This is part 2 of my 2 part look at whether small cameras such as a Sony FX3 or A1 really can replace full size cinema cameras.
For this part of the article to make sense you will want to watch the YouTube clips that are linked here full screen at at the highest possible quality settings, Preferably 4K. Please don”t cheat, watch them in the order they are presented as I hope this will allow you to understand the points I am trying to make better.
Also, in the videos I have not put the different cameras that were tested side by side. You may ask why – well it’s because if you do watch a video online or a movie in a cinema you don’t see different cameras side by side on the same screen at the same time. A big point of all of this is that we are now at a place where the quality of even the smallest and cheapest large sensor camera is likely going to be good enough to make a movie. It’s not necessarily a case of is camera A better than camera B, but the question is will the audience know or care which camera you used. There are 5 cameras and I have labelled them A through to E.
The footage presented here was captured during a workshop I did for Sony at Garage Studios in Dubai (if you need a studio space in Dubai they have some great low budget options). We weren’t doing carefully orchestrated camera tests, but I did get the chance to quickly capture some side by side content.
So lets get into it.
THE FINAL GRADE:
In many regards I think this is the most important clip as this is how the audience would see the 5 cameras. It represents how they might look at the end of a production. I graded the cameras using ACES in DaVinci Resolve.
Why ACES? Well, the whole point of ACES is to neutralise any specific camera “look”. The ACES input transform takes the cameras footage and converts it to a neutral look that is meant to represent the scene as it actually was but with a film like highlight roll off added. From here the idea is that you can apply the same grade to almost any camera and the end result should look more or less the same. The look of different cameras is largely a result of differences in the electronic processing of the image in post production rather than large differences in the sensors. Most modern sensors capture a broadly similar range of colours with broadly similar dynamic range. So, provided you know the what recording levels represent what colour in the scene, it is pretty easy to make any camera look like any other, which is what ACES does.
The footage captured here was captured during a workshop, we weren’t specifically testing the different cameras in great depth. For the workshop the aim was to simply show how any of these cameras could work together. For simplicity and speed I manually set each camera to 5600K and as a result of the inevitable variations you get between different cameras, how each is calibrated and how each applies the white balance settings there were differences between in the colour balance of each camera.
To neutralise these white balance differences the grading process started by using the colour chart to equalise the images from each camera using the “match” function in DaVinci Resolve. Then each camera has exactly the same grade applied – there are no grading differences, they are all graded in the same way.
Below are frame grabs from each camera with a slightly different grade to the video clips, again, they all look more or less the same.
The first thing to take away from all of this then is that you can make any camera look like pretty much any other and a chart such as the “color checker video” and software that can read the chart and correct the colours according to the chart makes it much easier to do this.
To allow for issues with the quality of YouTube’s encoding etc here is a 400% crop of the same clips:
What I am expecting is that most people won’t actually see a great deal of difference between any of the cameras. The cheapest camera is $6K and the most expensive $75K, yet it’s hard to tell which is which or see much difference between them. Things that do perhaps stand out initially in the zoomed in image are the softness/resolution differences between the 4K and 8K cameras, but in the first un cropped clip this difference is much harder to spot and I don’t think an audience would notice especially if the one camera is used on it’s own so the viewer has nothing to directly compare it with. It is possible that there are also small focus differences between each camera, I did try to ensure each was equally well focussed but small errors may have crept in.
WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LIFT THE SHADOWS?
OK, so lets pixel peep a bit more and artificially raise the shadows so that we can see what’s going on in the darker parts of the image.
There are differences, but again there isn’t a big difference between any of the cameras. You certainly couldn’t call them huge and in all likelihood, even if for some reason you needed to raise or lift the shadows by an unusually large amount as done here (about 2.5 stops) the difference between “best” and “worst” isn’t large enough for it to be a situation where any one of these cameras would be deemed unusable compared to the others.
SO WHY DO YOU WANT A BETTER CAMERA?
So, if we are struggling to tell the difference between a $6K camera and a $75K one why do you want a “better” camera? What are the differences and why might they matter?
When I graded the footage from these cameras in the workshop it was actually quite difficult to find a way to “break” the footage from any of them. For the majority of grading processes that I tried they all held up really well and I’d be happy to work with any of them, even the cameras using the highly compressed internal recordings held up well. But there are differences, they are not all the same and some are easier to work with than the others.
The two cheapest cameras were a Sony FX3 and a Sony A1. I recorded using their built in codecs, XAVC-SI in the FX3 and XAVC-HS in the A1. These are highly compressed 10 bit codecs. The other cameras were all recorded using their internal raw codecs which are either 16 bit linear or 12 bit log. At some time I really do need to do a proper comparison of the internal XAVC form the FX3 and the ProResRaw that can be recorded externally. But it is hard to do a fully meaningful test as to get the ProResRaw into Resolve requires transcoding and a lot of other awkward steps. From my own experience the difference in what you can do with XAVC v ProResRaw is very small.
One thing that happens with most highly compressed codecs such as H264 (XAVC-SI) or H265(XAVC-HS) is a loss of some very fine textural information and the image breaking up into blocks of data. But as I am showing these clips via YouTube in a compressed state I needed to find a way to illustrate the subtle differences that I see when looking at the original material. So, to show the difference between the different sensors and codecs within these camera I decided to pick a colour using the Resolve colour picker and then turn that colour into a completely different one, in this case pink.
What this allows you to see is how precisely the picked colour is recorded and it also shows up some of the macro block artefacts. Additionally it gives an indication on how fine the noise is and the textural qualities of the recording. In this case the finer the pink “noise” the better, as this is an indication of smaller, finer textural differences in the image. These smaller textural details would be helpful if chroma keying or perhaps for some types of VFX work. It might (and say might because I’m not convinced it always will) allow you to push a very extreme grade a little bit further.
I would guess that by now you are starting to figure out which camera is which – The cameras are an FX3, A1, Burano, Venice 2 and an ArriLF.
In this test you should be able to identify the highly compressed cameras from the raw cameras. The pink areas from the raw cameras are finer and less blocky, this is a good representation of the benefit of less compression and a deeper bit depth.
But even here the difference isn’t vast. It certainly, absolutely, exists. But at the same time you could push ANY of these cameras around in post production and if you’ve shot well none of them are going to fall apart.
As a side note I will say that I find grading linear raw footage such as the 16 bit X-OCN from a Venice or Burano more intuitive compared to working with compressed Log. As a result I find it a bit easier to get to where I want to be with the X-OCN than the XAVC. But this doesn’t mean I can’t get to the same place with either.
RESOLUTION MATTERS.
Not only is compression important but so too is resolution. To some degree increasing the resolution can make up for a lesser bit depth. As these camera all use bayer sensors the chroma resolution will be somewhat less than the luma resolution. A 4K sensor such as the one in the FX3 or the Arri LF will have much lower chroma resolution than the 8K A1, Burano or Venice 2. If we look at the raised shadows clip again we can see some interesting things going on the the girls hair.
If you look closely camera D has a bit of blocky chroma noise in the shadows. I suspect this might be because this is one of the 4K sensor cameras and the lower chroma resolution means the chroma noise is a bit larger.
I expect that by now you have an idea of which camera is which, but here is the big reveal: A is the FX3, B is the Venice 2, C is Burano, D is an Arri LF, and E is the Sony A1.
What can we conclude from all of this:
There are differences between codecs. A better codec with a greater bit depth will give you more textural information. It is not necessarily simply that raw will always be better than YUV/YCbCr but because of raws compression efficiency it is possible to have very low levels of compression and a deep bit depth. So, if you are able to record with a better codec or greater bit depth why not do so. There are some textural benefits and there will be fewer compression artefacts. BUT this doesn’t mean you can’t get a great result from XAVC or another compressed codec.
If using a bayer sensor than using a sensor with more “K” than the delivery resolution can bring textural benefits.
There are differences in the sensors, but these differences are not really as great as many might expect. In terms of DR they are all actually very close, close enough that in the real world it isn’t going to make a substantial difference. As far as your audience is concerned I doubt they would know or care. Of course we have all seen the tests where you greatly under expose a camera and then bring the footage back to normal, and these can show differences. But that’s not how we shoot things. If you are serious about getting the best image that you can, then you will light to get the contrast and exposure that you want. What isn’t in this test is rolling shutter, but generally I rarely see issues with rolling shutter these days. But if you are worried about RS, then the Venice 2 is excellent and the best of the group tested here.
Assuming you have shot well there is no reason why an audience should find the image quality from the $6K FX3 unacceptable, even on a big screen. And if you were to mix and FX3 with a Venice 2 or Burano, again if you have used each camera equally well I doubt the audience would spot the difference.
BACK TO THE BEGINNING:
So this brings me back to where I started in part 1. I believe this is the age of the small camera – or at least there is no reason why you can’t use a camera like an FX3 or an A1 to shoot a movie. While many of my readers I am sure will focus on the technical details of the image quality of camera A against camera B, in reality these days it’s much more about the ergonomics and feature set as well as lens and lighting choices.
A small camera allows you to be quick and nimble, but a bigger camera may give you a lot more monitoring options as well as other things such as genlock. And….. if you can – having a better codec doesn’t hurt. So there is no – one fits all – camera that will be the right tool for every job.
As Sony’s new Burano camera starts to ship – a relatively small camera that could comfortably be used to shoot a blockbuster movie we have to look at how over the last few years the size of the cameras used for film production has reduced.
Only last year we saw the use of the Sony FX3 as the principle camera for the movie the Creator. What is particularly interesting about the Creator is that the FX3 was chosen by the director Gareth Edwards for a mix of both creative and financial reasons.
To save money or to add flexibility?
To save money, rather than building a lot of expensive sets Edwards chose to shoot on location using a wide and varied range of locations (80 different locations) all over Asia. To make this possible he used a smaller than usual crew. Part of the reasoning that was given was that it was cheaper to fly a small crew to all these different locations than to try to build a different set for each part of the film. The film cost $80 million to make and took $104 million in the box office, a pretty decent profit at a time when many movies take years to break even.
The FX3 was typically mounted on a gimbal and this allowed them to shoot quickly and in a very fluid manner, making use of natural light where possible. A 2x anamorphic lens was used and the final delivery aspect ratio was a very wide 2.76:1. The film was edited first and then when the edit was locked down the VFX elements were added to the film. Modern tracking and rotoscoping techniques make it much easier to add VFX into sequences without needing to use green or blue screen techniques and this is one of those areas where AI will become a very useful and powerful tool.
You don’t NEED a big camera, but you might want one.
So, what is clear is that you don’t NEED a big camera to make a feature film and The Creator demonstrates that an FX3 (recording to an Atomos Ninja) offers sufficient image quality to stand up to big screen presentation. I don’t think this is really anything new, but we have now reached the stage where the difference in image quality between a cheap $1500 camera like the FX30 and a high end “cinema” camera like the $70K Venice 2 is genuinely so small that an audience probably won’t notice.
There may be reasons why you might prefer to have a bigger camera body – it does make mounting accessories easier and will often have much better monitoring and viewfinder options. And you may argue that a camera like Venice can offer greater image quality (as you will see in part 2 – it technically does have a higher quality image than the FX3), but would the audience actually be able to see the difference and even if they can would they actually care? And what about post production – surely a better quality image is a big help with post – again come back for part 2 where I explore this in more depth.
And small cameras will continue to improve. If what we have now is already good enough things can only get better.
8K Benefits??
Since the launch of Burano I’ve become more and more convinced of the benefits of an 8K sensor – even if you only ever intend to deliver in 4K, the extra chroma resolution from actually having 4K of R and B pixels makes a very real difference. Venice 2 really made me much more aware of this and Burano confirms it. Because of this I’ve been shooting a lot more with the Sony A1 (which possibly shares the same sensor as Burano). There is something I really like about the textural quality in the images from the A1, Burano and Venice 2 (having said that after spending hours looking at my side by side test samples from both 4K and 8K cameras while the difference is real, I’m not sure it will always be seen in the final deliverable). In addition when using a very compressed codec such as the XAVC-HS in the A1 recording at 8K leads to smaller artefacts which then tend to be less visible in a 4K deliverable. This allows you to grade the material harder than perhaps you can with similarly compressed 4K footage. The net result is the 10 bit 8K looks fantastic in a 4K production.
I have to wonder if The Creator wouldn’t have been better off being shot with an A1 rather than an FX3. You can’t get 8K raw out of an A1, but the extra resolution makes up for this and it may have been a better fit for the 2x anamorphic lens that they used.
So many choices….
And that’s the thing – we have lots of choices now. There are many really great small cameras, all capable of producing truly excellent images. A small camera allows you to be nimble. The grip and support equipment becomes smaller. This allows you to be more creative. A lot of small cameras are being used for the Formula 1 movie, small cameras are often mixed with larger cameras and these days the audience isn’t going to notice.
Plus we are seeing a change in attitudes. A few years ago most cinematographers wouldn’t have entertained the idea of using a DSLR or pocket sized camera as the primary camera for a feature. Now it is different, a far greater number of DP’s are looking at what a small camera might allow them to do, not just as a B camera but as the A camera. When the image quality stops being an issue, then small might allow you to do more.
This doesn’t mean big cameras like Venice will go away, there will always be a place for them. But I expect we will see more and more really great theatrical releases shot with cameras like the FX3 or A1 and that makes it a really interesting time to be a cinematographer. Again, look at The Creator – this was a relatively small budget for a science fiction film packed with CGI and other effects. And it looked great. Of course there is also that middle ground, a smaller camera but with the image quality of a big one – Burano perhaps?
In Part 2……
In part 2 I’m going to take some sample clips that I grabbed at a recent workshop from a Venice 2, Burano, A1 and FX3 and show you just how close the footage from these cameras is. I’ll also throw in some footage from an Arri LF and then I’ll “break” the footage in post production to give you an idea of where the differences are and whether they are actually significant enough to worry about.
I was lucky enough to have been involved with a couple of the Sony Burano demo films as technical consultant and in addition I have now shot with it myself a few times. You will find the main film I helped to shoot, shot with a pre-production Burano and mostly Cooke SP3 lenses here: https://alphauniverse-mea.com/burano/.
So I though I would take a look at what it is and who it’s for. Everything written here is based on my experience with a pre-production camera, so there may be some small differences in the final release cameras.
What is Burano?
Sony’s Burano camera is a digital cinematography camera with an 8.6K sensor. It records to 3 different codecs, 16 bit X-OCN, and 10 bit XAVC-H and XAVC-I. It’s smaller than a Sony Venice and bigger than a Sony FX6. Overall, it is a similar size to the Sony FX9 and just a touch heavier. It has a PL lens mount and behind the PL mount there is a locking Sony E-Mount. It is expected to have a list price of 25,000 Euros.
The 8.6K sensor more than likely shares the same DNA as the sensor in the 8.6K Venice camera, but it is not the same sensor as Burano includes phase detection autofocus pixels and has a little more rolling shutter than Venice. Perhaps the Burano sensor is the same sensor as used in the Sony A1 camera. It’s no secret that the Venice 8.6K sensor and the Sony A1 sensor are very closely related. The autofocus in Burano is assisted by a dedicated AI processor.
Burano has one of Sony’s very handy variable ND filters that smoothly goes from ¼ ND to 1/128th ND (2 to 6 stops). There is also a clear position where a clear optical flat replaces the ND.
Variable ND AND IBIS!
A first in Burano is the combination of both a variable ND filter and IBIS (In Body Stabilisation). The in body stabilisation is capable of working in conjunction with almost any lens attached to the camera including PL lenses.
CFExpress Type B.
Burano records to readily available CFExpress Type B cards, it is recommended that VPG400 cards are used but I have been able to use other fast cards not certified to the VPG400 standard (400MB/S sustained write speed). This represents a tremendous cost saving over the ultra expensive AXS cards required for Venice and while more expensive than SD cards, CFExpress cards are not crazy money. I successfully shot using 512GB Sabrent and Integral cards that cost around £150 ($200) each (the camera flashed up an unsupported media message, but I was able to record at all frame rates and resolutions including 4K 120fps and 8.6K 30fps X-OCN). The officially recommended cards are Sony’s VPG400 “tough” cards along with other brands of VPG400 cards, but these are more expensive.
Touchscreen LCD.
It is supplied with a good quality touchscreen LCD that can be used “as-is” or with a loupe attached to it. The optics in the loupe are pretty good and it uses a mirror to fold the optical path making it less long than the Loupe found on the FX9. BUT this mirror is in my opinion a very odd choice, more on that later. The LCD screen can be mounted to its mounting hardware in quite a few different ways allowing the camera to be adapted to many different shooting styles, again more details on this later.
V-Mount and 14 volts.
The camera has a V-Mount for V-Mount batteries as well as a 4 pin XLR input. No silly voltages here, it’s all industry standard 12v-16v. But one small omission is a complete lack of any DC out connectors on the camera body other than a USB-C port.
The bottom and top of the camera are completely flat, so it is very easy to add various base plates and I am sure there will be plenty of 3rd party cheese plate options etc. At IBC there were options from Vocas, Chrosziel and Tilta and I know there are accessories from Wooden Camera and Bright Tangerine in the pipelines.
WHAT CAN IT RECORD?
8.6K Full Frame X-OCN-LT (and 8K XAVC-H + 4K & HD XAVC-I)
Burano has a few different scan sizes. The largest is an 8.6K scan of the full frame sensor at up to 30fps and this can be recorded to 16 X-OCN-LT or to the new H265 based XAVC-H codec. X-OCN is Sony’s raw codec, it takes everything the sensor captures, compresses it and records it in a very computer friendly 16 bit file.
This is the same codec as used by the Venice cameras. On a Venice there are 3 versions, XT (eXtended quality) ST (Standard Quality) and LT (Light). Even though LT is the smallest version of X-OCN the quality remains exceptionally good and I’ve used X-OCN-LT when shooting with the Venice cameras many times because my experience is that for most types of production the difference between LT and XT is so small that LT is more than enough. Shooting at 8.6K and 30fps it is around 1.5Gb/s so you will get around 30 minutes on a 512GB card.
XAVC-H
XAVC-H is only for 8K recording. There are three versions of XAVC-H, all are 10 bit 4:2:2 and based on H265. XAVC-H-I-HQ is I frame only and goes up to 1200Mbps offering very high quality recordings. XAVC-H-I-SQ is the standard quality version going up to 800Mbps. Even at this bit rate the image quality remains very high, but if I wanted to shoot S-Log3 and grade, I would prefer XAVC-H-I-HQ. Shooting at XAVC-H-I-HQ you will get a little over an hour of 8K 30fps footage on a 512GB card when using the 8.6K scan mode.
In addition there is a long GoP version, however the Long GoP version only supports 16:9. XAVC-H-L has a maximum bit rate of 520Mbps and actually the image quality is exceptionally good, comparable to the XAVC-H-I-HQ. But this codec need a lot of processing power in post production so may not be suitable for complex productions or anything where you have layers of clips.
Full Frame Scan – 6K recording. Full Frame crop 6K
The next smaller scan size in what Sony rather confusingly calls Full Frame crop 6K. Unlike most other cameras the “6K” refers to the size of the recorded file, not the sensor scan. Sony haven’t publicly stated the number of pixels used, but according to my calculations it appears to be an 8K scan and the crop from Full Frame is very, very small. Only about 1.07x, less than 10%. The scan is then downsampled to 6K for recording.
For me this is a really nice option. The file sizes are half the size of the 8.6K scans, but because this is a downsample from the bayer sensor there is very little, if any, resolution loss (8K bayer resolves around 6K). I’m going to guess that this downsample to 6K is necessary to make recording X-OCN to CFExpress cards at 60 fps reliable. Recording X-OCN LT using the 6K scan mode at 30fps you will get around an hour of footage on a 512GB card.
From the FF Crop 6K mode you can also record in 4K or HD using the XAVC-I codec.
Going smaller, there is a Super35 mm 5.8K scan, recorded at either 5.8K with X-OCN or 4K or HD with XAVC-I. The image quality is not compromised in any way at any of the scan sizes, so there are no extra aliasing issues, no loss of dynamic range, no extra noise. So, this means that Burano is an excellent Super 35mm camera. At 5.8K using X-OCN LT at 30fps you will get a touch over 1 hour on a 512GB card.
In a future firmware update we are promised a 4:3 scan mode. 4:3 scan is the normally used aspect ration for classic super 35mm 2x anamorphic lenses. In addition we will get extra de-squeeze modes including 1.5x and 1.8x.
4K Scan and 120fps.
To shoot at more than 60fps we need to go down to a 4K scan. This is quite a small part of the sensor, the crop is around 2.15x from Full frame. The good side is the image quality is no different to any of the other scan modes (other than resolution). The down side is you will need some pretty wide lenses for wide shots. But, for wild life shooters this will allow you to get closer to the action when shooting at up to 120fps.
As you can see from the table above, XAVC-H is only available for the FF 8.6K scan mode. Once you drop down to the FF Crop 6K scan mode you can use XAVC-I to record in DCI 4K, UHD or HD.
Picture Quality.
It’s exceptionally good. And this is the thing, despite some of the cameras limitations and oddities (more on them later) Burano produces a beautiful image. The 16 bit X-OCN gives incredible post production flexibility and this is the codec you are going to want to use if you really want to get the best out of the camera. The subtleties the camera captures when shooting faces are sublime. The colour range is staggering and the linearity, the way colours don’t change or shift with brightness allows you to capture vast amounts of colour information from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights.
The performance when shooting with XAVC-H is also very good, but you do loose some of the wonderful grading flexibility of the X-OCN.
When shooting at 8.6K with X-OCN-LT the images are almost indistinguishable from the images from a Venice 2, perhaps the only giveaway being more rolling shutter from Burano than Venice 2 (approx 16ms at 8.6k).
Burano’s sensor is a dual base ISO sensor, the base ISO’s are 800 and 3200 (the same as the 8.6K Venice 2). There is very little difference between the noise at each ISO and what noise there is very fine, almost film like. I actually like seeing the noise from Burano, it adds a subtle texture to the images that looks very nice.
Cameras like Sony’s FX6 already produce very good images, so, other than perhaps resolution, what is different about Burano’s images that makes me prefer it over the others? Frankly not a vast amount, we are already seeing the FX3 and FX6 being used on feature films, so we know they are very good. But what Burano has over the FX6 (like Venice) is an image that for me is more organic. It looks less electronic, less processed and there is a subtle richness to the colours not there in the FX3 or FX6. It is not a night and day difference, but it is a difference that makes me want to shoot with a Burano or Venice whenever I can. I suspect some of this comes from shooting at 8.6K or 5.8K and then down sampling to 4K, the extra resolution really helps with fine textures, colour resolution is greatly improved over a 4K sensor and the noise has a fineness to it that is very organic.
Output Limitations:
One thing I discovered when using Burano to shoot X-OCN is that there are some output limitations. The camera has 2 SDI outputs, the top one is 12G and the lower one is 3G plus a 4K capable HDMI output. But when shooting using X-OCN these outputs are limited. You can’t have both SDI and HDMI at the same time and there is no way to get a 4K SDI output when shooting X-OCN. You can have 4K HDMI, but if you output 4K HDMI, you can’t have a LUT on the HDMI. In addition, if you are using the other codecs and want a LUT you can only get a LUT on the output when outputting HD. I was really surprised by these limitations.
This isn’t a cheap camera and the FX6 can output 4K and a LUT no matter how it’s setup. I had hoped that the FX9 was going to be the last camera with these sorts of restrictions, but alas no, Burano has them too. It’s very disappointing. But, I also acknowledge that not many people actually monitor on set at 4K (although 4K on a big monitor does make it much easier to see focus issues) and seeing as you have extremely high quality 16 bit internal recordings there isn’t really the need to output at 4K for an external recorder.
Better news is that even though there is no dedicated anamorphic scan mode the camera does support 2x and 1.3x monitoring De-Squeeze (with 1.5x and 1.8x to come in later firmware updates). But this is limited to when using the X-OCN codec. For anamorphic, until the 4:3 scan mode gets added via a later firmware update you should use the 8.6K FF scan modes wherever possible as this will be the correct height for super 35mm anamorphic lenses.
Even though you do need to do some cropping in post production, shooting 2x Anamorphic with a sensor that is nearly 5K tall and after cropping will be around 6K wide is absolutely fine for any type of delivery.
Cache Record, Interval Record and S&Q
Like most of Sony’s professional cameras Burano has cache record giving up to 30 seconds of pre-record cache and an interval record function. The cache can be combined with the S&Q mode (slow and quick) for slow motion and at 120fps is still a very decent 10 seconds (immediately I start thinking about shooting lightning and thunderstorms at 120fps using the cache).
And for those that don’t want to shoot X-OCN (raw) or S-Log3 Burano does have a full custom mode with S-Cinetone and Rec-709 gamma, pretty much the same as the FX6.
Ergonomics.
It’s a box, slightly smaller than the FX9. An almost square box, no weird curved base or odd shapes. Overall the camera body seems well laid out. The flat top and bottom makes mounting base plates and top plates easy. There is a V-Mount on the back, so no silly power adapters needed. On the right side of the camera there are 2 SDI connectors and HDMI connector plus connectors for genlock and timecode. You also have 2 full size XLR inputs. But there are a couple of omissions.
There is no DC power output other than a USB-C port. On a cinema camera you normally want a power output for accessories such as a follow focus or perhaps 3rd party monitor. But Burano has no power output. This means most will need to either use batteries with D-Taps or some sort of power module between the battery and camera. For the filming I’ve done with Burano I used a power breakout module between the battery and v-mount as this is a little bit safer than using D-Taps on a battery that you have to reconnect every time the battery has to be changed.
As an option you can buy an arm (Sony GPVR100) with a handgrip that is very similar to the arm used on the FX9. But the new arm includes a small lever that releases the arms pivot making it quick and easy to adjust the angle of the arm. This is a very big improvement over previous Sony arms. The new arm is also compatible with the FX6, but not the FX9.
Top Handle and LCD Mounting.
The camera is supplied with a very solid all metal top handle that bolts onto either the front or rear of the top of the camera. The handle then has a 15mm rod running through it for the viewfinder mounting system.
This IS an improvement over previous similar mounting systems as now the main support bar for the viewfinder is compatible with the Nato standard rather than Sony’s unique square rod or worse still the round rods that were in the FS7. But I do feel that the viewfinder mounting and ergonomics do let the camera down a bit, especially at the target price of 25K Euro/USD. There are certainly some odd design decisions.
The LCD itself has two mounting points, one on it’s rear and one on the end. It attaches to a swivel joint and then the swivel attaches to the Nato rail. The swivel joint has a fixed level of tension, it’s pretty stiff, so won’t droop or sag, even with the eyepiece attached.
The combination of 2 different mounting points on the LCD screen and two different ways the swivel can be attached to the Nato rail allows you to mount the LCD on either side of the camera, either parallel with the camera body or sticking out at 90 degrees from the body.
So far, so good. By mounting the LCD on the right side of the camera it can be used by an assistant or AC much like the assistants control panel on a Venice. When you press the large “Home” button you get what Sony call the “Big 6” controls for frame rate, ISO, white balance, ND filter, shutter speed and monitoring.
When the Big 6 are being displayed the overlays on the SDI and HDMI are reduced to minimise clutter on an external monitor. Around the screen there are 6 buttons, one for each of the big 6 oryou can touch the screen to change the settings.
I expect most users of Burano will have the LCD screen mounted on the left side of the camera. If you attach the LCD parallel with the camera body you can then attach the high quality magnifier. This incorporates a mirror to keep the viewfinder assembly nice and compact. The housing is metal and the optics are high quality which is great. But why does it have a mirror?
You see – the LCD is a touch screen and I am sure there will be many times when you will want to use the magnifier/loupe as the screen is totally shaded from the sun so you see the correct contrast and you can see focus more easily. But with the LCD screen parallel with the camera body, when you flip the screen up, if the camera is on your shoulder, you can’t see the LCD making it impossible to use the touch functions or menus.
I know a lot of people don’t like the FX9 loupe because it’s long and plastic. But at least you could flip that up and see the screen. This one doesn’t make any sense. And what’s worse is that when you attach the viewfinder magnifier the buttons for the “Big 6” functions are inside the magnifier housing so can’t be used! Instead you’ll need to use the thumbstick which is on the far side of the LCD, hidden by the loupe assembly and tricky to get at. None of this makes any sense.
Which is such a shame, because on the LCD screen the information overlays are no longer over the image, they are around the edge of the screen and the screen itself is of reasonable quality. When used with the loupe it is a nice viewfinder and I am sure many will want to use it this way. I suspect we will see some 3rd party adapters to eliminate the mirror or allow the screen to flip out and then all these issues go away. One note is that the overlays are only around the edge of the image on the LCD screen. If outputting to an external monitor the overlays are over the main image (I believe there will be a later firmware update to allow the output of a monitoring image with the overlays around the outside of the image via the HDMI at some point).
Audio Inputs
Another oddity is that it isn’t easy to get more than 2 channels of audio into the camera. I have become used to having my external mics on channels 1 and 2 and then using the cameras internal mic on channel 3 and 4 as a backup. But with only 2 analog XLRs you only have 2 inputs! The camera does have a small scratch mic on the operators side, but there is no other microphone built in to the camera. There is a way to get more than 2 channels of audio in and it and it involves the use of the top handle from the FX9. On the top of the Burano camera there is a little cover and under the cover there is the same connector as there is on the top of the FX9. And, Burano can take the FX9 top handle instead of the suppled handle. This then gives you the ability to use the MI Shoe on the FX9’s handle to feed 2 more channels of audio into the camera. The FX9 handle can be purchased from a Sony dealer as a spare part. But I have to say, when you are spending 25K Euro/USD on a camera this is a bit disappointing. Please Sony, make a small breakout box.
Variable ND and IBIS.
Burano has Sony’s Full Frame variable ND filter system. This is so easy to use and a great feature. There is a clear position and then when the ND filter comes in the minimum ND is 2 stops going all the way to 8 stops. There is a rotary dial on the left side of the camera for variable ND, or you can set the ND filter to work in 1 stop steps which can then be controlled via the Big 6 home menu or the plus and minus buttons. The variable ND can also be controlled automatically by the cameras auto exposure system which is an interesting option particularly when shooting with PL lenses. In addition when using a Sony E-Mount lens and the variable ND is engaged you can use the “Bokeh Control” function that ties the ND filter and the lenses iris together to maintain a constant image brightness. By turning the iris control you can alter the depth of field and Bokeh while the brightness stays the same.
IBIS One of the big surprises though is the addition of IBIS in body stabilisation because for a long time Sony said that having both together wasn’t possible. IBIS works with any lens, including unstabilised PL lenses. What’s more it’s really good. There are a couple of different levels of stabilisation including an off setting. When shooting in Full Frame you are limited to the Low setting – which works very well at removing low levels of camera shake, its great for steadying up a handheld shot. When using a PL (or other non Sony E-Mount lens) you must set the focal length of the lens manually to get the best results. Set too long a focal length setting and the image will be over stabilised, making it more jittery and wobbly. Set a shorter focal length than that of the lens and you get less stabilisation, this might be handy if you want only a very small amount of stabilisation.
When shooting using the s35 5.8K scan mode and XAVC-I there is a high setting for PL and other non Sony lenses as well as an active setting for Sony E-mount lenses. This does introduce a small additional crop into the image but is very good at taking out a lot of camera shake. These modes only work when recording XAVC-H or XAVC-I, the high and active modes don’t work with X-OCN. However active mode does tend to “grab” a little bit, taking out a lot of shake and wobble until it can’t take any more out and then suddenly the image jerks a bit and then grabs a new stable position. I myself am not a big fan of the active mode, but its handy to have it in reserve for those times you are really struggling to get a stable shot, perhaps from a helicopter or boat.
One small issue with adding IBIS to a digital cinema camera is that because the sensor can move there could be small image shifts when the camera is used locked off, shut down and then restarted.
AS well as IBIS Burano has gyro sensors and the gyro data is recorded as metadata to allow footage to be stabilised in post production. To use the Gyro data IBIS should be turned off or you should use the PL Hi or E-Mount Active modes.
One note here – when you remove or refit the PL mount you MUST turn the camera off. When you turn the camera on it checks to see whether the PL Mount is fitted or not and then makes adaptations to the menu options based on whether the camera thinks you have the PL mount attached or not.
Autofocus with AI processing.
Burano has autofocus. It has Sony’s excellent fast hybrid autofocus system and we all know how good that is. It even has a new AI based processing chip to assist with the object tracking and human detection. The autofocus can be driven using the LCD touch screen, simply touch where you want the camera to focus and it will then track that object. It can be set to recognise “Humans” and will prioritise Humans over anything else in the shot, focussing on the profile of a human, even if they are not facing the camera and then when they turn towards the camear it will focus on the persons face or eyes. It works exceptionally well. It is also highly programmable with the usual settings for responsiveness and focus speed that we see in cameras like the FX6 and FX3.
I think it will be quite interesting to see whether high end film makers will, or will not, use autofocus. Burano gives Venice image quality but with the ability to use AF if you want. It might end up used on very big features for action scenes or other shots where focus is particularly challenging. It will be great for use on gimbals and stabilisers. The projects I have been involved have used gimbals and drones. Burano balances really easily, much more easily than a Venice on most drones and gimbals. And for drone work it is so much lighter than a Venice or most other 8K digital cinema cameras. I’ve even managed to get it balanced on a DJI RS3 (using the Cooke SP3 lenses).
So, who is it for?
Burano seems to me to be the Sony F55 replacement that so many have been looking for since the F55 was discontinued. But it’s more than that. We have seen that it is possible to shoot a big budget feature film with the Sony FX3, so there really is no reason why you can’t use Burano on very high end features. Burano isn’t that much heavier than a Sony Rialto, so I can see some productions that might have had a Rialto on set swapping the Rialto for a Burano – with Burano there is no umbilical cable to worry about.
It will be a great camera for documentary production where you want Venice image quality but without the expense or weight. Although it is worth noting that it is bigger and heavier than an FX6 (but very slightly smaller than the FX9), so it won’t suit every production. Wildlife productions will likely be very happy to get a camera that can deliver both 8K resolution for re-framing as well as offering different crop modes for when tighter shots are needed. The ability to switch near instantly between the different crop modes will be highly beneficial as will the speed at which the camera turns on.
A key Burano strength is its ability to shoot over sampled super 35. I think we will see a resurgence in the use of Super 35 especially for productions that need zoom lenses. There are far more lens options for Super 35 than full frame. Super 35mm lenses have been around for a very long time so there is a wealth of lenses to choose from. So, for anyone that needs a really good s35 camera Burano will be a great option. And compared to other cameras that shoot at s35, as well as the oversampling there is the dual ISO performance, Burano is great in low light. The base ISO’s are the same as Venice 2, 800 ISO at low base and 3200 ISO at high base. Even at high base the noise is minimal and quite pretty looking.
Burano will be a lower cost, high quality option for anyone that needs to deliver in 8K (as long as you don’t need to go above 30fps). Although I don’t think there are many actually doing this right now and it will be some time before 8K delivery becomes common (if it ever does). I’ve had to deliver a couple of 8K productions but they are the exception, most of what I deliver is 4K and its likely to stay that way for some time yet.
I think Burano will have a very broad appeal. It is perhaps a bit on the expensive side for a lot of those that currently use the FX6 or FX9, and let’s face it, the FX6/FX9 does produce really nice pictures. I think it only has limited appeal for TV News, but for those shooting docs it will be a really nice choice.
But what about some of the negatives I have pointed out?
Well, I really wish they weren’t there and they are frustrating. But none of them are show stoppers. I really want the flexibility to shoot from 8K full frame to super 35, to record with 16 bit X-OCN at up to 120fps. I want the colour response and dynamic range. I love the idea of IBIS with PL lenses and autofocus with Sony lenses. I can live with only a HD SDI output when shooting full frame X-OCN, after all I don’t need to record externally when the internal X-OCN is so good. I’ll figure out how to get around the strange LCD/Loupe situation, I’m sure there will be some 3rd party solutions. I can perhaps live with only 2 channels of audio (unless I add the FX9 top handle). So, overall I am really am excited about doing more with Burano. It fills the gap that was left when the F5 and F55 were discontinued and will be a great option for a lot of productions looking to bridge that gap between the FX9 and Venice. For many people, myself included Venice is out of my price range, Venice is a camera I rent when I need it. Burano offers most of the same image quality but at a much more affordable price, especially when media costs are factored in (the AXS cards for needed for the 8K Venice are around £4K each). Burano’s FF Crop 6K scan modes are going to be perfect for documentary productions allowing you to benefit from the near full frame 8K scan to 6K recording, it’s oversampled while halving the file size compared to recording at 8K.
When can you get one? Originally it was going to be available very early 2024, but in the last few days this has been put back to Spring 2024 – It’s going to be a long wait, but I think well worth the wait.
Sony have started a teaser campaign for a new camera called Burano. – Well, actually Sony haven’t said its a camera but if you look at the pictures it is pretty obvious that is what it is and the CineAlta badge is a huge clue. And I have shot with it quite extensively on two different continents and I have to say that this is an announcement not to be missed because it is very, very nice.
It will be launched at IBC in Amsterdam, so if you want to actually see it and get your hands on it, that will be your first opportunity. Then I will be doing a webinar about it with Visual Impact on the 20th of September (Click Here) and the following week you will have an opportunity to join me for a Burano and Cooke lens event at CVP in Brussels on the 28th of September (Click Here).
Then in October and November I will be hosting more events in the UK and as the dates for these get confirmed I’ll let you know them.
This is going to be big!
And for those that don’t know:
Burano is a lot like Venice and very close to Venice. There are some similarities but also many differences. Burano might be considered to be a smaller version of Venice as it is a small island with many canals, gondolas and boats in the same lagoon as Venice. It’s around 6Km from Venice and actually closer to Venice airport than Venice itself. To get to Burano from the airport you take a water taxi, water bus or some other boat. The buildings along the canals in Burano are all painted bright colours and the island is famous for its lace makers. Its a very pretty filming location, I shot there a few years ago, but there is very little hotel accommodation, so most that visit Burano will be day trippers from Venice.
I have recently been running a series of masterclasses and workshops for the Sony Venice 2 across the Middle East and Africa.
An issue that I keep encountering in that region is the prolific use of 12 – 14v accessories that are powered via D-Tap cables, for example follow focus units or small monitors. The Venice camera only has a single 12v lemo DC output and the amount of power available from this is limited. In addition connecting D-Taps to batteries is very risky. Each time you have to change the battery you have to reconnect the D-Tap and this is when you are at the highest risk of the D-Tap ground pin not connecting correctly and then your SDI cables or other accessory cables become the ground causing damage to the camera or accessories. I really wanted to avoid this, a camera going down is never a good thing.
So – I needed to find a solution to these problems and the solution I found was the Core Power Control Module.
The module attaches to the V-Mount on the back of the camera and is available with either a V-Mount or a Gold mount battery plate, so either type of battery can be used. Power is fed to the camera via a short 4 pin XLR cable, this ensures a solid and stable power connection.
The unit can also be powered from a standard 4 pin XLR power supply and that power source can be at any voltage from 11 volts to 34 volts, so you can use a 14.4v power supply or a standard film style block battery. It then takes the input power and regulates it and conditions it to provide smooth clean power to the camera via the cameras 4 pin XLR input. There is also an additional 2 pin Fischer 19.5v to 34 volt failover input to ensure continuous power when this is absolutely essential.
On the top of the unit there are two D-Tap sockets and these output 11 to 17v from the attached battery (one on the gold mount version) as well as 2 industry standard RS3 Fischer connectors that give a 24 volt 3 amp output and a pair of 2 pin Lemo connectors that give a 12 volt output. So, all in all you have plenty of power outputs.
On the side of the unit there is an OLED display that gives the voltage of the connected battery and an LED that is normally green but turns red if the battery voltage starts to drop too low. The unit is super simple to use, jut connect it and go.
For me the Core Power Control Module has been a real life saver. It’s given me the extra power connections that I need when working with both lower cost accessories that need 11-17v as well as additional RS3 connections for cinema camera accessories such as Prestons or Cinetapes. The addition protection from damage to the camera that comes from having any D-Taps permanently connected to the adapter rather than a battery is reassuring. It is a compact and lightweight unit so travelling with it is easy. I highly recommend anyone using a Venice should consider it as an option for expanding the cameras accessory power options.
Well, I was recently asked if I could come up with a rig to do the same using Sony cameras for an upcoming blockbuster feature with an A-list director being shot by a top DP. This kind of challenge is something I enjoy immensely, so how could I not accept the challenge! I had some insight into how Hoyte Van Hoytema did it but I had none of the fine details and often its the fine details that make all the difference. And this was no exception. I discovered many small things that need to be just right if this process is to work well. There are a lot of things that can trip you up badly.
So a frantic couple of weeks ensued as I tried to learn everything I could about infrared photography and video and how it could be used to improve traditional day for night shooting. I don’t claim any originality in the process, but there is a lot of information missing about how it was actually done in Nope. I have shot with infrared before, so it wasn’t all new, but I had never used it this way before.
As I did a lot of 3D work when 3D was really big around 15 years ago, including designing award winning 3D rigs, I knew how to combine two cameras on the same optical axis. Even better I still had a suitable 3D rig, so at least that part of the equation was going to be easy (or at least that’s what I thought).
Building a “Test Mule”.
The next challenge was to create a low cost “test mule” camera before even considering what adaptations might be needed for a full blown digital cinema camera. To start with this needed to be cheap, but it also needed to be full frame and capable of taking a wide range of cinema lenses and sensitive to both visible and infrared light. So, I took an old A7S that had been gathering dust for a while, dismantled it and removed the infrared filter from the sensor.
As the DP wanted to test the process with Panavision lenses the camera was fitted with a PV70 mount and then collimated in it’s now heavily modified state (collimation has some interesting challenges when working with the very different wavelength of infrared light compared to visible). Now I could start to experiment, pairing the now infrared sensitive A7S with a second camera on the 3D rig. We soon found issues with this setup, but it allowed me to take the testing to the next stage before committing to modifying a more expensive camera for infrared.
This testing was needed to determine exactly what range of infrared light would produce the best results. The range of infrared you use is determined by filters added to the camera to cut the visible light and only pass certain parts of the infrared spectrum. There are many options, different filters work in slightly different ways. And not only do you need to test the infrared filters but you also need to consider how different neutral density filters might behave if you need to reduce the IR and visible light. Once I narrowed down the range of filters I wanted to test the next challenge was find very high quality filters that could either be fitted inside the camera body behind the lens or that were big enough (120mm +) for the Panavision lenses that were being considered for the film.
Once I had some filters to play with (I had 15 different IR filters) the next step was to start test shooting. I cheated here a bit. For some of the initial testing I used a pair of zoom lenses as I was pairing the A7S with several different cameras for the visible spectrum. The scan areas of the different sensors in the A7S and the visible light cameras were typically very slightly different sizes. So, a zoom lens was used to provide the same field of view from both cameras so that both could be more easily optically aligned on the 3D rig. You can get away with this, but it makes more work for post production as the distortions in each lens will be different and need correcting. For the film I knew we would need identical scan sizes and matched lenses, but that could come later once we knew how much camera modification would be needed. To start with I just needed to find out what filtration would be needed.
At this point I shot around 100 different filter and exposure tests that I then started to compare in post production. When you get it all just right the sky in the infrared image becomes very dark, almost black and highlights become very “peaky”. If you use the luminance from the infrared camera with its black sky and peaky highlights and then add in a bit of colour and textural detail from the visible camera it can create a pretty convincing day for night look. Because you have a near normal visible light exposure you can fine tune the mix of infrared and visible in post production to alter the brightness and colour of the final composite shot giving you a wide range of control over the day for night look.
So – now I know how to do it, the next step was to take it from the test mule to a pair of matching cinema quality cameras and lenses for a full scale test shoot. When you have two cameras on a 3D rig the whole setup can get very heavy, very fast. Therefore the obvious camera to adapt was a Sony Venice 2 with the 8K sensor as this can be made very compact by using the Rialto unit to split the sensor from the camera body – In fact one of the very first uses of Rialto was for 3D shooting on Avatar – The Way of Water.
With a bit of help from Panavision we adapted a Panavised Venice 2, making it full spectrum and then adding a carefully picked (based on my testing) special infrared filter into the cameras optical path. This camera was configured using a Rialto housing to keep it compact and light so that when placed on the 3D rig with the visible light Venice the weight remained manageable. The lenses used were Panavision PV70 Primo’s (if you want to use these lenses for infrared – speak to me first, there are some things you need to know).
And then with the DP in attendance, with smoke and fog machines, lights and grip we tested. For the first few shot we had scattered clouds but soon the rain came and then it poured down for the rest of the day. Probably the worst possible weather conditions for a day for night shoot. But that’s what we had and of course for the film itself there will be no guarantee of perfect weather.
The large scale tests gave us an opportunity to test things like how different types of smoke and haze behave in infrared and also to take a look at interactions with different types of light sources. With the right lights you can do some very interesting things when you are capturing both visible light and infrared opening up a whole new world of possibilities for creating unique looks in camera.
From there the footage went to the production companies post production facilities to produce dailies for the DP to view before being presented to the studios post production people. Once they understood the process and were happy with it there was a screening for the director along with a number of other tests for lighting and lenses.
Along the way I have learnt an immense amount about this process and how it works. What filters to use and when, how to adapt different cameras, how different lenses behave in the infrared spectrum (not all lenses can be used). Collimating adapted cameras for infrared is interesting as many of the usual test rigs will produce misleading or confusing results. I’ve also identified several other ways that a dual camera setup can be used to enhance shooing night scenes, both day for night and as well as at night, especially for effects heavy projects.
At the time of writing it looks like most of the night scenes in this film will be shot at night, they have the budget and time to do this. But the director and DP have indicated that there are some scenes where they do wish to use the process (or a variation of it), but they are still figuring out some other details that will affect that decision.
Whether it gets used for this film or not I am now developing a purpose designed rig for day for night with infrared as I believe it will become a popular way to shoot night scenes. My cameras of choice for this will be a pair of Venice cameras. But other cameras can be used provided one can be adapted for IR and both can be synchronised together. I will have a pair of Sony F55’s, one modified for IR available for lower budget productions and a kit to reversibly adapt a Sony Venice. If you need a rig for day for night and someone that knows exactly how to do it, do get in touch!
I’m afraid I can’t show you the test results, that content is private and belongs to the production. The 3D rig is being modified as you don’t need the ability to shoot with the cameras optically separated, removing the moving parts will make the rig more stable and easier to calibrate. Plus a new type of beam splitter mirror with better infrared transmission properties is on the way. As soon as I get an opportunity to shoot a new batch of test content with the adapted rig I will share it here.
Over the last 2 weeks I have been shooting some tests for a major feature film. The tests involved a special process that involves the use of Infrared light and shooting outdoors.
On the test day we had some fairly bright light levels to deal with. So as you would normally do we added some ND filtration to reduce the light levels. Most of the equipment for the shoot was on hire from Panavision, the main cameras being Panavised Sony Venices with PV70 mounts and Panavison lenses. But for reasons I can’t go into yet, we were unable to use the Venice internal ND filters, so we had to use external ND’s.
The first ND’s we used were circular Tiffen IRND’s that were the correct size for the PV lenses. But much to my surprise these made very little difference to the amount of IR reaching the camera. For our application they were absolutely no good. Fortunately, I had a set of Formatt Hitech IRND’s in my camera bag and when we tried these we got an equal visible and infrared cut. So, the Tiffen’s were put back in their boxes and the Formatt filters used instead.
Back at Panavision we did some further testing and found that both the Tiffen and Schnieder IRND’s that we tested had very little IR cut. But the Formatt Hitech and Panavision IRND’s that we tested cut the IR by a very similar amount to the visible light. In addition we were able to test the Venice built in ND filters and found that these too did a very good job at cutting both IR and visible light by similar amounts.
So, my recommendation is – if you are ever concerned about infrared light contaminating your images use a Venice 2 with it’s built in ND’s, Panavision or Formatt Hitech IRND’s.
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.
I have a crazy few weeks coming up. This week I will be filming at the Glastonbury festival, then next week I will be in Dubai for a workshop on virtual production with Sony’s Venice 2 camera. This will be a great opportunity for those that have never been to a virtual studio to have a look at how it all works and what’s involved – nad to see how Venice 2 is an excellent camera for VR thanks to it’s very fast sensor readout speed, frame size flexibility and wide range of frame rates. To join one of the sessions please RSVP to Omar.Abuaisha@sony.com
I have not done any formal dynamic range testing with Venice 2 myself, but I have shot with it several times. I have also shot with most of Sony’s recent cameras including the original Venice, many different Red cameras and Arri ALexa’s.
Whenever I shot with Venice 2 the dynamic range has always impressed me. I have been able to pull lots of detail out of the deepest shadows without any issue, no nasty noise artefacts, no coloured blotches. When I shot the “London Vistas” video in London at night using available light I found the cameras noise floor to be very low, allowing me to get deep shadow textures without issue. The cameras highlight handling has also always impressed me and every time I’ve used Venice 2 I have been delighted with the dynamic range it delivers, it is up there with the Arri Alexa. From my real world shooting experience Venice 2 delivers more DR than my FX9 or FX6 and it delivers it in a very pleasing way. The way the far highlights and deep shadows behave is beautiful.
I would also point out that there are many great examples of deep shadow details and textures that are colour blotch free in Rob Hardy’s “Venizia” short film.
I would point out that CineD noted that the Venice 2 as the delivered the second highest dynamic range result they have seen in their lab when they recorded using the internal 4K ProRes recordings. Venice 2 comes in just 0.3 stops behind the Alexa in this mode in the CineD tests. CineD have put this down to downsampling from 8K plus the use of additional internal noise reduction. While DCT codecs like ProRes do normally incorporate some degree of NR, I doubt that Sony are doing any significant NR in camera as this tends to degrade the image in other areas. So I find the discrepancy between the results they are seeing between the 16 it X-OCN and the 10 bit ProResHQ very intriguing and it makes me wonder if something else is going on. Downsampling from 8K will certainly help lower the noise a little, but I feel that there is something odd with the X-OCN results, one thing I note is a very raised pedestal on the waveform of the X-OCN, which is somewhat odd, the bit depth should help separate the noise from the useable signal. A camera either has a dynamic range or it doesn’t, only rarely does NR make a significant difference as the sensor analog to digital converters tend to be the one of the main limiting factors. My own real world experience is that Venice 2 when shooting X-OCN has more useable DR than almost every other camera I have used.
Bottom line is – don’t go by the test, try the camera for yourself as I am quite sure you will find, like me, that one thing Venice 2 does not lack is dynamic range. I will try to do my own formal tests as soon as possible.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Read More
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Name
Domain
Purpose
Expiry
Type
wpl_user_preference
www.xdcam-user.com
WP GDPR Cookie Consent Preferences
1 year
HTTP
YSC
youtube.com
YouTube session cookie.
54 years
HTTP
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
Name
Domain
Purpose
Expiry
Type
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE
youtube.com
YouTube cookie.
6 months
HTTP
Analytics cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Name
Domain
Purpose
Expiry
Type
__utma
xdcam-user.com
Google Analytics long-term user and session tracking identifier.
2 years
HTTP
__utmc
xdcam-user.com
Legacy Google Analytics short-term technical cookie used along with __utmb to determine new users sessions.
54 years
HTTP
__utmz
xdcam-user.com
Google Analytics campaign and traffic source tracking cookie.
6 months
HTTP
__utmt
xdcam-user.com
Google Analytics technical cookie used to throttle request rate.
Session
HTTP
__utmb
xdcam-user.com
Google Analytics short-term functional cookie used to determine new users and sessions.
Session
HTTP
Preference cookies enable a website to remember information that changes the way the website behaves or looks, like your preferred language or the region that you are in.
Name
Domain
Purpose
Expiry
Type
__cf_bm
onesignal.com
Generic CloudFlare functional cookie.
Session
HTTP
NID
translate-pa.googleapis.com
Google unique id for preferences.
6 months
HTTP
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
Name
Domain
Purpose
Expiry
Type
_ir
api.pinterest.com
---
Session
---
Cookies are small text files that can be used by websites to make a user's experience more efficient. The law states that we can store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies we need your permission. This site uses different types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services that appear on our pages.