New camera announcement from Sony at NAB Show NY, October 18-19. <<We’ll be introducing a new camera you won’t want to miss>>. Maybe an FS5 Mark II?

LINK: Sony | Showcase (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/show-nab/resource.solutions.bbsccms-assets-show-nab-NABShowNY2017LandingPage.shtml)

I'm hoping for an A9s: 6k, full-frame, 10 bit and dual U-II cards.

Don't get too excited. If it's below the FS7 it will not have 4K 60p.

There are a couple of games Sony could play to protect the FS7.

We could see 10bit 30p internally.
We could see 10bit 60p over HDMI only.

If the FS5-II is going to have the typical 3 year shelf life, it needs to have 4k and HLG. In order to do this "properly", it needs 10bit 4k in some way.

I REALLY, REALLY,.....REALLY hope Sony moves away from that FS700 1:1 readout image sensor. I REALLY hope they employ a 16×9 (or 17x9) A6500 generation sensor. An EXMOR stacked RS model with 6k readout but clocked higher than an A6500 to straighten up the skew. It will run hotter but the current FS5 body is fan cooled.

I was so sick and tired of seeing my A6300 outresolve and beat the crap out of my FS5 in low light that I sold my FS5.

If they do a 6k readout than the FS700, FS7, FS5 raw protocol will change significantly. This might have been the reason why they kept using that sensor for so many years.

Hell, Im OK with this new model not having raw at all as long as they give us 6k sampling and 30p 10bit.

If it uses the same FS700 sensor again with 1:1 readout, there is no chance in Hell that I'll buy it. Im not buying any more "4k" cameras that are made up of a green channel that is 1/2 4k resolution and 1/4 resolution on the red & blue channels.

CT

If the FS5-II is going to have the typical 3 year shelf life, it needs to have 4k and HLG. In order to do this "properly", it needs 10bit 4k in some way.
What worries me most about the FS5 is that the camera is on the market from 2015, so the life cycle is not completed, it will be next year (2018). I really need an FS5 with updated specs and can't wait till next year. EVA1 seems appealing but the lack of autofocus and the need of EVF will transform an handled camera into a shoulder mount camera!

There are a couple of games Sony could play to protect the FS7.
If it uses the same FS700 sensor again with 1:1 readout, there is no chance in Hell that I'll buy it. Im not buying any more "4k" cameras that are made up of a green channel that is 1/2 4k resolution and 1/4 resolution on the red & blue channels.
CT
Hello Cliff. I don't quite follow. Could you or anyone explain to me which cameras are using 1/2 4k res for G and 1/4 res for R&B channels?

According to the latest news the camera is the HXC-F80, designed for sports broadcasting. No FS5 MK II !

Link to original article : https://www.sportsvideo.org/2017/10/16/sony-to-introduce-midrange-studio-camera/

Yes, saw that. Well at least I won't need to get my credit card out just yet/can carry on enjoying the images my FS5 currently gives me without too much "camera envy" (The F80 is not the sort of camera I need).

Hello Cliff. I don't quite follow. Could you or anyone explain to me which are using 1/2 4k res for G and 1/4 res for R&B channels?

Any and all cameras that uses a standard RGGB bayer sensor with only an effective resolution of 8.3 megapixels for 4k UHD, like, Sony FS7, FS5, F5, Canon C200, C300 and many others.

Remember, half of all the pixels on any RGGB sensor are green with the other half divided into red and blue. If you only have an 8 megapixel sensor, 4 million are green with 2 million red and 2 million blue.

Sony's Alpha-style 6k readout has a green channel that is full 100% raster 4k UHD and has red and blue channels at 1/2 resolution instead of 1/4 resolution.

Here is a 6k over sample vs. 1:1 readout between the A6300 and FS5. Same lens, same fstop, same camera settings on both with the exception of white balance. No sharpening or any other work applied.

SONY FS5 vs. A6300 - "IMAGE SENSOR" Test. - YouTube

Thanks Cliff. I now understand.

If the FS5-II is going to have the typical 3 year shelf life, it needs to have 4k and HLG. In order to do this "properly", it needs 10bit 4k in some way.

Apart form the fact that FS5 already has HLG why does it need that, it already has log.

Agreed. Log is the ultimate "HLG". But,....well? For people that dont want to color grade and maintain their HLG curve through the editing process to master. Then, yeah HLG is ok for that.

I really believe 10bit 4k is needed on the FS5-II. I know Sony want's to protect the FS7's 60p 4k but damn....just give me 4k 30p 10bit and I will be super happy.

I only need two things to pre-order and FS5-II.

1.) 1.5 - 2x UHD oversampled sensor. (would LOVE the A6500's full 6k readout but in 30p, not 24p)
2.) 30p 10bit 4k. (Even if they only enable the HDMI with this as I'm happy to record 10bit 4k externally)

That's it. Those two things and I'm all in again. (I owned the FS5 for about 6 months before I sold it)

CT

I think here is a lot of confusion about HLG.

HLG is a delivery format for HDR only. Any claim that an HLG-shot video looks ok in SDR (on REC709 screens) is false. Presumably if one is going to shoot for HDR, it is very convenient. But it does not maximize the DR the sensor is capable of. From log you can go to HLG for output, or REC709, or HDR10. I do not see why anyone would ever shoot in HLG. What am I missing (I have the option to shoot in HLG, and I have made HDR videos from 10bit 422 log (PQ), so this is not sour grapes)?

If someone has log on their camera than that is the ultimate gamma to shoot in. You will need to prep it for HLG in post if that is your goal.

The Sony Z150 today only offers HLG and has no log. So HLG is the best DR that you can get for that.

Call me crazy, but I actually like the HLG curve in a 709 space. With a little tweaking of the mids, you get "smooth" toned highlights that dont look bad in 709.

But no arguments, I think of HLG as 'half log" because below 60 or 70, its rec709. If you got full log, no need for HLG, really. With the only possible argument that tweaking HLG to 709 800% "could" be easier on an 8bit CODEC than conforming log to 709 800% in 8bit SLog-2.

It seems to me that HLG only requires "light" color curves and contrast grading with no LUT really necessary. Full log will need more stretching for 709.

I dunno....my only HLG shots today are about 1.5 hours of clips of my pets in the house in front of bright windows and backyard play with shady trees and white clouds!

I think here is a lot of confusion about HLG.

HLG is a delivery format for HDR only. Any claim that an HLG-shot video looks ok in SDR (on REC709 screens) is false. Presumably if one is going to shoot for HDR, it is very convenient. But it does not maximize the DR the sensor is capable of. From log you can go to HLG for output, or REC709, or HDR10. I do not see why anyone would ever shoot in HLG. What am I missing (I have the option to shoot in HLG, and I have made HDR videos from 10bit 422 log (PQ), so this is not sour grapes)?

I think the value in HLG is to deliver one file for SDR and HDR TV's. That is exactly why BBC and NHK developed it. It has the value of shooting and showing immediately with no grading. Looking at the gamma curve it is not very different to the Canon 800% curve. If you want to grade and create a look of any type then Log is the way to go. If you want to shoot an event and archive the file in HDR then I think HLG has this in its favour and why I want to shoot in HLG. Did you see this from Alistair Alistair Chapman - What is Hybrid Log Gamma HLG (Sony FS5) - YouTube

I think the value in HLG is to deliver one file for SDR and HDR TV's. That is exactly why BBC and NHK developed it. It has the value of shooting and showing immediately with no grading. Looking at the gamma curve it is not very different to the Canon 800% curve. If you want to grade and create a look of any type then Log is the way to go. If you want to shoot an event and archive the file in HDR then I think HLG has this in its favour and why I want to shoot in HLG. Did you see this from Alistair Alistair Chapman - What is Hybrid Log Gamma HLG (Sony FS5) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvTYhWkBXaU)

Alistair's point is exactly NOT to shoot using HLG. He explicitly says that HLG is a delivery format, not a shooting format. And the HLG video files clearly are inferior in color accuracy to REC709 video files viewed in REC709. And they are difficult to convert to REC709, he says.

And, no if you want to archive an event, you should shoot in Slog or Vlog, because that gives you the highest quality AND the ability to convert those files to any new HDR or SDR format, including HLG, PQ etc. And they will be the highest quality, higher than an HLG-shot file.

You are free to shoot in HLG, but you are crippling quality (lower DR than you could get) and your REC709 viewers will not be pleased. It is a tautology to say that if you want to archive in HLG shoot in HLG. The point is why lock yourself into HLG, given all the shortcomings.

Alistair's point is exactly NOT to shoot using HLG. He explicitly says that HLG is a delivery format, not a shooting format. And the HLG video files clearly are inferior in color accuracy to REC709 video files viewed in REC709. And they are difficult to convert to REC709, he says.

And, no if you want to archive an event, you should shoot in Slog or Vlog, because that gives you the highest quality AND the ability to convert those files to any new HDR or SDR format, including HLG, PQ etc. And they will be the highest quality, higher than an HLG-shot file.

You are free to shoot in HLG, but you are crippling quality (lower DR than you could get) and your REC709 viewers will not be pleased. It is a tautology to say that if you want to archive in HLG shoot in HLG. The point is why lock yourself into HLG, given all the shortcomings.

If it is not a shooting format why would Sony and others update their firmware to include it ? I want to archive a file that can be played immediately on a normal TV. Cannot do that with a Log format that needs grading. Absolutely agree that Log formats will give a better source to grade and with greater dynamic range. That is not my point at all. Where does he say it is difficult to convert to REC 709? The only difference is that it may be a little darker above 75% and the colour matrix needs to change. My intent is for the future when playback will be on a HDR set. I can change the colour for editing in my SDR project but I have that archive for the future with little effort on my part.

I want to archive a file that can be played immediately on a normal TV. Cannot do that with a Log format that needs grading. Absolutely agree that Log formats will give a better source to grade and with greater dynamic range. That is not my point at all. Where does he say it is difficult to convert to REC 709? The only difference is that it may be a little darker above 75% and the colour matrix needs to change. My intent is for the future when playback will be on a HDR set. I can change the colour for editing in my SDR project but I have that archive for the future with little effort on my part.

You cannot shoot HLG and get a good REC709 video without work in post. Period. Did you actually watch the Chapman video: He says precisely that it is very difficult to convert HLG to REC709. And even if it were not, you are back to what you said you did not want to do: grade in post to change the color matrix and change the gamma to get a good REC709 picture. HLG does not look nearly as good as REC709 on REC709 TV's without grading. And there are LUTs that make the conversion of Slogs to REC709 that make that conversion easy, if you are lazy.

Again: archiving in a specific picture profile that compromises dynamic range and has a very specific color gamut not easily converted to other specs is not what anyone should do for archive purposes.

HLG as a shooting codec is good for one thing: producing an HLG video for viewing on HLG TV's. That's it - it is not for archiving, it is not for maximizing video quality, its not for viewing on REC709 TV's unless you do not care that much about IQ.

Perhaps shooting in HLG is useful for live TV broadcasts in HLG in some imagined future.

Sony should have given the Z150 SLOG at the same time they gave it HLG!!!

Now they are stuck with a much cheaper Z90 below it that offers SLOG that it's more expensive brother doesn't have! How stupid is that?

From the little HLG shooting I have done with the Z150, I have seen that you "can" normalize it to rec 709 800% contrast fairly easily. It's not hard at all. It's rec709 from the bottom all the way up to 60 or 70 than compresses from there on up. This is really not a hard thing to reverse, shift and lift.

For that one odd-ball Z150 camera that has HLG WITHOUT any true log option....HLG is the "only" high dynamic range capture you can record with. So Z150 people are stuck having to use that. At least you get smooth highlight rolloff, unlike the rec709-ish profiles it has.

CT

Mark I have watched the video several times and I would like you to specifically give me the time in the video where Alistair says it is difficult to convert HLG to REC 709. In fact he demonstrates how to do just that. You clearly do not want HLG and thats fine with me. He mentions that is is not easy to grade like one would Log but the whole point of HLG is to shoot and show directly on a consumer HDR TV. No grading is the whole point. That is why I want my archive to be able to do this. You can do it any way you want but I would certainly not archive a LOG file as that would require effort to show for instance have a TV with LUT's in it that are appropriate. I can see that if one is creating a narrative film one would shoot LOG and then to ensure the audience saw what the director wanted use HDR10 or even Dolby. Not the case for me or maybe many others. I shoot an event of maybe 2 hours and want a HDR record. To me HLG is made for this. Encode to h265 etc for a smaller file. The only other use is to DVD or Bluray and I can spend the time to convert to rec709. Effectively apply a colour LUT from 2020 to 709 and boost the mids a little.

I can see your point of view you clearly cannot see any use for HLG. Maybe all the manufactures got wrong !!!

Mark I have watched the video several times and I would like you to specifically give me the time in the video where Alistair says it is difficult to convert HLG to REC 709. In fact he demonstrates how to do just that. You clearly do not want HLG and thats fine with me. He mentions that is is not easy to grade like one would Log but the whole point of HLG is to shoot and show directly on a consumer HDR TV. No grading is the whole point. That is why I want my archive to be able to do this. You can do it any way you want but I would certainly not archive a LOG file as that would require effort to show for instance have a TV with LUT's in it that are appropriate. I can see that if one is creating a narrative film one would shoot LOG and then to ensure the audience saw what the director wanted use HDR10 or even Dolby. Not the case for me or maybe many others. I shoot an event of maybe 2 hours and want a HDR record. To me HLG is made for this. Encode to h265 etc for a smaller file. The only other use is to DVD or Bluray and I can spend the time to convert to rec709. Effectively apply a colour LUT from 2020 to 709 and boost the mids a little.

I can see your point of view you clearly cannot see any use for HLG. Maybe all the manufactures got wrong !!!

I am sorry you still do not understand. First, I did not say there is "not any use for *shooting in* HLG." I specifically gave the use - for instant display of HDR on an HLG-enabled TV. What it is NOT good for is archiving or displaying on REC709 TV's or HDR10 TV's. Second, your posts are filled with inconsistent logic - the only way you cannot avoid grading in post when you shoot HLG is when the video is displayed on an HLG-enabled TV. Otherwise you have to grade, and your video will be lower quality than if you shoot in Slog or Vlog. You also do not seem to understand that if you shoot in Slog you will have an HDR-capable record (archive), and one that can be higher quality HDR than if you shot HLG. And you have the choice of REC709 or HLG or HDR10 or whatever will be the HDR standards to come.

I hope even if you have trouble with this, others making choices of what to shoot in will understand the issues. Or, they can just watch the Alistair Chapman video, which says the same thing - HLG is not a shooting codec.

So......back to the topic....

Was this new camera announcement a lost leader? A total bust??? It is past 6:00PM in NY. I searched and can't find anything but the rumors leading up to today.

Steve

Sony should have given the Z150 SLOG at the same time they gave it HLG!!!

Now they are stuck with a much cheaper Z90 below it that offers SLOG that it's more expensive brother doesn't have! How stupid is that?

From the little HLG shooting I have done with the Z150, I have seen that you "can" normalize it to rec 709 800% contrast fairly easily. It's not hard at all. It's rec709 from the bottom all the way up to 60 or 70 than compresses from there on up. This is really not a hard thing to reverse, shift and lift.

For that one odd-ball Z150 camera that has HLG WITHOUT any true log option....HLG is the "only" high dynamic range capture you can record with. So Z150 people are stuck having to use that. At least you get smooth highlight rolloff, unlike the rec709-ish profiles it has.


Hi Cliff.

This is the "post of the month" as far as I am concerned. You have summed up my current dilemma as a fairly recent Z150 buyer perfectly. I was so displeased with the highlight rolloff in two scenes of a recent project that I've been contemplating this Z90 and also learning about shooting S-LOG and how to grade it. I'm always so "time-crunched" that my preference until now has been to shoot with a really good and versatile Picture Profile (preferably one of Doug's), expose it correctly and then do minimal color correction in post. But this highlight handling of the Z150 is just too unsatisfactory. Mind you, I'm very happy indeed with the general picture quality of the Z150. And that's why, if Sony were to offer the Z150 an S-LOG update for A$500 tomorrow, I think I'd have to snap it up. (It'd be a better option than spending A$4,300 for a Z90.)

And that's why I like your attitude. You're looking for ways, with the existing Z150 and its current options, to improve the highlight handling of this camera, rather than asserting that it can't be done.

And, by the way, I have the highest respect for Alister (I read Alister's blog post about HLG), who is a very helpful person. And Mark too.

But I cannot reconcile these two apparently contrary facts:

Mark: "HLG is not a shooting codec".
Sony engineers: "We've added HLG as a shooting codec."

At least, Cliff, you've been exploring WHY they added it.

And, by the way, I have the highest respect for Alister (I read Alister's blog post about HLG), who is a very helpful person. And Mark too.

But I cannot reconcile these two apparently contrary facts:

Mark: "HLG is not a shooting codec".
Sony engineers: "We've added HLG as a shooting codec."

At least, Cliff, you've been exploring WHY they added it.

Exactly my point. There is a place for everything and to try and make everything respond in the same way is a little pointless. Each has its place. Looking at the 800% gamma of the new Canon XF400 series one can see it is very close to HLG but maybe the colour space is rec709 ? Not a big deal. Both tackle the issue of highlight recording. With the ability to shoot HLG UHD 60P one can do a single camera shoot of an event much like one did with tape. Save and show. That is very different from creating a film with a certain look and lots of editing. Yes I agree that if it is a 2020 colour space it will need some correcting for SDR 709 but if the local sets on display for sale are anything to go by it will be difficult to find a SDR set by next year !!! So putting by an archive with REC2020 is not going to be a problem.

So......back to the topic....

Was this new camera announcement a lost leader? A total bust??? It is past 6:00PM in NY. I searched and can't find anything but the rumors leading up to today.

Steve

A new camera was announced... A studio camera.

NABHUB: Sony Expands HXC Series with New Entry-level Full HD camera system Supporting Up-scaled 4K and HD-HDR for Studio and Live Applications (http://nabhub.com/buzz/547/sony-expands-hxc-series-with-new-entry-level-full-hd-camera-system-supporting-up-scaled-4k-and-hd-hdr-for-studio-and-live-applications)

It's funny,...All these Sony 1 inch cameras over the last few years have all had what I think are harsh highlight handling. (Many other people on forums have complained of the same thing)

I think the reason why is that Sony must maintain a certain rec709 contrast level to keep looking "normal" for rec709 displays. I think Sony maps it's sensor readout levels to favor brighter shadows at the cost sacrificing the highlight level mapping. If rec709 is a 6-7 stop gamma curve than Sony is skewing that DR into the shadows to help them out instead.

Meanwhile, Panasonic's GH5 seems to do the opposite. Their rec709 sensor mapping seems to favor the highlights at the cost of crushing the shadows slightly. I dont think either is right or wrong. If you have an 11 stop sensor and you can only drop a 6-7 or even 8 stop gamma curve into it,....you got cut stops of DR off from somewhere, right?

Point being. With HLG, Sony has "fixed" the typical 1 inch sensor highlight readout mapping. It breaks away from Sony's "typical" rec709 style. I can say that the Z150's old "easily" blown highlights thing is now "fixed"....inadvertently by Sony with HLG.

So with HLG, you got a strong knee now about 60 or 70 IRE and typical 709 all under that. In post, how much you decide to bend (expand) that 70+ IRE back out again is your choice. No mater what you do with it,...the point is, at least you captured that signal in range without clipping.

This is important for a camera that only has HLG and no "FULL" log option. (As retarded as Sony was for not giving the Z150 Log like every other CHEAPER Sony camera under it with SLOG)

CT

Cliff,

I think you bring up great points, but I would not say the highlights are fixed on the Z150. It is a camera that has a hard time with highlights, and low DR.

You see highlight problems using HLG?

I hope even if you have trouble with this, others making choices of what to shoot in will understand the issues. Or, they can just watch the Alistair Chapman video, which says the same thing - HLG is not a shooting codec.

You keep giving this reference of Alister not recommending shooting with HLG, even on other forums ( where just as many people disagree with you ) without answering my early question of detailing exactly where in Alister's video he says that. He says it is harder to grade, something not really intended with HLG in the first place. If you want to grade use a LOG format and for this I do not disagree with you. It is your comments and lack of understanding of HLG that is the issue. I do understand your point of view you clearly you do not understand others points of view or feel you have backed yourself into a corner and can't get out. If there was no reason to shoot video with HLG then Sony and Panasonic would not have implemented it on their cameras but focused on delivery hardware. And in the case of Sony get Alister to demonstrate it. The reason you do not understand is that there are people who want to shoot and show with no grading or editing or very little. The transition is like the introduction of colour and the mess created with NTSC so that older Black and White TV's were not left out. The intent was create for the new TV sets not the old and I believe the same is true with HLG. Motivation to buy a new TV set because it looks so much better.

If it uses the same FS700 sensor again with 1:1 readout, there is no chance in Hell that I'll buy it. Im not buying any more "4k" cameras that are made up of a green channel that is 1/2 4k resolution and 1/4 resolution on the red & blue channels.

CT
I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. It's better to think of YUV resolutions that the chip is capable of, than RGB, because that's what gets output. In which case, do the maths and (relative to 4K) you'll get a luminance figure of about .7 and a figure of .5 for U&V - true both vertically and horizontally.

So for the luminance figure, it's not "half 4K" - more like "three-quarters to two-thirds 4K"

And for chrominance, then yes, it's half - but think what's then going to happen. Subsampling to 4:2:0. In other words, even if you start off with 4k full chrominance resolution, you're not going to keep it.

And for a given sensor size, and all else equal, smaller photosites will likely mean worse sensitivity and/or DR. It will also mean far more complicated processing, though with the way technology is moving, that seems far less a problem than in the not too distant past.

And seriously, is that extra resolution that a 6k will give worth it for the vast majority of users? Really? I don't deny it will be there, but unless you really look hard at the pixel level, will anyone really see it?

I remember first seeing a demo of the first High Definition trials, and getting my socks blown off. Partly through it being the first 16:9 TV I'd ever seen (CRT, of course, it was that long ago! :-) ), but partly because it was just so much better than PAL pictures of the day. And this only on a 32" display. I couldn't wait for HD to become a broadcast reality, and with TVs of 50" far from uncommon in average living rooms, the difference between then and now is huge.

But.... 4k? Yes, in a showroom it looks impressive, but I find that to see any real difference my face is only a foot or so from the 50" or whatever screen - who's going to watch any programme like that? Theory says that at a typical viewing distance (about 2.8 metres in the UK), there's no point in a system better than 1080p for screen sizes up to at least 60". Extrapolate, and in real life, even one with perfect vision won't be able to distinguish between a 8.3 Megapixel sensor and "true" 4K resolution until you go above 100" screen size. The human eye simply isn't capable of it. Even in a cinema most of the rows won't tell much if any difference between 1080p and 4K. It's probably only the very front row that could realistically tell any difference between a 4k and a 6k sensor.

Frankly, whilst SD to HD was a real revolution, then it's difficult to feel the same about HD to UHD. Better, yes, but I can't help feeling it's driven far more by manufacturers perceiving big numbers sell. And consumers now simply feeling they must have the latest and greatest - regardless of whether it's really worthwhile.

I can certainly appreciate your argument and I do agree with allot of it. However, look at this simple test between the A6300's 6k readout vs. the FS5's 1:1 readout. To me, the difference is truely striking. For me, it's not even close. No sharpening to either one. (allot of people confuse "sharpening" with actual "detail". You could have a very "sharp" image with relatively low amount of actual "detail". Sharpening is just micro contrast and pixel halos. The A6300 actually captures true "detail". I believe Sony agrees with me as they are pushing 1.5x , 1.7x and full 2x (6k) readout technology hard right now. They are now marketing it as a big "plus" in current Alpha models.Panasonic is also heavily pushing the advantages of oversampling with it's 5.7k EVA-1 too.

You are right about pixel pitch. It's certainly expected that the FS5's larger photosites and larger pixel wells would produce a higher signal to noise ratio over the A6300. But the A6300 proved us wrong in that category too. I can only guess that the A6300 deBayers in 6k and noise reduces in 6k "before" it scales down to 4k? This could explain they greatly improved 4k noise performance output over the FS5?

The A6300 is also a much newer manufacturing generation over the FS5's older FS700 sensor. Without checking, I'm thinking it's BSI stacked model?

Look at how much more detail the GH5 has over the GH4. To me that is also a big leap in resolving power and noise performance. The GH4 uses 1:1 sampling while the GH5 uses 5k oversample engine...[cough, cough, sensor purchased from Sony, cough....cough]

What do you think? This is my simple backyard test. Both captured in 4:2:2 ProRes 8 bit.Both cameras have the exact same lens and picture profile set to "off". The only thing that is a little different was the white balance on both.

SONY FS5 vs. A6300 - "IMAGE SENSOR" Test. - YouTube

What do you think? This is my simple backyard test. Both captured in 4:2:2 ProRes 8 bit.Both cameras have the exact same lens and picture profile set to "off". The only thing that is a little different was the white balance on both.

Left has a far better dynamic range. If you compress the blacks/shadows on the left similar to the right and increase local contrast (edge "enhancement") you get a similar sharpness but with a better color rendition than the right picture.

Indicative is the little bag, full of edge "enhancement" on the right!

These are both "no profile" camera settings. A good test, that I didnt do, would have been SLOG on both. But yeah, the right has lighter shadows in these two limited dynamic range rec709-ish type (non) profiles.

It's important to remember that we can talk "image processing" all day long but the bottom line fact is that one camera is sampling literally TWICE the number of pixels than the other.

Which low light do you like better?

CT

the bottom line fact is that one camera is sampling literally TWICE the number of pixels than the other.

Pixel count is not the same as resolution, take a look at this:

Resolution Demo (http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/)

It's funny,...All these Sony 1 inch cameras over the last few years have all had what I think are harsh highlight handling. (Many other people on forums have complained of the same thing)
CT

Cliff I don't really see this supposedly harsh highlight handling people accuse the Sony 1" sensors of.

Way back in 2014 I uploaded a test video when the X70 first came out with the settings we used and no problems at all with the highlights. Since then we have used these settings in the Z150 and again have had very respectable results for clients out of the these second generation sensors. The original test clip needs to be downloaded to view but I suggest if you do do that throw it on the timeline of an NLE and observe the levels and where they sit and how the highlights behave. Many have commented on the results of these settings and have ended up using them pretty successfully.

One video I know off using the settings I used in the test clip was a corporate production uploaded to Vimeo by a French producer. I don't really see any major issues within his production either regarding major highlight handling issues. All shot on the X70. Valéry Bellengier's clip can be seen here. Sure he is pushing the clipper in many of the difficult shots but then only at the cost of correct expose or the main subject matter.

Am I the only one not seeing highlight issues except on the absolute extremes of exposure in the non essential parts of the scenes where extreme dynamic range is evident? I don't think so. He has got a pretty respectable production out of the little X70. For what theses little cams can deliver for the $$$s is outstanding to what we could deliver just a few years back. Sure I can get better highlight handling out of the FS7 but not straight out the box in 709 mode. It took a fair bit of massaging color and highlight handling manipulation to get the max out of that camera. There are still times where it can struggle in 709 mode believe me.

STCN - Op&eacute;ration de maintenance en sucrerie on Vimeo

My original test clip can be downloaded from the link below along with all the settings used, This test clip was purposely shot at a boating marina on an extremely harsh high contrast sunnny day specifically to test our settings. I would be more than happy to hear comments regarding the highlight handling from anyone who has the time to download the clip. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the X70s and 150s I'm all ears :)) The settings are at the head of the clip.

https://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/t9yiwl

Happy shooting.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Cliff I don't really see this supposedly harsh highlight handling people accuse the Sony 1" sensors of.

I also don't see that on my ax100, it handles harsh highlights pretty well.

I don't see a problem with my AX100 either.

Pixel count is not the same as resolution, take a look at this:

Resolution Demo (http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/)

That's actually a really cool presentation this guy did. After seeing his tests, and going back to looking at my own 1:1 vs 6k readout resolution and sensor noise tests,...I dont think I see any difference between these two cameras anymore like I once did!.

By the way,...the left and right cameras were switched on the night scene. Which one do you think is the 6k readout and which one was the 1:1. Can you see any noise difference?

CT ;-)

SONY FS5 vs. A6300 - "IMAGE SENSOR" Test. - YouTube

So... no new camera announcement?

So......back to the topic....

Was this new camera announcement a lost leader? A total bust??? It is past 6:00PM in NY. I searched and can't find anything but the rumors leading up to today.

Steve

Yeah, I just want to know if it's time to sell the house and get it.

Sony has an official press event on Wednesday, 10AM, EST. (not a rumor but fact)

Sony A7S-III or A9S?

Whichever it is, it better have a minimum of 4k 30p output over HDMI. Internal recording would be asking allot of Sony....and 4k 60p?, I doubt Sony has the marketing guts to do it.

No need to sell the house. The camera they did announce has its place but its not for most of us on this board. I work with that series (and others) on my AV shows. We use studio configurations for live shows to record and project i-mag. An engineer runs CCUs to paint and switches so they all match. The lack of true 4k on an expensive camera like that does not surprise me. There is a whole world of work out there that is always years behind caring about catching up with the latest in resolutions and codecs. Yet it is still a very professional world were operators and engineers work with gear that costs as much as a house.

Maybe my work with that gear is why you never hear me complaining about what 5 grand or less cameras don't have. All of the amazing things we can get at an affordable price for my smaller productions blows my mind. Bang for the buck is incredible these days. I have to focus on ROI and not worry about what new features will be released a year after a new investment is made. It is about clients needs for me. I was cured of gear lust a long time ago. Of course, maybe I feel this way because I learned to shoot with $30,000.00 Beta cams on my shoulder. I did not own one, most of us operators didn't back then. The technology curve that makes the gear we can own today so incredible is also what makes it affordable.

Has anyone of you ever had a client say "are you shooting in 4k 30p or 60P?" If you have clients that care about that then I suspect your not shooting with an A7S, A9 or FS5....just sayin....

Kind Regards,

Steve

Yeah,..its funny. None of my paying corporate clients have ever even asked me for 4k. Let alone 4k, 10bit 60p! (I shoot, edit and master everything 4k anyway and store it that way)

I'm actually hoping for Sony 10bit 4k for my "vacation" videos. I have Yosemite and Glacier National Park on my bucket list for next spring and summer. I shot Yellowstone this year on my GH5 rig with 10bit ProRes in V-log and I was absolutely blown away by that footage.

So yeah, for me it's not about getting paid for 10bit 4k, it's about the joy of shooting epic shots and color grading them for personal use. I purchased a GH5 and 3 Leica lenses for that one single vacation and will use it again next year if Sony doesn't answer the GH5 challenge.

If Sony "does" answer the GH5, I'll gladly and very quickly switch to them. (I still have my A7S-II and several Sony lenses.)

CT