SONY FX3 new camera to be announced

[IronFilm]

double post

[IronFilm]

double double post

[IronFilm]

double double double post 

[IronFilm]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:00 PM, Llaasseerr said:

On the issue of timecode, it seems like people want it to stay synced if you unplug the generator. I mean it should and that would be great, but if you need to keep it connected I can live with that. Those units are small enough.

There is not a single camera on earth that I would want to trust to keep accurate timecode with a timecode box on it. (perhaps the ARRI cameras.... but I'd rather not, even ARRI cameras have been known to have timecode bugs, and I don't want to become the first person to discover "a new bug" simply because I wouldn't put a timecode box on one!) 

  

On 5/15/2023 at 5:56 PM, kye said:

Incidentally, this guys YT channel is very high quality, in terms of production design as well as quality of information.  He's a DP-first and tech second kind of guy, so things are all practical and level-headed.  My only criticism is that his uploads are few and sometimes far between, but maybe that's a fundamental problem of expertise - those that have it are elsewhere doing things in the real world instead of just being on YT.

Indeed, the more I work, the less I tend to upload to my YT channel. 

  

On 5/18/2023 at 1:29 PM, Llaasseerr said:

1. Timecode glitches. I'm kind of hoping that if you get the Deity unit and their cable (instead of the Sony cable) that it works properly.

I highly doubt it is just a cable issue 

 

[IronFilm]

On 5/15/2023 at 5:56 PM, kye said:

Here's an overview of the FX3 version 3.0 firmware and the "gotchas" that lurk behind the new features Sony claim...

Oh dear goodness gracious me! 

Showing a recorder (the Tascam DR60mk2) that blatantly obviously does not do timecode!!

[Llaasseerr]

25 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

There is not a single camera on earth that I would want to trust to keep accurate timecode with a timecode box on it. (perhaps the ARRI cameras.... but I'd rather not, even ARRI cameras have been known to have timecode bugs, and I don't want to become the first person to discover "a new bug" simply because I wouldn't put a timecode box on one!) 

I know you're a Sony guy (mainly the older cams) and a sound guy, so do you think the FX3 is just never going to work well enough for timecode?

I do not yet have a lot of experience with timecode on set - my realm has been mainly post. I had assumed that keeping the TC unit plugged in was the only way to guarantee a more low-end camera with true TC-in to stay in sync vs. syncing it at the start of the day and unplugging it, and then the camera drifting a few frames by EOD. 

Are you saying a camera needs a more expensive solution like genlock?

Overall, do you think the TC solution for an FX3 or even an FX6 (which has proper BNC TC in) is a waste of time? For either cameras I would want to use a Deity or TentacleSync unit, but I would have to use the proprietary cable for the FX3.

 

Quote

 

I highly doubt it is just a cable issue 

 

There were some people reporting issue with the Sony cable, which is why I mentioned it. But I don't know the specifics. I figured that the Deity solution with their device plus cable specifically for the FX3 would be pretty tight.

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

I know you're a Sony guy (mainly the older cams) and a sound guy, so do you think the FX3 is just never going to work well enough for timecode?

It is pretty simple, if you have the hardware for it, then do timecode always with the FX3. 

All the "issues" I seem to come across with TC and the FX3/FX30 when I read about it online seem to be from users messing it up themselves with user errors. 

Perhaps some cases reported it seems to be just a frame or two off, a very small difference, but also a consistent difference across the entire production. Honestly even some high end cameras have this issues pop up. Not a massively big deal as there are easy tools to just offset everything by the correct amount to then match for the whole project. 

6 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

I do not yet have a lot of experience with timecode on set - my realm has been mainly post. I had assumed that keeping the TC unit plugged in was the only way to guarantee a more low-end camera with true TC-in to stay in sync vs. syncing it at the start of the day and unplugging it, and then the camera drifting a few frames by EOD. 

Doesn't matter if it is a low end camera or a high end camera. 

One timecode box per camera. 

2 cameras? Two timecode boxes. 

5 cameras? Five timecode boxes. 

6 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

Are you saying a camera needs a more expensive solution like genlock?

Only need genlock for very niche usages such as: 3D filming, live switching, or very lowing recording lengths (such as entire Opera performances). But even in those niche cases, most people won't use genlock, and still be perfectly happy enough. 

6 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

Overall, do you think the TC solution for an FX3 or even an FX6 (which has proper BNC TC in) is a waste of time? For either cameras I would want to use a Deity or TentacleSync unit, but I would have to use the proprietary cable for the FX3.

Definitely not a waste of time. Do it!!

 

6 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

There were some people reporting issue with the Sony cable, which is why I mentioned it. But I don't know the specifics. 

I haven't kept up with the details of what's going on with that, but considering the target market using it, I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of: 1) they damaged the cable and/or 2) they're not using it right 

[Llaasseerr]

4 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Doesn't matter if it is a low end camera or a high end camera. 

One timecode box per camera. 

OK I don't get it because that's what I was saying I would plan to do, but you said that wouldn't work. You said "There is not a single camera on earth that I would want to trust to keep accurate timecode with a timecode box on it." Maybe you meant _without_?

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

OK I don't get it because that's what I was saying I would plan to do, but you said that wouldn't work. You said "There is not a single camera on earth that I would want to trust to keep accurate timecode with a timecode box on it." Maybe you meant _without_?

WHOOPS!! 

Yes indeed, that's obviously one very very big typo. 

[SRV1981]

the colors on this are excellent

[kye]

11 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

the colors on this are excellent

Looks like someone found the contrast knob!  If only they made a video about contrast instead of making the internets 100,000th video on the Helios and getting basically everything about it wrong.....

[MrSMW]

I have not seen a single piece of footage I like shot with the Helios yet.

Maybe it’s just my taste, but it just looks like a swirly mess to me.

Having said that, I’m shooting all weekend with a vintage lens for the first time so interested to see what that produces…

Yes, I have tested it, just not extensively and it’s a much less ‘interesting’ shall we say rendering. Fairly low on contrast, quite neutral in its colour but as with most older lenses, boy does it not like being shot into the sun.

Not sure if this is going to be an issue for me as a long term proposition and whether I might be better off swapping this approx 700g 1975 40-80 f3.5 for a modern cine zoom such as the DZO 35-80 or Laowa 28-70 with their modern coatings? But extra 1kg… I’m sure that extra 1kg is not all lens coating…

CVP did a side by side and I prefer the results from the Laowa, but the DZO has a better focal range for me.

But anyway, getting off topic. FX3, I think it’s a great bit of kit and would shoot one in a heartbeat.

[SRV1981]

7 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I have not seen a single piece of footage I like shot with the Helios yet.

Maybe it’s just my taste, but it just looks like a swirly mess to me.

Having said that, I’m shooting all weekend with a vintage lens for the first time so interested to see what that produces…

Yes, I have tested it, just not extensively and it’s a much less ‘interesting’ shall we say rendering. Fairly low on contrast, quite neutral in its colour but as with most older lenses, boy does it not like being shot into the sun.

Not sure if this is going to be an issue for me as a long term proposition and whether I might be better off swapping this approx 700g 1975 40-80 f3.5 for a modern cine zoom such as the DZO 35-80 or Laowa 28-70 with their modern coatings? But extra 1kg… I’m sure that extra 1kg is not all lens coating…

CVP did a side by side and I prefer the results from the Laowa, but the DZO has a better focal range for me.

But anyway, getting off topic. FX3, I think it’s a great bit of kit and would shoot one in a heartbeat.

He mentions there’s various versions and he happened to make the mistake of getting the lowest quality. Did you get a chance to see the video? The grading and color I found highly appealing and nice to look at. 

[kye]

18 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I have not seen a single piece of footage I like shot with the Helios yet.

Maybe it’s just my taste, but it just looks like a swirly mess to me.

Having said that, I’m shooting all weekend with a vintage lens for the first time so interested to see what that produces…

Yes, I have tested it, just not extensively and it’s a much less ‘interesting’ shall we say rendering. Fairly low on contrast, quite neutral in its colour but as with most older lenses, boy does it not like being shot into the sun.

Not sure if this is going to be an issue for me as a long term proposition and whether I might be better off swapping this approx 700g 1975 40-80 f3.5 for a modern cine zoom such as the DZO 35-80 or Laowa 28-70 with their modern coatings? But extra 1kg… I’m sure that extra 1kg is not all lens coating…

CVP did a side by side and I prefer the results from the Laowa, but the DZO has a better focal range for me.

But anyway, getting off topic. FX3, I think it’s a great bit of kit and would shoot one in a heartbeat.

It's likely that most footage you've seen from the Helios is when it is at its peak swirl settings, which is what it is famous for, but that requires the right combination of subject/focal distance and background distance/contrast.  Lots of people buy a Helios and are disappointed because it's no-where near the swirliness they see in all the pictures.

Here's a more general review of one of the models, focusing beyond the swirl and including a bunch of normal compositions.

Also, it's worth pointing out that while the Helios does swirl, so do lots of other lenses from this time, and they do so almost as much.  Once again, the internet glorifies the one that is "the most" of something and the ones that are a close second get no attention whatsoever (link with timestamp):

Also, and this is quite controversial I know(!), but it is possible to close the aperture of these lenses(!!), and this tends to increase contrast and sharpness and reduce flaring etc - all the things that happens when you do this to other lenses(!!!).

Here's a range of compositions comparing the lens wide open and then stopped down (linked to timestamp):

Plus, all the swirls happen further out from the centre of the frame, so if you use it on a crop sensor then you're effectively cropping out the worst part of those optical distortions.

Plus, lots of well known and highly prized cine lenses also swirl quite a bit, yet the films shot on them aren't a swirly mess.  Here's a controlled test of a bunch of them, just skip through it looking at the string of lights in the background:

and finally, if you crop to a wide aspect ratio, the "swirl" will only be seen on the very sides of the image, which means that the swirls are limited to being quite close to vertical - very similar to an anamorphic bokeh!

Here is the Master Anamorphic 50/1.9 - potentially the most optically correct anamorphic lens ever made, and yet the bokeh is oddly-shaped with cat-eye rendering and also differently shaped towards the edges vs the middle:

Compared with a swirly spherical lens like the Super Baltar 50/2.3:

The character of the bokeh changes on the swirly lens from anamorphic-like on the edges to normal in the middle, which some might find distracting, but you might also find to be less distracting because it limits the distractions to the edges of frame rather than being directly behind the subject.

The Zeiss CP.2 50/2.1 has very similar rendering to the Baltar above, and yet is known as a relatively neutral lens and is a workhorse of Hollywood:

What I find far more distracting in bokeh is the edges of the shape, rather than the geometry of the shape.  Take this example of perfectly round bokeh balls and see how distracting the ones on the right are..

and don't even get me started on "bubble bokeh"

 

[ntblowz]

So FX3 is really what they used for The Creator, no Arri was used.

https://ymcinema.com/2023/08/02/the-battle-for-the-credit-arri-alexa-65-vs-sony-fx3/?expand_article=1

[ntblowz]

I sense there is a new job title, boom + gaffer operator   (boomfer?)

[kye]

3 hours ago, ntblowz said:

I sense there is a new job title, boom + gaffer operator   (boomfer?)

There's a name for this already, which I've heard on occasion in videos.  IIRC it is "Hollywood" - ie, "we grabbed a few runners and just Hollywooded the lights because we had to shoot quickly as the sun set".

[IronFilm]

https://www.cined.com/camera-foundry-cineback-for-sony-fx3-and-fx30-launched/

We're making cameras smaller, just to make them bigger again. 

[PannySVHS]

Looks like a Cinealta F3 with that rare expensive amor cage. The other way around, F3 with internal 10bit and FX3 size, yes please.😊 SDI and ND included of course.

[Malick]

So does anyone know if they are gonna add Open Gate to FX3?