Відео

Sony FX6

difference is clearly there...also for an unexperienced eye;)

true! I currently shot a project with the 45mm often at T4. T2 is super soft but i like it on "sharper" sensors. It gives a morge organic softening to the image as a post softening process.

thx brother

yes pro res raw version is more saturated

Look at the videodescription. Lens A is Cooke - Lens B Sigma, you're welcome

@@janpheno5806 Why didn't you reveal the answers at the end of your video. Like most senseable people do. Verses have us truly and completely. Unnecessarily search for them!?

thx bro

thx a lot 🙏 I appreciate that

no, just texture pop, lens blur + power windows

🙏

800

❤

true you can watch labtest on cined.com - there you can see that the dynamic range in raw is slightly lower, but not really markable. There is no noise reduction in the shadows.

there is a very clear difference between both. But well if gerald undone said something else, it must be all wrong. This video convinced me now to shoot more raw. Just I do MMA sport events and need 100fps quite all the time. Thus.....well how ever its a big difference. Thanks for the nice comparison! My last question: Do you overexpose? Because this doen't look like and you could have illiminate some of the noise I asume.. Cheers!

@@reelweaver sure there is a clear difference! But everyone has to decide for themselves whether the large amount of data is worth this difference. i've heard that 12bit encoding only provides the chroma level. The luma level maybe is still 10 bit or less. This concludes, that you have a little bit less dynamic range as in 10 bit mode. I've not overexposed the image in this case

the converted CDNG is in P3 PD60 space / Gamma linear - so you just have to convert the CDNG in slog3 with a CST and for this video i only normalized it into rec709/gamma 2.4 via CST. No lut . But there are some videos coming where i use a Kodak 2383 for some filmic grading.

Just re-encode via Assimile to ProRess 4444, and the same 12 bits of color will be preserved and it will weigh less and the pipeline will be easier to set up in DaVinci via RCM

You're right. A normal observer won't notice any difference. And yes, today you can make a film on any modern camera because it's not about the equipment but about the storytelling, lighting etc. But RAW is incredibly important for filmmakers because you can manipulate the raw data in any direction in post. Camera manufacturers' internal codecs have specific processing and compression and are therefore less suitable. Oren Soffer, Creator's 2nd DP, said when they shot "The Creator" that they shot on the Sony FX3 in ProResraw because in the end all that matters is the raw data from the sensor readout, and therefore the ILM people had full access to it in terms of data manipulation. They only chose the FX3 because it was in the same color range as the Venice. As soon as the sensor outputs raw, you can now do incredible post production on any camera. For this "prosumer" cams like fx3 or fx6 this it's a nice option to shoot in raw if you got a bigger projekt. But to be honest. I don't like the pro res raw cause there is no resolve workflow. Hope in future sony will put his own raw codecs in new prosumer cams.

They wont put their raw codec in their consumer lineup. If we look at the busniess side of things youll notice that Atomos is deeply involved with their raw codec aquisition especially when it comes to prosumer market. Unless Sony decides to cut ties with atomos and starts working blackmagic (which is highly unlikely). So to get any type of (Sony Raw) the XOCN codec youll have to buy an extra Unit which is massive piece of plastic. Even Gerald Undone mentioned of how absurd this thing is. The only thing we can hope for is that one day RED looses its pattent so other Camera Manufacter can start implement raw codecs onto their cameras.

​@@mark12345697 they have now

There's a huge difference in fidelity for post work. There is a reason The Creator shot Prores Raw as opposed to XAVC.

This is such a good example of it not beeing overhyped. Its like sound. Just because you don't notice the difference since youre ears are untrained, doesn't mean theres so difference. You can also film it on an iphone. Many grandmas wont spot any diffrence neither. Just the treess....nice in RAW nice!

thx my man

sure maybe in some new videos

On this shot i've used no filters. Typicially i use polar, pro mist or diffusion filters.

@@janpheno5806what about your shutter angle ?

@@jtouch2859 180-degree rule / frame rate doubled

nice point bro you are right. i will show some more tests soon with film emulation and hdr grading on more motion footage. stay tuned!

could you explain what is the motion cadence or give some links, I am now comparing blackmagic raw to sony and sometimes i see some differenc ewhilst in other times there look the same.

i will do some tutorials if this channel grows. Thx for your support my man

thx bro 🙏❤

thx🥰

thx my man

Only in the lower frequencies. The microcontrast aka sharpness/detail is still very high. You can achieve the same soft contrast without affecting sharpness in post

Sony Fx6 + GM 24-70 2.8

Modern image processors are very good at taking the RAW data from the sensor and compressing it without making it look like absolute garbage. But when it comes to Prores raw the tonal range is much better than log. Highlights get compressed too much. Most of the detail is encoded into the shadows and midtones. Problem with XAVC is that it's heavily compressed aswell. I'd rather control the image processing than let the camera do it for me

@@shueibdahir sounds like you are familiar with debayering functions? Or just using raw data under manufactur colorspace and push it in resolve? I am looking for some math for look dev on a short movie soon.

@@janpheno5806 i use a camera with uncompressed 14bit raw video so i've become quite familiar with it. The things you can do with it is out of this world. I haven't worked as a look developer before so i dont fully grasp what the job entails. If you could brief me on it that would help

sure it's an experiment. I've shot on real anamorphics like Atlas Orion and this is just an example how you can stylize an image today. Alltough the lens blur effect in resolve is anamorphic but not real for sure. i do a lot of music videos and sometimes there is more space to try new things.

thx

Maybe i will show more deep dives the next weeks. I am just starting this channel. Shot on FX6 plus GM 24-70mm 2.8 with soft edge filter

A lot in terms of pushing without getting artefacts…i would prefer more color depth when i do high end product videos or greenscreen projects for keying. You are getting more space for post but i am not a pro-colorist so that’s only my opinion. But to be honest i‘ve heard that the pro res raw out of the ninja v is more like a 11-12 bit conversion then real 12 bit and no comparison to a 16bit linear out of a venice or burano

Please keep in mind this is not an accurate test - it's just a quick overall comparison