation as it is quite distracting in lower exposures. So against the FS7, for me the FX30 is a clear winner in the dynamic range stakes.

Coloured noise in the shadows of the FS7 limit the useable shadow range compared to the FX30/FX3/FX6. In a video sequence the FS7’s noise is very obvious. Click on the image to enlarge it.

What about resolution?

OK, so the FX30 does not lack dynamic range, what about resolution, how does it compare with the FX6? To see this image larger please click on it. And be aware that scaling of the image that may be happening in your browser or computer and that scaling may add aliasing and moire to the images not in the original.

Comparing the resolution of the FX30 and the FX6. Click on the image to enlarge it.

 

What you can see from the above test is that aliasing starts to occur at a slightly lower resolution for the FX6 than the FX30. Aliasing happens when the resolution of the image falling on the sensor exceeds the  resolving power of the sensor.  This result isn’t really a surprise, the FX6 like the FX3 has a sensor that is a little over 4K pixels wide and it would appear that Sony tuned the optical filtering to squeeze as much resolution from this sensor as possible. Meanwhile the FX30 has a 6K pixel wide sensor, so it is easier to get close to 4K resolution without excessive aliasing. 

We can also see a difference in the coloured moire of these two cameras.

The FX6 produces more moire and aliasing than the FX30, click on the image to enlarge.

 

And I also chose to test the FS7 to see how much moire the FS7 produced. The FS7 was the worst of the 3 cameras by some way with a fair amount of strong coloured moire.

The FS7 produces more moire and aliasing than both the FX30 and the FS7, click on the image to enlarge.

 

I think what we are seeing here is simply improvements in the design of the Optical Low Pass Filter (OLPF) combined with the oversampled 6K sensor of the FX30 delivering an improvement in both resolution and moire/aliasing performance. The FX30 is a camera that is 8 years younger than the FS7, so you would hope that it would be better.

So, in the resolution stakes, the FX30 wins against the FS7, FX6 and FX3.

What about low light performance?

The FX30 has a Dual Base ISO sensor with 2 base ISO’s when shooting S-Log3 of 800 and 2500 ISO. The performance at these 2 ISO is very similar. The dynamic range is broadly the same and the noise is similar. But I would not say the noise is the same, there is more noise at 2500 than there is at 800, but not significantly more.

On the other hand the FX6 has a dual sensitivity sensor and its two base ISO’s are 800 and 12,800. This is a huge difference. You would need to add 24dB of gain to get from 800 ISO to 12,800 ISO and while the 12,800 base is noticeably noisier than the 800 ISO base, it is still quite useable. There is a small reduction in dynamic range at 12,800, but it isn’t really significant.

If you need to shoot in very, very low light the FX6 and FX3 are the clear winners, they are more sensitive than the FX30. But the FX30 isn’t as far behind as you might think. The 6K to 4K oversampling means the noise grain is very fine, so even with a bit of extra gain added in post production to bring it up to the equivalent of 12,800 ISO it doesn’t look terrible. It’s clearly not as good as the FX6, but if you needed to shoot in very low light the FX30 isn’t going to be a complete disaster.

First the FX6:

FX6 shot at 12,800.

And then the FX30, shot using the exact same light levels and exposure using 2500 ISO and then graded to match the FX6 which was at 12,800 ISO.

FX30 shot at 2500 ISO then graded to match the FX6. Same light level and exposure as the FX6.

 

I recommend you watch the video review to see these frames larger. There is more noise in the final FX30 image, but it’s not as far from the FX6 as you might imagine. But, on the sensitivity stakes, the FX6/FX3 are without doubt the winners.

What about colour matching?

A couple of quick tests, done both with S-Cinetone and S-Log3 confirmed what I expected I would find. As the FX30 is a part of Sony’s Cinema Line it looks pretty much like every other Cinema Line camera. The colours are extremely close to the FX6. It’s not totally identical, There are some very, very small differences. You do need to match the white balance of both as if you dial the same preset into both the colour temperature of each will be a little off, but once you find the matching white balance the images each produces will be close enough that only close side by side, like for like examination will reveal the subtle differences that do exist. I certainly have no concerns over using both the Fx30 and FX6 on the same shoot. 

What else do I need to know?

The FX30 does have more rolling shutter than the FX6, but it really isn’t terrible, it’s little different to the FS7. I suggest you watch the video and look at the circus footage that I shot with the FX30, rolling shutter didn’t cause me any issues.

The one thing that the FX30 does exhibit is a little bit of image smear. This occurs when you have a very bright highlight against a very dark background. What you get is a brightening of the background in line with the bright highlight. The FX6 isn’t totally smear free, but it’s very difficult to see the smear on the FX6, it’s not quite so hard to find it on the FX30. But for the vast majority of real world applications I doubt this will cause any major concerns, it certainly didn’t spoil any of my circus footage which often included very bright lights agains dark backgrounds.

FX30 CMOS smear (circled in yellow)

As you can see, even when looking for it, it isn’t always obvious.

In Conclusion.

Both practically and technically I really like the FX30. Mine will be used on my gimbal with the 18-105 zoom or handheld as a pocket sized camera (yeah, OK, a very big pocket). It has all the same codecs as the FX3 and it has breathing compensation, a fine step variable shutter (similar to ECS shutter) and you can use it as a very high quality webcam. It has the same CineEI modes as the FX3 plus an additional CineEI mode that allows you to add gain to the S-Log3 recordings.

Technically it performs really well. It has great DR and delivers a high resolution image with very well controlled aliasing and moire. Skin tones look great, full of subtle and fine textures. It’s plenty sensitive enough for most normal applications thanks to it’s two base ISO’s of 800 and 2500 (for S-Log3) and the colours extremely closely match those of the FX6, FX3 and FX9.

For the money, the FX30 is a lot of camera. 

FX6, PMW-F55, PXW, PXW-FS5, PXW-FS7, PXW-FX9

Improve the accuracy of manual white balance with the FX6 and FX9.

8 Comments

Have you ever struggled to get a decent white balance from a white or grey card with the Sony FX6, FX9 or in fact many other cameras (this method works equally well for the FS7, FS5, F5 and F55 etc)? Well here is a very simple trick that can really help, especially for those situations where the camera is a long way from the scene and a white card is too small in the frame for an accurate reading.

All you need to do is to cut a square hole in a piece of black card or plastic. Then when you want to take your white balance simply hold the mask in front of the lens so that it masks out the background of the shot leaving just your white card visible. It’s really simple, really easy and it really works! 

LUTs, Scene Files and Luts

New Free LUT for Sony Cameras -Solitude

4 Comments

It’s Black Friday, so here is my Black Friday offer – a new free LUT.

Solitude is a new free LUT for any Sony camera that shoots using S-Log3 and SGamut3.cine. This is the second in a series of 3 free LUTs that I am releasing between now and Christmas. The first was Elixir which gives a rich film like look. Solitude is closely related to Elixir but gives a cooler more metalic look. I believe it is suitable for gritty drama or anything needing a cooler less warm look.  To see my free LUT collection and to download any of my free LUTs including both Elixir and Solitude follow this link – https://www.xdcam-user.com/picture-settings-and-luts/alisters-free-luts/

cinematography, Lighting

Origins of the term “High Key” in video lighting.

2 Comments

You’ve probably heard the term High Key as well as Low Key a million times in the world of photography, video and film. But where exactly does the term come from and what exactly does it mean?

I had to ask myself this today when during a discussion about a future shoot it was stated that we would shoot some low key scenes. But I wasn’t really 100% certain in my own mind what the director meant. Does it mean dark? Does it mean a low key light level (relative to the background), or is it the positioning of the key light?

This isn’t a term that’s new to me, I’ve come across it many times, but I’ve never particularly liked the term because it always seems to mean slightly different things to different people, so you can never be sure what they really mean.

KEY LIGHT

First of all what is a “key light”? Generally the key light is the main source or most important source of light in a scene. I don’t know the origins of the term or how long it’s been in common use, but it seems to be a relatively new term specific to photography and video.

WHAT DOES GOOGLE SAY?

When I googled “High Key Lighting” I got a range of equally confusing descriptions of what it is. On Wikipedia for example, high key is described as

“High-key lighting is usually quite homogeneous and free from dark shadows”.

OK, so that implies that low Key, being the opposite should have dark shadows and not be homogeneous – ie. high contrast. And this doesn’t really seem to match what a lot of people consider low key to be as many state that low key means overall dark. Elsewhere I came across all sorts of frankly bizarre definitions of high key such as….

“High-key lighting creates a clean focus on the center of attention” 

and then in another article it stated that

“it means that when you use a high-key setup, the key light is stronger than the fill lights……     …….So usually, the shot has very little to no shadows present. 

Hmmm… OK, let’s think about that – if you have a key light that is stronger than the fill your likely to have lots of shadows, cast by the strong key light. The main role of a fill light is to fill in shadow areas, but if the key is stronger than the fill – shadows will be present and the image contrasty and generally high contrast is described as low key. Are you confused yet?

Well, at least I know I am not the only one not entirely sure what these terms that get thrown around all over the place truly mean. Let’s face it if I said I was going to make my shots “contrasty” or with “deep shadows” or perhaps “flat” I am sure everyone would be on the same page.  But “Low Key” what does it mean? Is it just dark? Is it contrasty? Is it flat? And what is unique or special about Low Key that it needs a special name instead of just being called high contrast.

The above image is of the painting Salome with the Head of John the Baptist by Caravaggio(1610). This image is generally considered Low Key. The mains source of light, the key light, appears to be quite strong, like sunlight through a window, appearing to come from above and to the left of frame.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the ratio between the Key light and rest of the scene is 8:1. This ratio is often quoted as the minimum for low key and indicates a key that is bright relative to the background.  The high contrast ratio between the bright key light and the rest of the scene  ensures the background appears as very dark relative to the foreground. But one thing remains, the key light is bright, not dim. The level of the key light is high, not low compared to the rest of the scene. So where does the term low key come from, how does a bright key get called low key?

The term Low key has been used in music for a very long time to mean a quiet or deep tone, but I don’t think the image above could be called “quiet” and low key lighting doesn’t always mean very dark, it normally means high contrast and often includes very bright highlights.

Here’s what I think…

I’d like to offer up an idea of where the term high key actually comes from when applied to photography and video:
TV soap and episodic multi-camera lighting.

Perhaps when we use the term high key today it is a discombobulation of different concepts and terms and that is why there is often confusion. 

Traditionally daytime episodic TV has always been shot quickly using multiple cameras. To make this possible the lights are normally up above the set suspended from the ceiling on some form of grid or truss system. This ensures that the lights are not seen by any camera whichever angle they are shooting from. In addition the lighting will generally not cast deep shadows so that you can shoot from multiple angles without issue. The key lights would be up high, there would be low contrast and deep shadows were not desirable (because older TV cameras couldn’t handle high contrast).

At the same time in the world of cinema where a single camera is often used and high dynamic range was less of an issue, cinematographers were not afraid of casting shadows and using lights lower down on floor stands.

Typically TV lighting is described as high key and typically TV lighting uses key lights high up on a truss. Does the term high key stem from that typical approach to TV lighting with high up key lights, minimising shadows?

The the opposite of high key will be low key where perhaps the key light is creating a lot more contrast, where the key is brighter than the fill. If you create high contrast using lights high up the shadows will be under the actors chins and eye sockets will be dark, not a good look. But move the lights lower, light more from the side and you get the look seen in the Caravaggio painting above, the key light is lower. Is this where the origins of these terms as – the hight of the key light?

high up, TV style key lights giving bright but flat look that works well for TV production while a lower, perhaps side on key light creates contrast across the scene in a more film like manner, creating a sense of depth due to the darker background?

So, in summary:
High Key = Uniform lighting of both foreground and background with minimal shadows. But could be either overall bright or overall dark, often with the key light(s), of which there may be many, placed high above the scene/set so you can shoot the scene from any angle.

Low Key: A relatively bright key light so that there is contrast between the key lighting and the rest of the scene/shot. Overall the scene may be bright or dark, but it will have high contrast and shadow areas. Possibly the key light will be at a lower level so the low level key light  will cast shadows across faces and objects to provide depth and modelling.

So many descriptions of High Key and Low Key simply refer to the overall brightness of the scene, this is not correct. A low key scene MUST contain areas of great brightness in order to have the contrast associated with low key. All too often stating that the term High Key comes from the use of a bright key light over simplifies the situation to the point where it is no longer clear what is meant because to create nice looking Low Key you will will often need a bright key light.

Please discuss in the comments.

 

Workflow

HELP! There is banding in my footage – or is there?

5 Comments

I’ve written about this before, but it’s worth bringing up again as I keep coming across people that are convinced there is a banding issue with their camera or their footage. Most commonly they have shot a clear blue sky or a plain wall and when they start to edit or grade their content they see banding in the footage.

Most of the cameras on the market today have good quality 10 bit codecs and there is no reason why you should ever see banding in a 10 bit recording, it’s actually fairly uncommon in 8 bit recordings unless they are very compressed or a lot of noise reduction has been used.

So – why are these people seeing banding in their footage? 

99% of the time it is because of their monitoring. 

Don’t be at all surprised if you see banding in footage if you view the content on a computer monitor or other monitor connected via a computers own HDMI port or a graphics card HDMI port. When monitoring this way it is very, very common to see banding that isn’t really there. If this is what you are using there will be no way to be sure whether any banding you see is real or not (about the only exception to this is the screen of the new M1 laptops). There are so many level translations between the colourspace and bit depth of the source video files, the computer desktop, the HDMI output and the monitors setup that banding is often introduced somewhere in the chain. Very often the source clips will be 10 bit YCbCr, the computer might be using a 16 bit or 24 bit colour mode and then the  HDMI might only be 8 bit RGB. Plus the gamma of the monitor may be badly matched and the monitor itself of unknown quality.

For a true assessment of whether footage has banding or not you want a proper, good quality video monitor connected via a proper video card such as a Blackmagic Decklink card or a device such as a BlackMagic UltraStudio product. When using a proper video card (not a graphics card) you bypass all the computer processing and go straight from the source content to the correct output. This way you will go from the 10 bit YCbCr direct to a 10 bit YCbCr output so there won’t be extra conversion and translation stages adding phantom artefacts to your footage.

If you are seeing banding, to try to understand whether the banding you are seeing is in the original footage or not try this: Take the footage into your grading software, using a paused (still) frame enlarge the clip so that the area with banding fills the monitor and note exactly where the edges of the bands are. Then slowly change the contrast of the clip. If the position of the edges of the bands moves, they are not in the original footage and something else is causing them. If they do not move, then they are baked in to the original material.

Everything Else

Bright Tangerine Black Friday Sale

Leave a comment

Bright Tangerine are a UK based supplier of support equipment for professional film and video cameras – and one of my site sponsors. Their products are designed and manufactured in the UK in their own facility. Keeping everything in house allows them to react to end user feedback and market changes very quickly. Their unique Left Field base plate system is both versatile and incredibly stable.
With the FX6 finally shipping from Sony in good volumes a lot of people will be looking for base plates, top plates, a better viewfinder support and matte boxes, so their Black Friday sale may be a great opportunity to pick up some really high quality accessories at a great price.  I will be reviewing their latest FX6 accessories very soon. I have been using them myself and I can assure you they are all great. I’m a Left Field convert and am now moving away from VCT plates etc. due to the increased stability and flexibility. Click Here to see what they have to offer in their sale which starts Monday 21st of November 2022 .


FX3, FX30

Sony FX30 Version 1.01 and FX3 version 2.01 Update – WAIT!!

Leave a comment

Sony released a minor update for the FX3 and FX30 cameras but almost immediately withdrew the firmware. If you have already downloaded the update package I recommend you do not install it.  There may be a bug in the firmware. Sony are investigating to understand whether there is a bug or something else causing an issues that some users have reported. So for now, don’t do the FX30 version 1.01 or the FX3 version 2.01 update, wait until Sony have had a chance to look into the situation. It remains safe to continue to update version 1 FX3 cameras  to Version 2.00, it is only FX3 version 2.01 and FX30 version 1.01 that is affected.

FX3, FX30, FX6, LUTs, PMW-F55, PXW-FS5, PXW-FS7, PXW-FX9, Scene Files and Luts

New LUT for Sony cameras and S-Log3 – Elixir

9 Comments

I’ve added a new LUT for S-Log3 and SGamut3.cine to my free LUT collection. The new LUT is called Elixir and is the first LUT from a collection of 3 new LUTs with similar contrast and brightness but quite different colours that I will be releasing between now and the end of the year.  Elixir is designed for short film projects and drama to provide rich colours with pleasing skin tones. Blues are shifted slightly teal, but there is no distracting colour cast, just pleasing colours with mid to high contrast. The LUT can be used with any Sony camera that has S-Log3 and SGamut3.cine, so that includes the whole of the Cinema Line including the FX6, FX3 and FX30 as well as cameras like the FS5 and FS7. For more information and to download this or any of my free LUTs please go to the LUT page: https://www.xdcam-user.com/picture-settings-and-luts/alisters-free-luts/

A7, FX3, FX30, FX6, PMW-F55, PXW-FS5, PXW-FS7, PXW-FX9

Removing Screws From Sony Cameras

2 Comments

Although I wouldn’t normally recommend removing the screws from Sony cameras there are times when this is something you need to do, for example to remove the microphone mount on an FX6.

Most of the small screws have a thread locking compound applied to the threads to prevent them from shaking or vibrating loose. This can make them hard to unscrew. 

JIS NOT Phillips!!

The main issue is that most cross of the commonly found small and miniature head screw drivers are manufactured to the “Philips” standard. But the screws used on the Sony cameras are manufactured to the JIS standard. The differences between these two very similar looking standards means that you will not get a secure and tight fit between a Philips screw driver and a JIS screw head. The edges of a Philips screwdriver are at an angle that is too shallow to properly engage with the full depth of a JIS screw head. So when you try to undo a tight screw the head of the screw will deform or strip, often  to the point where it can’t be undone.

Whenever working on Sony cameras you should use JIS standard screwdrivers and ensure the screwdriver is the correct size for the screws you are working with. The smaller screws used for thing like the microphone mount on the FX and Alpha series cameras are JIS size +0 or +00. A JIS size +0 seems to fit most but I would also get a +00.

Don’t try to use a miniature Philips screwdriver on a tight JIS screw. It might look like it fits, but only a very small part of the screwdriver head will be correctly engaged with the JIS screw and once the screw head is damaged you can’t undo the damage and it may become impossible to remove the screw without drilling it out. 

If you search for “Vessel JIS” you should be able to find good quality small and miniature JIS  screwdrivers on Amazon, ebay or from other suppliers.


Venice

Great deals on Venice 2 cameras at Omega Broadcast, Austin USA.

Leave a comment

My good friends at Omega Broadcast in Austin, Texas have Venice 2 8K cameras complete with all the accessories such as the viewfinder, licences and AXS media normally needed for a full kit in stock and ready to go if anyone is looking for one. I highly recommend Omega, they are great people to deal with. They also have FX9’s, FX3’s and FX30, plus I’m sure if you drop them a message or give them a call they will be able to let you know when they will next have more FX6’s in stock.

https://www.omegabroadcast.com/