HAHA I love how this video casually shows people how to use fusion to pull killer key unlike 99% of UA-cam videos using the color page and 3dkeyer. Stealth teaching.
If possible I would absolutely love to see this exact kind of test with an FX6 recorded internally compared to an FX6 recording ProRes Raw externally. I'm curious if it yields the same benefits of codec improvements. Of course much of the color rendering issues would persist but would be easier to resolve in post (no pun intended)
Yeah, that would be a very interesting test, by removing the variable of a different cameras it would be a more direct comparison of the codecs capabilities. If we can get our hands on the necessary equipment we'll give it a go at some point.
Yeah, that's a good idea, but it might not be super relevant. Most 'raw' codecs are equally capable. Comparing Blackmagic Raw against Sony Raw will not really be a comparison of the codecs, but will just be a comparison of the camera's sensor and image pipeline. Imagine if you could shoot RedCode on a Burano... the result would pretty much be identical to recording in X-OCN. Moving from XAVC to X-OCN means the codec is getting out of the way of what the camera can actually capture. It's more quality than the sensor can produce (that's a good thing). It's the same deal with most other 'raw' codecs. By the way, raw doesn't need to be capitalised. There's so much marketing hype surrounding 'raw' codecs. At the end of the day, they are essentially just high-bit-depth, low compression codecs.
16 днів тому+1
Why is no one comparing Prores Raw from FX3/6/9 to the more expensive cinema cameras (in general), I have not seen a single attempt at this? (In this case vs with X-OCN)
Great information.... Do u guys wanna expand this topic in the future? maybe for BRAW codecs, maybe from BMPCC series 4K/6K, Pyxis, also Ursa Cine series??? especially theyre using different sensor method (Bayer vs Symetrical-RGB). Also maybe using green and blue screens?
Yeah, for sure, that would be an interesting topic to cover. We're still constantly educating ourselves too. Blue screen vs Green Screen would be a super interesting video too. Thanks for watching and commenting.
The Burano is supierior because it is a high resoloution scanner which can DOWNSAMPLE to whatever. Also the color science of the burano is much bettor...meaning this proves Sony cripples its color science. No one wants to talk about that! Which is why I prefer NIKON RED and canon over Sony. But not over the burano!!! Which means if you want good out of color from a Sony you better have 24K in your pocket.
Thanks so much for watching! Yeah the Burano has a good image, the clarity comes from the resolution, but the colour.... remember that the fx9 is 4 years old. The Burano is not the most versatile camera, Rob and Gerald have some great insights on that. The FX9 does produce a good image too, it's got a very similar dynamic range to the Burano. We love the image that comes out of red cameras too. It should also be noted that the FX9 downsamples from a 6k image, and if you're willing to attach an external recorder you can record raw 16-bit images. We don't love every decision Sony have made with their cameras, but a lot of people are making beautiful images with them. It's great to have you here. Thanks for watching.
The Burano is the epitome of what Sony get's wrong with cameras. Crap viewfinder and ergs, and ridiculous frame rate vs. resolution vs. crop mode limitations to have to remember. Along with all the other typical Sony menu issues of "If you're in x mode you can't do x" or "if you've enabled x thing you're limited to x". And no open gate on a $25k camera. It's the camera of compromise, with the upside being... resolution. And extremely marginal use-case upside of X-OCN, of which only a very small fraction of people will benefit from. I suppose if you're pulling keys that require scrutiny at 200-400% on a consistent basis X-OCN will be of great benefit. For nearly everything else, if you're getting exposure even remotely correct, 99%+ of people are not going to see a benefit. Good lighting, proper exposure, and shooting something decently interesting are going to supersede marginal increases in image resolution/decreases in compression essentially every time. I realize the point of this video is to explore the marginal increases, but I think the very obvious conclusion is, if you don't have a specific use case for 8k or X-OCN, the Burano is a total pass of a camera. Interesting to see Sony get so much right with a camera like the FX6, and then blunder back into old issues on a new camera like the Burano. The fact that Sony can't put good enough processing overhead in a $25k camera to be able to essentially "just make everything work right" (other than obviously frame rate vs. resolution which is often a limitation of the chip read speed) in 2024 is just incredible disappointing. The above not to take away from the good information and quality of your video. It's well done, I enjoyed watching. I just find the Burano to be a complete dud for the price, which is disappointing.
Hello Ian, thanks so much for watching and commenting. Yeah, the Burano definitely has some challenges and doesn't meet the expectations people had, that's why we linked to Gerald and Robchado's videos. They cover those points really well. We appreciate that you understood the point of this video, to talk about the advantages (resolution and codec) it can offer. Its price and feature set limits the camera's audience. I think there is a market for the Burano, it's just small. Glad to have you here, thanks for watching and commenting. You expressed some really good points in your comment.
Thanks for the great videos. It definitely seems like the burano is incredibly narrow in its niche. Personally I'd have interest in purchasing one second hand, but the rolling shutter and cropping between framerates is an absolute deal breaker for me, as I shoot action sports.
Yes agreed, it's not as versatile as some other cameras. In this video we wanted to highlight the strength that no one else was talking about. What it does do, it does well. Hope that came across properly.
8k is such a waste of space, and I am saying it from a nikon z9 owner. To think that the most used digital cinema camera during the last decade was the 2.8 k arri alexa classic.
Thanks so much for watching. Yes, the discussion of whether or not that amount of resolution is needed and the comparison with the arri Alexa classic's resolution comes up from time to time. Saying that 8k or 6k is a waste of space is like saying there's no need for a car to go 100 miles per hour. There are lot's of people who have no need for such high speed, but a race car driver, a police officer or other professionals do need that power. There are lot's of workflows where that additional resolution is super relevant. For example when shooting VFX, when reframing in post or when producing content for super large high resolution displays. There are people that legitimately need that resolution for their work... If they don't need that resolution, then lower resolution cameras are just fine! Thanks so much for watching. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
That's a great question. Because grain is a desirable aesthetic for many filmmakers, and at the end of the day movies are creative. Explosions take more data to compress too... but if the story calls for something to go boom we put it in. Technology serves the creativity, it's not the other way around. Emerging codecs like AV1 use clever techniques like grain synthesis to improve the efficiency of codecs. Thanks for commenting.
Yeah, that would be a cool video for sure. We'll probably end up doing a video on the C400, but as mentioned in this video, we think the Burano is most appealing to Sony users, so I'm not sure we'll be able to make time to do the same sort of cross comparison we did with the FX9. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
it's just a bunch of perfect informations and details. Everything's accurate and as a professionnal, I'm liking looking at it. Keep going, best regards !
Heya, thanks so much for watching. It will compare really well. RedCode also has different quality settings... so if you compare X-OCN LT to the appropriate flavour of RedCode I've no doubt the image quality would be similar. The biggest differences will come from the sensors and differing colour sciences. The V-Raptor has better dynamic range than the Burano, so you'll see a definite difference there. Comparing the V-Raptor against the Venice would be a better match. And hey, spread the word. Raw doesn't need to be capitalised. It's not an acronym or abbreviation. It's just a word :)
Great video, team! Leon, I had a question about FX9's codec. Isn't H264 an...inefficient codec to be doing video editing with? Isn't it NOT a mezzanine codec? Am I missing something here? Does that mean when editing FX9 footage, we need to encode it to an editing-friendly codec first?
Hello, that's a good question. We've been told that for a long time. 15 years ago (give or take), yes h264 was an inefficient codec to edit with. But now, all modern computers have dedicated chipsets for decoding h264. That removes the load from the cpu or gpu. All-I compression further reduces latency and makes it easier to access random frames as you scrub back and forth. H264 compression is pretty much a broadcast standard, lot's of people use direct workflow (without transcoding) without problems. As h265 grows in popularity, all computers will have chipsets for decoding h265 too. It's not a bad thing that XAVC or XF-AVC use h264 compression. It gives great image quality and small files. It's just good to understand the particular ways that it affects image quality.
@@team2films yeah, I am using a 12600K with RTX 4070 and I have no issues directly using h264 files. Appreciate your response. Maybe you could do a video on this topic in the future with some testing if that can even be done? Thanks.
Overall I think this is a great video and that people can learn great stuff from watching it. But I do have some nitpicks. 1. Even if you are working in an UHD timeline there will be a difference here. While the FX9 has a 6K sensor, the compression happens at 4K. 4K macro blocking will be more visible than 8K macro blocking, even when using the same codec. This is because the size of the macro blocks are a larger percentage of the whole image surface in 4K than it is in 8K. I think a more fair comparison in terms of codecs would be Sony A1 in its 8K mode. But then you are of course comparing XAVC HS instead of XAVS. Another solution would perhaps be to set the Burano to record in 4K, if it can do that in X-ONC LT? All that said, I think there is no doubt that the Burano is the better camera and that the codec makes a difference. Just that the difference would be smaller if both were oversampled from 8K on the timeline. 2. Regarding color: I might remember this wrong, but I thought S-Log3 Cine had less color than sLog3 non-Cine. Isn’t the Cine-version reducing the color space to better match/look like film? Wouldn’t a more fair color comparison be with the regular sLog3?
Thanks so much for watching and commenting. Those are some interesting observations. Here's some clarifications for you. Would love to hear what you think. 1. There's no macro blocking on the 8.6k Burano X-OCN footage because it does not use DCT compression, so that's a moot point. Comparing the Burano's XAVC to the Burano's X-OCN compression would enable a more direct comparison of codec's (as everything else including camera and resolution would have stayed the same). However, the purpose of this video was to understand what benefits the Burano brings over Sony's existing and cheaper cameras. Regarding the UHD timeline... the point is that even when the 8.6k is downsampled to UHD it still reveals more detail that the highly compressed UHD image from the FX9. As the FX9 is also using a downsampled image (from 6K as you pointed out), it should have a more detailed image than it does. The loss in detail is due to XAVC's lossy compression. At the very least, the test shows that the Burano's best exceeds the FX9's best, and quite noticeably. 2. Slog3 is a transfer function for encoding brightness values. There's no such thing as 'SLog3 Cine'. I assume you are referring to is SGammut3 and SGammut3.Cine. As you mentioned SGammut3.Cine is smaller and designed to be easier to grade. In either case, it's unlikely that the recording gamut is limiting what either camera is capable of capturing as the recording gamut most likley exceeds the gamut of the scene. The important thing is that both cameras were configured identically, making it a fair comparison. Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
@@team2films First thank you for a detailed response. 1. I guess my main point is that it feels that the benefits of oversampling on the timeline is downplayed a bit. First of all if the recorded footage was 4:2:2 8K, the downsampled version would in practice have the color resolution of 4:4:4 in a 4K timeline. Secondly visible macro-blocking would in theory would be 1/4 of the size if downsampled from 8K to 4K. Downsampling in camera gets neither of those benefits (depending on the codec). I get that the main purpose was to compare cameras, but I think some people also just come for the codec comparison, and I feel such comparison becomes a bit misleading when not comparing footage captured at the same resolution. That is to say, I would have appreciated it if you had included a comparison between Burano XAVC (H) and Burano X-OCN. 2. Yes, I meant sGamut3.Cine. Thanks for clarifying. I suppose you are right that the scene probably didn't exceed the gamut. But I would liked some clarification on the color gamut of X-OCN. Since it is 16 bit linear I assume it is not sLog3, but does it still use sGamut3? Or is gamut something you choose in the RAW decoder-side? Since X-OCN LT is "RAW" is the gamut only limited by the sensor? Is there any camera sensor that would be limited by sGamut3?
1. Yes, that's a good point. We're always looking for ways to improve our videos. 2. Yes, X-OCN does not use Slog3. Transfer Function: Linear Gamut: SGammut3.Cine or SGammut3 (whichever you choose). This is why we use quote marks when saying 'raw'. 'Raw' codecs don't really exist these days. It's a marketing term used to refer to a high-bit-depth low-compression codec. We appreciate you taking the time to help us make our videos better :)
Really great comparisons all around. I could be wrong, but the example at 20:30 seems to be a result of in-camera debayer versus a full quality debayer in post. I see the same behavior on my F55 when I record XAVC versus raw. It’s actually one of the main reasons why I prefer to shoot raw on my F55 because I find the really saturated color fringing on high contrast edges to be quite unsightly.
Haha, not quite the right platform to appreciate the differences between the two cameras! But thanks for watching anyway! Hope you get to see it on a better connection and bigger screen.
I love the first three tests. I don’t know how you could compare different brands with this method but if you could, it would be fascinating and helpful
Thank-you so much. It's great to have you here. We love combining the creative and technical. I think the best filmmakers have a strong grasp of both. Keep up the hard work.
I'm really hoping you two do some equivalent videos comparing the URSA Cine 12k to some of the previous URSA's. Most notably the URSA Mini G2 and the URSA Mini 12k OLPF.
This is the best way to do review and camera tests❤️❤️❤️❤️I would watch this video even if it were to be more than 3 hours long ❤️❤️❤️. Just a request please, with the new Resolve 19 Realease, does it support Apple Pro Res Codecs ?
Thanks so much! Resolve has supported 'Apple Pro Res' for a VERY long time. But I suspect you are asking if it supports 'Apple Pro Res Raw'. No support has not yet been added.
Great comparison of the codecs. You broke it down nicely. I'm about to go into a green screen project in Fusion. Might have to give the probe method a try and see how it differs from my usual clean plate technique. So awesome you snuck that in on the fly.
Thanks so much. The probe method was only helpful as we were applying the green screen effect to different footage. In normal usage it's not that necessary and will add overhead to your processing. Fun to get to share techniques like that though! Thanks for watching.
Heya Jake. Thanks for watching. Firstly, what do you mean when you say 'UHD content shot at 1080p'? None of the cameras were shooting at 1080. Secondly, it's important to remember that the FX9 is oversampled. It's a 6k sensor downsampled to 4k. So comparing it against the Burano's 8.6k downsampled to 4k is fairer than you might think. Yes, the Burano's superior resolution does give it an advantage, but the bigger issue here is the codec used by the FX9. The FX9 is a great camera, and a XAVC is a great codec... but the point of the demonstration was to show how much better X-OCN is (obviously at the cost of file size though). Hope that helps. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
It’s 10:05pm in the UK and it’s the perfect time to have a cup of hot milk and which a Teams 2 Films video. I’m a newbie to Da Vinci Resolve and ever since I found you guys, you automatically became my go to channel for everything Da Vinci Resolve. BTW that intro was SICK
Always teaching without being professorial. I appreciate your (you and Natalie) style of providing detailed information while offing your insights. The Sony FX9 and Burano exploration, from the standpoint of transfer function, color space and Codec design is very useful understanding. I always enjoy your Davinci Resolve tour, please know it is very supportive to understanding the workflow of our image creation process. PLEASE make my day, create a video on Omniscope application. Bravo and well done.
Thanks so much Rick. We'll plan a scopes video later in the year (hopefully). We're glad that our content is proving useful. We do our best to present facts in context and give balanced insights. It's our first video of this type... so we're very glad to hear what people think so we can work any advice or suggestions into future videos. Thanks once again.
It’s a great video ! I would LOVE if you got a chance to do the same kind of tests with the new Canon C400 (and, let’s be naughty : compare it with the Burano and your since I also like the brand your Kinefinity)
Yeah, that would be a good comparison. There’s a bunch of other dedicated camera videos we need to work on first… but maybe sometime in the future we’ll be able to do some cross brand comparisons. Thanks so much for watching.
It is Intra. That might not make as much difference as you think though. In some cases long-gop can actually yield better quality as it has the benefit of compressing details between multiple frames. Intra is not always about better quality, it’s also about better playback performance.
The idea that you aren't getting a detail benefit shooting at over 8k and downscaling it to a UHD timeline is ridiculous. Of course that's where most of the detail benefit is coming from. If you compare a static image from the A1 in 8k there would be much less difference in things like fine detail. Does shooting in X OCN give you more detail than the H.264 or H.265 based compression methods when shooting at the same resolution? Yes. But here the difference in the detail that you're seeing is coming almost entirely from the FX9 doing it's downscaling in camera from a lower resolution sensor being compared to 8.6k X OCN that's getting a higher quality downscaling being done in post.
Heya, yeah for sure there’s benefits from the extra resolution. Like you said, this isn’t 8k vs 4K. This is 8k downsampled to 4K vs 6k downsampled to 4K. A computer-based downscale will be better than a camera-based downscale. In the video we attempted to draw attention to the detail loss due to codec artefacts, rather than the differing resolution. Hair was disappearing not on account of resolution but because of chroma subsampling and macro blocking. Either way there is some relevance to comparing the cameras… as the comparison is essentially the best that each camera can provide compared. The A1 vs Burano would be an interesting video. I’ve no doubt there would be incremental gains that for many people would not justify the substantial price increase. Thanks so much for watching and for contributing to the conversation. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Thanks so much. We didn't experience it, but we also didn't test specifically for it. We were outside plenty with the camera though so should have encountered it if it was a serious issue.
I've used the Burano on a few projects now and haven't run into any IR issues either. That's not to say it doesn't exist, because there are videos of it, but IMO it's not this huge issue people have made it out to be. And if I were to run into a scenario where it does show up, a simple IR cut filter solves the problem.
I absolutely love watching your videos! Everything is explained so clearly and thoughtfully, with just the right touch of personality, amazing motion graphics, and plenty of visual cues that make every topic easy to grasp. On top of that, I always learn something new, whether it's shortcuts, different keying techniques, or even more than I expected about the video's subject. I always come away feeling like I’ve gained new knowledge. Keep doing what you're doing, and don’t mind me sticking around for the journey! :)
Does downsampling in post not take into account the original detail? Surely a UHD crop on sensor or in post would be the fair comparison if you want to negate the resolution differences…
Yes, the Burano does benefit from the extra detail. But the important thing to remember is that the FX9 also downsamples. It has a 6k sensor, and downsamples to 4K in camera. So it’s a fairer comparison than you might at first think. Yes the burano’s superior resolution does give it an advantage. But the biggest factor affecting the quality is the codecs being used by the cameras. That’s what this test was meant to highlight. Yes like you said a fairer comparison would be to shoot in the Burano’s 6k mode downsampled to UHD in camera, but then we’d have to shoot in XAVC and we wouldn’t be able to compare the codecs. There’s no perfect way of comparing the cameras because they offer slightly different features. Does that make sense? Please hit us back if you have more questions or observations.
Guys, fantastic video! Really appreciate the effort you put in to dive into the nuances that few had touched on. 2 points: 1. Yes please for that omniscope video. A yes for the Aries review as well. 2. Having reviewed the Komodo (16 bit raw) and the Mavo (12 bit prores 444), where would you rank these three, image quality wise?
Thanks so much! Appreciate your kind comment and your excellent questions. The Komodo has the better image. However, that has very little to do with its codec. 16-bit RedCode does not contain dramatically more information than 12-bit ProRes 444. It's just a better sensor. On the other hand, the Mavo is a more versatile camera. It's cheaper. Has a better selection of accessories (EVF, screens, mounts, etc), and can record a more flexible array of sensor crops. For example, it can downsample the entire sensor to UHD or HD. If you want UHD or HD out of the Komodo it's got to use sensor windowing. Those differences are why our Mavo video is entitled 'Making a Good Business Decision'. For some people, the highest possible quality is the right business choice. For others, the versatility, flexibility and economy of the mavo is a better choice for driving a profitable business. The discussion of the mavo vs Komodo in the mayo video is still relevant.
@@team2films Thank you for taking the time to write that detailed answer. And yes, haven't bought quite a few mirrowless cams myself, economy and easy-of-use definitely need to be factored in ---- often more so than image quality alone.
Once again, what a great video! Though one note - comparing two cameras on a chromaticity diagram only shows one thing - whether they are different. You can't really say whether one sees more "color" (color isn't really the correct term as that's perceptual and we're talking about the sensor's response to stimuli). Why? Each camera manufacturer has one or more color spaces they use for their cameras, which have a set of primaries. These primaries are all set in the CIE XYZ color space. Now through testing, the manufacturer finds and applies a 3x3 matrix to the debayered values to help make certain memory colors (common colors we subconciously expect to look a certain way) look correct. Unfortunately this doesn't guarantee that all colors are "correct", especially those further away from the memory colors. So... why can't we match two or more cameras perfectly? One of the major factors is the SPD (Spectral Power Distribution) of the sensor ie how the sensor reacts to different wavelengths of light. Everyone's eyes have an SPD, which is different from that of camera sensors and as such cameras fundementally see "color" differently from us (not to say that every human has an identical SPD) and as such what manufacturers are trying to do with the 3x3 matrix is to get a "close enough" match. Even this is a simplification, but I hope it helps shed some light onto why it can be so difficult to match two cameras.
Thanks Kaur! What an awesome knowledge drop and we appreciate you sharing it with everyone here too. We need to get you in another video soon :) It looks like I have more learning to do. See you next week?
It's in the same family, but the A7 cameras are likley to have lower bitrates. There's also different flavours of XAVC. Some use long-hop compression, others use intra compression. Some also use more chroma sub sampling (like 420) or they use lower bit-depths (like 8-bit). Read Sony's white papers or your cameras manual to learn more about the specific codecs it uses.
I have no desire to buy into the Sony ecosystem, but this was very well done and very informative. Enjoyed the pacing, the information provided, the testing methodology which could be used for other cameras in the future (hint hint) and the Resolve use to clearly show the differences. While those people working at the pointy end of the market (Venice, V-Raptor, Alexa) likely have the skills and means to do this kind of testing themselves, this kind of testing is EXTREMELY useful to those working at more moderate levels (Burano, Komodo/Komodo-X, Kinefinity, Ursa/Pyxis, etc.). Also greatly appreciate you using models with differing tonalities. That is something many people miss and it's important. Thank you very much for doing this.
Thanks so much Perrone. Like you pointed out, the general methodology translates well to other cameras too. Too often equipment or software is categorised as good or bad but without context. The Burano is the right camera for someone. It's not a mass market product like the FX6, but understanding the Burano in context is a stepping stone to understanding other cameras in their proper context. Glad the choice of models worked out well too. Don't want people to get sick of seeing our faces constantly in camera tests too 🤣 We've got videos on the V-Raptor X, PYXIS, Cine 12k and more in the pipeline! It's great to have you here, thanks for leaving such a nice comment.
@@team2films while this is PURELY selfish on my part, it would be amazing to see you toss in some workhorses of yesteryear into this mix. Something like a RED Dragoon/Helium, Alexa Classic/Mini, etc. Cameras that we've seen master very high end films but are now several years old. Those types of cameras are out on the used market at prices competitive to things like an FX9 or Burano but were built to live in the space the Alexa35 and Venice now occupy. It would be fascinating to see if those older cameras still hold up against these more modern offerings. I particularly noted how the menu system of the Burano frustrated you and you noted how some settings weren't available. I couldn't help but wonder how the 8K Helium would stack up in comparison with it's excellent menu system, color science, better codec, etc. And that camera can now be had for the price of an FX6!
We did address that point in the video.... our comparisons were made on a 4k timeline, thus helping to level the playing field. Remember the FX9 has a 6k sensor that is downsampled to 4k internally. While the Burano's increased resolution definitely improves detail, the bigger gains in image quality comes from the better codec. The FX9's 422 has half the colour resolution of the Burano's 444.
Low hours FX9s are up on eBay UK for less than the cost of a new FX6, does this imply an impending replacement for the FX9? Either way, I'm happy with my FX9, it's a study workhorse, though the menu on the FX6 is a bit better.
I've used the Burano on a few projects now, and coming from the FX9, it's been a noticeable upgrade on all fronts. If you have the budget to rent one for a project, I'd recommend giving it a try.
We have no idea what is coming! But for sure, the FX9 is a great camera. There's two things you can take from this video... 1. That the Burano is better... and 2. How capable the FX9 still is and how close it is to the Burano. Be happy with your FX9, it's a great camera and it delivers more bang for buck than the Burano does.
Really awesome video. How about an X-OCN battle for next your video? Burano VS F55. X-OCN on the F55 was a forgotten but incredible upgrade to that Super35 GLOBAL SHUTTER camera. Definitely worth an extensive analysis
Oooo, that's a tasty idea. I'm not sure when we'll get time to look at that though. There's already a long list of cameras waiting for us to cover this year. It's great that there are so many awesome cameras out there, including the FX9 and F55 that you can still make incredible images with. The Burano's good, but the best camera is always the one you have.
How do you export your videos for UA-cam? The sharpness and grain of your talking head look amazing! Also, tip for Fusion : instead of copy/pasting node trees between clips you can right-click the thumbnail of a shot and select “Apply Composition”! You can apply the composition to as many clips as you want.
Thanks so much for watching. Yes, I understand where you are coming from but saying mp4 vs raw would be inaccurate and misleading. You might find this information helpful. mp4 is not a codec, it's a container. An mp4 file can contain many different codecs. So it's important to be specific about what codec you are referring to. For example it could contain mpeg-2 or h265, which are very different. Further more the FX9 does not use the mp4 container, it actually uses MXF. Similarly with raw, it's an overarching term that can mean many different things. Recode is different from arriraw, which is different from X-OCN, and so forth. Also, raw is not an acronym or abbreviation, so there is no need to capitalise it. Hope that information dump was helpful! Thanks once again for watching.
@@team2films By saying Mp4 I meant H.264/5 only these all cams are same old wines in new bottle instead of developing better RAW codecs Sony & some other consumer oriented manufacturers are fooling those customers who are unaware of codecs and tech , I am a RED & Blackmagic user I never felt to go back to these toys again after playing with R3D or BRAW files of DR
@@arunr4103 Yes, R3D and BRAW are fantastic codecs. I think it's important to recognise the legitimate place that h264 and h265 based codecs have in video production though. The file size of 'raw' codecs increases the cost across the board, both in production and post-production. There's a lot of scenarios where the extra quality doesn't have any meaningful impact. An FX9 isn't a toy... it's just built for a different kind of work.
Great video...personally if they come out with an FX30 Mark II...with an increase from 14 to 16 stops of dynamic range, better lowlight on a 12MP sensor, and 4k (do not need 6 or 8k) I would be happy. I am working on a documentary and people are amazed at the quality and I am only using an FX30...😁
Yeah, for sure... The Burano costs many times more than an FX30 and but it's not many times better. In some instances, the FX30 will be the better camera than the Burano. We don't expect the Burano to be the perfect camera for everyone. It's got a niche audience. We're blown away by what Canon has done with the C400 and C80. Very exciting stuff.
@@team2films yeah I mean even on the Canon C70 which is a Super 35 sensor Canon got a legit 16.5 stops...if Sony could release a Mark II FX 30 with 16 stops I would be very happy 😁 I love to window shop but I am staying with Sony for now...truth is...I spent 150 hours this summer filming and I still have not mastered daylight exposure...so better off mastering my tools than jumping ship for a stop of dynamic range...my night shots are next level though...I have a 32 inch 10 bit Benq...and my night shots of dowtown Montreal with the Protests are impressive....I have figured out how to expose for nighttime shots but the daytime shots need work...
@@seancloutier2577 Yeah, they are awesome cameras. Although dynamic range wise it's similar to Sony's cameras. CineD have good benchmarks for Dynamic range that make it easier to compare cameras.
What is this talking head shot on? A lot of noise in the highlights on your cheek? Doesn't look like a set up that you couldn't get really clean image from?
It's not noise, it's grain and it's been added in post. It's partly a style choice, but it also helps to hide youtube's heavy compression. Hope it looks ok!
Yes, that's a very good point. Here's something that people forget though... The Venice 1 requires an external unit for raw recording and the media is VERY expensive because it's still used on the Venice 2. So it's not the killer bargain people think it is.
@@team2films I just looked at the used stuff, there are listings from 15-30k for packages, around 20k USD there were some with the RAW module and cards, reader, etc. The ones with Rialto is closer to 30k. I don't know how killer or not, but can be a good option to consider. Or even RED, they had a HUGE price drop, ALEXA LF's are sometimes also under 30k but they are big and heavy. :D Minis are also in the 20k range but S35 and not natively 4k if it's a deal breaker, Mini LF is still 45-50k-ish. And there is the Canon C400. It would be so good to compare everything with everything else, but i know how much work this stuff needs so thanks for doing it! ;)
@@Sgyozo Yeah, the second hand market has some REALLY interesting options. And like you said there are some other new cameras out there that are really tempting too. That's why in our conclusion we think this camera is for existing Sony users who want to stay in the ecosystem but want better quality than the FX9 can provide. The Burano seems expensive when you compare it to the FX9 and cheaper cameras, but it's price is more reasonable when you compare it to a Venice 2... Or a Venice 1 second hand system (currently). Hopefully we will make more camera comparisons like this in the future. This was a great test for a future format.
Hahah! Thanks so much for watching. The Burano isn't for everyone, and the purpose of this video is not to convince people to buy one :) There's been a lot of discussion about the Burano and we wanted to add some context to the conversations. There's lot's of great cameras out there :)
@@team2films The camera recorded the material vertically, the timeline is Vertical 1080x1920, so in the working space it looks OK. The problem occurs when going to the Ultrastudio Monitor 3G output (or any Ultrastudio system). It can't interpret the vertical video properly and it crops it on the reference monitor. Basically it's impossible to grade a vertical video on a vertical time line with the monitor set vertically. There is workaround presented by Creative Video Tips but it's still very frustrating.
Thanks for the video! It is great and quite educational in some aspects! But when you tried to show different effects of different codecs, you should have used single camera, and just show the difference between burano xavc vs burano x-ocn. Your comparison feels slightly apples to oranges when it comes to codecs.
Yes, that's a good point about showing different codecs out of the same camera. Duly noted for the future. At the very least you can consider the video as showing the difference between the highest quality the FX9 and Burano respectively are capable of. That's a relevant question for people considered whether or not to justify the additional expense of the Burano over the FX9. Thanks so much for watching. It's great to have you here.
This just shows how Sony are crippling their cameras by limiting codec options, in theory raw formats should be the easiest for these cameras to record yet they don't use them. Another thing I've found with their consumer cameras is the Long-gop formats in general give better quality than All-I simply because the bitrate is way too low.
I understand why you would think raw is easy to implement in cameras on account of the fact that it requires 'less processing'... but I think it would be the wrong conclusion to take from this that Sony are crippling the codec choices in their cameras. It's worth considering things like.... 1. Red have had a stranglehold on in-camera raw thanks to their patents. It's either taken a license fee, or the development of new technology to overcome that. 2. Raw can be computationally intensive and difficult to implement. It's not a free ride. Remember most 'raw' codecs still have a lot of processing happening. A good camera needs to be able to play back the files it has recorded in camera too. Raw playback takes a lot of oomph! 3. Implementing other codecs in camera requires specific hardware that would increase cost. How many cameras can you name that have usable internal raw recording? That is an interesting thought about long gop vs intra. But I would imagine there are definite areas that long gop excels and definite areas where all intra excels too. XAVC is designed with a specific purpose in mind... the low-bit rate is an advantage when you're shooting factual and unscripted, yet it still offers quite a lot of quality! Hope those thoughts make sense! Thanks for watching and commenting. Looking forward to continuing the discussion.
Every time I watch your camera reviews with curiosity, because you present the smallest details of cameras and their capabilities amazingly. Of course, Burano wins in all parameters , except for the size of the recorded files. I discovered new knowledge in codecs and their capabilities, what amazed me is the new and perfect X-OCN codec (even if not full-fledged like Venice), but it already decides a lot in the quality of the picture. Also, the concept of microblocking and its role in detailing were perfectly demonstrated. And no less brilliantly demonstrated how to get a clean cleanplate in Fusion Thank you for your efforts
Awesome video, as always! T2F has become my reference channel. ❤
Thank you so much!
HAHA I love how this video casually shows people how to use fusion to pull killer key unlike 99% of UA-cam videos using the color page and 3dkeyer. Stealth teaching.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed the video and the sneaky Fusion tutorial so much.
Lol, Pommies say Sonny the rest of the world Sony, haha 😂🤔😝🤭❤
The best camera in this video is the ARRI 35-III in the background over the presenters shoulder
Hahaha, well recognised. Yes for sure it's a beaut! Runs so nice :) Need to shoot with it more. Hopefully later in the year.
Now this is a test. Gerald undone take notes LOL
Hehehe, thanks so much! @GeraldUndone is awesome, he does a lot of tests that we're not setup to do. Love his content.
You guys consistently make some of the best and most accurate educational content. So underrated!
Thank-you! Some of these topics are hard to discuss, so hopefully we can bring some balanced context. It's great to have you here.
If possible I would absolutely love to see this exact kind of test with an FX6 recorded internally compared to an FX6 recording ProRes Raw externally. I'm curious if it yields the same benefits of codec improvements. Of course much of the color rendering issues would persist but would be easier to resolve in post (no pun intended)
Yeah, that would be a very interesting test, by removing the variable of a different cameras it would be a more direct comparison of the codecs capabilities.
If we can get our hands on the necessary equipment we'll give it a go at some point.
Fantastic video! One of the best explanations of XOCN we have seen so far. Great work as always Leon & Natalie
Thanks so much. We appreciated your help putting this video together.
Just a note, rolling shutter becomes a big issue when shooting virtual production
Very good point. Duly noted. We had access to a virtual production space so we should have shot some tests of that too. Next time....
Excellent Video. Can You do same comparison RAW Burano vs camera form a different company that has RAW like Black Magic Or Lumix?
Yeah, that's a good idea, but it might not be super relevant. Most 'raw' codecs are equally capable. Comparing Blackmagic Raw against Sony Raw will not really be a comparison of the codecs, but will just be a comparison of the camera's sensor and image pipeline.
Imagine if you could shoot RedCode on a Burano... the result would pretty much be identical to recording in X-OCN. Moving from XAVC to X-OCN means the codec is getting out of the way of what the camera can actually capture. It's more quality than the sensor can produce (that's a good thing). It's the same deal with most other 'raw' codecs.
By the way, raw doesn't need to be capitalised. There's so much marketing hype surrounding 'raw' codecs. At the end of the day, they are essentially just high-bit-depth, low compression codecs.
Why is no one comparing Prores Raw from FX3/6/9 to the more expensive cinema cameras (in general), I have not seen a single attempt at this? (In this case vs with X-OCN)
Finally someone made professional comparison! Thank you very much.
BTW as I know FX6 has 9ms RS just like the FX3 and not 12ms
Ahhh, thank you for the correction. Sorry for the duff details! Appreciate you watching and leaving a kind comment.
Great information....
Do u guys wanna expand this topic in the future? maybe for BRAW codecs, maybe from BMPCC series 4K/6K, Pyxis, also Ursa Cine series??? especially theyre using different sensor method (Bayer vs Symetrical-RGB). Also maybe using green and blue screens?
Yeah, for sure, that would be an interesting topic to cover. We're still constantly educating ourselves too. Blue screen vs Green Screen would be a super interesting video too. Thanks for watching and commenting.
The Burano is supierior because it is a high resoloution scanner which can DOWNSAMPLE to whatever. Also the color science of the burano is much bettor...meaning this proves Sony cripples its color science. No one wants to talk about that! Which is why I prefer NIKON RED and canon over Sony. But not over the burano!!! Which means if you want good out of color from a Sony you better have 24K in your pocket.
Thanks so much for watching! Yeah the Burano has a good image, the clarity comes from the resolution, but the colour.... remember that the fx9 is 4 years old. The Burano is not the most versatile camera, Rob and Gerald have some great insights on that.
The FX9 does produce a good image too, it's got a very similar dynamic range to the Burano. We love the image that comes out of red cameras too. It should also be noted that the FX9 downsamples from a 6k image, and if you're willing to attach an external recorder you can record raw 16-bit images.
We don't love every decision Sony have made with their cameras, but a lot of people are making beautiful images with them.
It's great to have you here. Thanks for watching.
The Burano is the epitome of what Sony get's wrong with cameras. Crap viewfinder and ergs, and ridiculous frame rate vs. resolution vs. crop mode limitations to have to remember. Along with all the other typical Sony menu issues of "If you're in x mode you can't do x" or "if you've enabled x thing you're limited to x". And no open gate on a $25k camera. It's the camera of compromise, with the upside being... resolution. And extremely marginal use-case upside of X-OCN, of which only a very small fraction of people will benefit from. I suppose if you're pulling keys that require scrutiny at 200-400% on a consistent basis X-OCN will be of great benefit. For nearly everything else, if you're getting exposure even remotely correct, 99%+ of people are not going to see a benefit. Good lighting, proper exposure, and shooting something decently interesting are going to supersede marginal increases in image resolution/decreases in compression essentially every time. I realize the point of this video is to explore the marginal increases, but I think the very obvious conclusion is, if you don't have a specific use case for 8k or X-OCN, the Burano is a total pass of a camera. Interesting to see Sony get so much right with a camera like the FX6, and then blunder back into old issues on a new camera like the Burano. The fact that Sony can't put good enough processing overhead in a $25k camera to be able to essentially "just make everything work right" (other than obviously frame rate vs. resolution which is often a limitation of the chip read speed) in 2024 is just incredible disappointing.
The above not to take away from the good information and quality of your video. It's well done, I enjoyed watching. I just find the Burano to be a complete dud for the price, which is disappointing.
Hello Ian, thanks so much for watching and commenting. Yeah, the Burano definitely has some challenges and doesn't meet the expectations people had, that's why we linked to Gerald and Robchado's videos. They cover those points really well. We appreciate that you understood the point of this video, to talk about the advantages (resolution and codec) it can offer. Its price and feature set limits the camera's audience. I think there is a market for the Burano, it's just small.
Glad to have you here, thanks for watching and commenting. You expressed some really good points in your comment.
Thanks for the great videos. It definitely seems like the burano is incredibly narrow in its niche. Personally I'd have interest in purchasing one second hand, but the rolling shutter and cropping between framerates is an absolute deal breaker for me, as I shoot action sports.
Yes agreed, it's not as versatile as some other cameras. In this video we wanted to highlight the strength that no one else was talking about. What it does do, it does well. Hope that came across properly.
8k is such a waste of space, and I am saying it from a nikon z9 owner. To think that the most used digital cinema camera during the last decade was the 2.8 k arri alexa classic.
Thanks so much for watching. Yes, the discussion of whether or not that amount of resolution is needed and the comparison with the arri Alexa classic's resolution comes up from time to time.
Saying that 8k or 6k is a waste of space is like saying there's no need for a car to go 100 miles per hour. There are lot's of people who have no need for such high speed, but a race car driver, a police officer or other professionals do need that power.
There are lot's of workflows where that additional resolution is super relevant. For example when shooting VFX, when reframing in post or when producing content for super large high resolution displays. There are people that legitimately need that resolution for their work... If they don't need that resolution, then lower resolution cameras are just fine!
Thanks so much for watching. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
10:38 the colors are vastly different and much better on the burano wow
Nice. We’re glad the comparisons are helpful.
If noise takes away from the total bandwidth and image quality why do people intentionally add grain ?
That's a great question. Because grain is a desirable aesthetic for many filmmakers, and at the end of the day movies are creative. Explosions take more data to compress too... but if the story calls for something to go boom we put it in.
Technology serves the creativity, it's not the other way around. Emerging codecs like AV1 use clever techniques like grain synthesis to improve the efficiency of codecs. Thanks for commenting.
Please do a Sony Burano vs Canon C400 in the same way you did this video. I know there's a price difference but feature wise they are very similar.
Yeah, that would be a cool video for sure. We'll probably end up doing a video on the C400, but as mentioned in this video, we think the Burano is most appealing to Sony users, so I'm not sure we'll be able to make time to do the same sort of cross comparison we did with the FX9.
Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
it's just a bunch of perfect informations and details. Everything's accurate and as a professionnal, I'm liking looking at it.
Keep going, best regards !
Loved the video! I wonder how XOCN compares to REDs RAW
Heya, thanks so much for watching.
It will compare really well. RedCode also has different quality settings... so if you compare X-OCN LT to the appropriate flavour of RedCode I've no doubt the image quality would be similar. The biggest differences will come from the sensors and differing colour sciences. The V-Raptor has better dynamic range than the Burano, so you'll see a definite difference there. Comparing the V-Raptor against the Venice would be a better match.
And hey, spread the word. Raw doesn't need to be capitalised. It's not an acronym or abbreviation. It's just a word :)
As always TOP NOTCH Information! Love you guys
Thanks Marco 🥰 So glad you enjoyed the video and we appreciate your kind comments.
Great video, team! Leon, I had a question about FX9's codec. Isn't H264 an...inefficient codec to be doing video editing with? Isn't it NOT a mezzanine codec? Am I missing something here? Does that mean when editing FX9 footage, we need to encode it to an editing-friendly codec first?
Hello, that's a good question. We've been told that for a long time.
15 years ago (give or take), yes h264 was an inefficient codec to edit with. But now, all modern computers have dedicated chipsets for decoding h264. That removes the load from the cpu or gpu. All-I compression further reduces latency and makes it easier to access random frames as you scrub back and forth. H264 compression is pretty much a broadcast standard, lot's of people use direct workflow (without transcoding) without problems. As h265 grows in popularity, all computers will have chipsets for decoding h265 too.
It's not a bad thing that XAVC or XF-AVC use h264 compression. It gives great image quality and small files. It's just good to understand the particular ways that it affects image quality.
@@team2films yeah, I am using a 12600K with RTX 4070 and I have no issues directly using h264 files. Appreciate your response. Maybe you could do a video on this topic in the future with some testing if that can even be done? Thanks.
NOBE Omniscope advanced tutarial, please.
It's on the list! Thanks so much.
Overall I think this is a great video and that people can learn great stuff from watching it. But I do have some nitpicks.
1. Even if you are working in an UHD timeline there will be a difference here. While the FX9 has a 6K sensor, the compression happens at 4K.
4K macro blocking will be more visible than 8K macro blocking, even when using the same codec. This is because the size of the macro blocks are a larger percentage of the whole image surface in 4K than it is in 8K.
I think a more fair comparison in terms of codecs would be Sony A1 in its 8K mode. But then you are of course comparing XAVC HS instead of XAVS. Another solution would perhaps be to set the Burano to record in 4K, if it can do that in X-ONC LT?
All that said, I think there is no doubt that the Burano is the better camera and that the codec makes a difference. Just that the difference would be smaller if both were oversampled from 8K on the timeline.
2. Regarding color: I might remember this wrong, but I thought S-Log3 Cine had less color than sLog3 non-Cine. Isn’t the Cine-version reducing the color space to better match/look like film? Wouldn’t a more fair color comparison be with the regular sLog3?
Thanks so much for watching and commenting. Those are some interesting observations. Here's some clarifications for you. Would love to hear what you think.
1. There's no macro blocking on the 8.6k Burano X-OCN footage because it does not use DCT compression, so that's a moot point. Comparing the Burano's XAVC to the Burano's X-OCN compression would enable a more direct comparison of codec's (as everything else including camera and resolution would have stayed the same). However, the purpose of this video was to understand what benefits the Burano brings over Sony's existing and cheaper cameras. Regarding the UHD timeline... the point is that even when the 8.6k is downsampled to UHD it still reveals more detail that the highly compressed UHD image from the FX9. As the FX9 is also using a downsampled image (from 6K as you pointed out), it should have a more detailed image than it does. The loss in detail is due to XAVC's lossy compression. At the very least, the test shows that the Burano's best exceeds the FX9's best, and quite noticeably.
2. Slog3 is a transfer function for encoding brightness values. There's no such thing as 'SLog3 Cine'. I assume you are referring to is SGammut3 and SGammut3.Cine. As you mentioned SGammut3.Cine is smaller and designed to be easier to grade. In either case, it's unlikely that the recording gamut is limiting what either camera is capable of capturing as the recording gamut most likley exceeds the gamut of the scene. The important thing is that both cameras were configured identically, making it a fair comparison.
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
@@team2films First thank you for a detailed response.
1. I guess my main point is that it feels that the benefits of oversampling on the timeline is downplayed a bit. First of all if the recorded footage was 4:2:2 8K, the downsampled version would in practice have the color resolution of 4:4:4 in a 4K timeline.
Secondly visible macro-blocking would in theory would be 1/4 of the size if downsampled from 8K to 4K.
Downsampling in camera gets neither of those benefits (depending on the codec).
I get that the main purpose was to compare cameras, but I think some people also just come for the codec comparison, and I feel such comparison becomes a bit misleading when not comparing footage captured at the same resolution.
That is to say, I would have appreciated it if you had included a comparison between Burano XAVC (H) and Burano X-OCN.
2. Yes, I meant sGamut3.Cine. Thanks for clarifying.
I suppose you are right that the scene probably didn't exceed the gamut. But I would liked some clarification on the color gamut of X-OCN. Since it is 16 bit linear I assume it is not sLog3, but does it still use sGamut3? Or is gamut something you choose in the RAW decoder-side? Since X-OCN LT is "RAW" is the gamut only limited by the sensor? Is there any camera sensor that would be limited by sGamut3?
1. Yes, that's a good point. We're always looking for ways to improve our videos.
2. Yes, X-OCN does not use Slog3.
Transfer Function: Linear
Gamut: SGammut3.Cine or SGammut3 (whichever you choose).
This is why we use quote marks when saying 'raw'. 'Raw' codecs don't really exist these days. It's a marketing term used to refer to a high-bit-depth low-compression codec.
We appreciate you taking the time to help us make our videos better :)
Really great comparisons all around. I could be wrong, but the example at 20:30 seems to be a result of in-camera debayer versus a full quality debayer in post. I see the same behavior on my F55 when I record XAVC versus raw. It’s actually one of the main reasons why I prefer to shoot raw on my F55 because I find the really saturated color fringing on high contrast edges to be quite unsightly.
Exceptional review, great clarity with no opinionated macro-blocking based on lazy confirmation bias.
You all should do a video on proper export settings for youtube! Especially in regards to rec 709-A vs normal rec 709 on mac.
WATCHING THIS ON PHONE SCREEN 480P RESOLUTION, 200 KBIT SEC STREAM....
Haha, not quite the right platform to appreciate the differences between the two cameras! But thanks for watching anyway! Hope you get to see it on a better connection and bigger screen.
I love the first three tests. I don’t know how you could compare different brands with this method but if you could, it would be fascinating and helpful
Your Videos are great to watch as a film student who has always been shy towards the technical side to filmmaking and post production. Thanks a lot ❤️
I first discovered Leon from his work on Film Editing Pro (another awesome YT channel with tons of free real world editing tips) 🙌
Thank-you so much. It's great to have you here. We love combining the creative and technical. I think the best filmmakers have a strong grasp of both. Keep up the hard work.
Thanks so much Mark. Chris and the rest of his team do awesome work. We love getting to work along with them.
first
Congrats! Thanks for watching.
I'm really hoping you two do some equivalent videos comparing the URSA Cine 12k to some of the previous URSA's. Most notably the URSA Mini G2 and the URSA Mini 12k OLPF.
Looking forward to getting our hands on the Cine12k later in the year.
great comparison , btw the omniscope video is a good idea
This is the best way to do review and camera tests❤️❤️❤️❤️I would watch this video even if it were to be more than 3 hours long ❤️❤️❤️.
Just a request please, with the new Resolve 19 Realease, does it support Apple Pro Res Codecs ?
Thanks so much! Resolve has supported 'Apple Pro Res' for a VERY long time. But I suspect you are asking if it supports 'Apple Pro Res Raw'. No support has not yet been added.
Great comparison of the codecs. You broke it down nicely. I'm about to go into a green screen project in Fusion. Might have to give the probe method a try and see how it differs from my usual clean plate technique. So awesome you snuck that in on the fly.
Thanks so much. The probe method was only helpful as we were applying the green screen effect to different footage. In normal usage it's not that necessary and will add overhead to your processing. Fun to get to share techniques like that though! Thanks for watching.
Even though you’re on a UHD timeline, 8K downsampled will be worlds sharper and more detailed than UHD content shot at 1080p.
Heya Jake. Thanks for watching.
Firstly, what do you mean when you say 'UHD content shot at 1080p'? None of the cameras were shooting at 1080.
Secondly, it's important to remember that the FX9 is oversampled. It's a 6k sensor downsampled to 4k. So comparing it against the Burano's 8.6k downsampled to 4k is fairer than you might think. Yes, the Burano's superior resolution does give it an advantage, but the bigger issue here is the codec used by the FX9.
The FX9 is a great camera, and a XAVC is a great codec... but the point of the demonstration was to show how much better X-OCN is (obviously at the cost of file size though).
Hope that helps. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
It’s 10:05pm in the UK and it’s the perfect time to have a cup of hot milk and which a Teams 2 Films video. I’m a newbie to Da Vinci Resolve and ever since I found you guys, you automatically became my go to channel for everything Da Vinci Resolve. BTW that intro was SICK
We're honoured that you'd spend your evening watching us! Thanks so much, it's great to have you here. We take our milk cold though :)
lol, you talk about the FX9 at the end like comparing smartphones to mirrorless xD Also Headphones are just as good as the DAC and Audiofiles
Thanks so much for watching. Appreciate you leaving a comment too.
Thank you guys so much for the effort and especially for providing the files. This is truly amazing. You guys are great🙏🏻❤️
Thanks for your kind message. We're so glad the sample files are helpful.
Very great video! Thank you for the Tests and simple explanations!
You are very welcome
Always teaching without being professorial. I appreciate your (you and Natalie) style of providing detailed information while offing your insights. The Sony FX9 and Burano exploration, from the standpoint of transfer function, color space and Codec design is very useful understanding. I always enjoy your Davinci Resolve tour, please know it is very supportive to understanding the workflow of our image creation process. PLEASE make my day, create a video on Omniscope application. Bravo and well done.
Thanks so much Rick. We'll plan a scopes video later in the year (hopefully). We're glad that our content is proving useful. We do our best to present facts in context and give balanced insights.
It's our first video of this type... so we're very glad to hear what people think so we can work any advice or suggestions into future videos. Thanks once again.
It’s a great video !
I would LOVE if you got a chance to do the same kind of tests with the new Canon C400 (and, let’s be naughty : compare it with the Burano and your since I also like the brand your Kinefinity)
Yeah, that would be a good comparison. There’s a bunch of other dedicated camera videos we need to work on first… but maybe sometime in the future we’ll be able to do some cross brand comparisons. Thanks so much for watching.
Is the FX9 footage Intra or LGOP, makes a huge difference in compresion levels/bitrate
It is Intra. That might not make as much difference as you think though.
In some cases long-gop can actually yield better quality as it has the benefit of compressing details between multiple frames. Intra is not always about better quality, it’s also about better playback performance.
Wow this explanation is just amazing!!! Subscribed
Thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed it.
Yes I loved this sort of camera analysis
More coming soon!
Quality as always 👍
Thanks so much :)
Fuck bro you got some expensive gear tested here 😅 Just give me FX30 and I would be happy as fuck 😂😂
Hahah, the equipment has all gone back now. And.. the FX30 is a great camera :)
The idea that you aren't getting a detail benefit shooting at over 8k and downscaling it to a UHD timeline is ridiculous. Of course that's where most of the detail benefit is coming from. If you compare a static image from the A1 in 8k there would be much less difference in things like fine detail.
Does shooting in X OCN give you more detail than the H.264 or H.265 based compression methods when shooting at the same resolution? Yes. But here the difference in the detail that you're seeing is coming almost entirely from the FX9 doing it's downscaling in camera from a lower resolution sensor being compared to 8.6k X OCN that's getting a higher quality downscaling being done in post.
Heya, yeah for sure there’s benefits from the extra resolution.
Like you said, this isn’t 8k vs 4K. This is 8k downsampled to 4K vs 6k downsampled to 4K. A computer-based downscale will be better than a camera-based downscale.
In the video we attempted to draw attention to the detail loss due to codec artefacts, rather than the differing resolution. Hair was disappearing not on account of resolution but because of chroma subsampling and macro blocking.
Either way there is some relevance to comparing the cameras… as the comparison is essentially the best that each camera can provide compared.
The A1 vs Burano would be an interesting video. I’ve no doubt there would be incremental gains that for many people would not justify the substantial price increase.
Thanks so much for watching and for contributing to the conversation. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Very good video once again guys!
Did you experience the IR pollution issue when using the internal ND at higher stops?
Thanks so much.
We didn't experience it, but we also didn't test specifically for it. We were outside plenty with the camera though so should have encountered it if it was a serious issue.
I've used the Burano on a few projects now and haven't run into any IR issues either. That's not to say it doesn't exist, because there are videos of it, but IMO it's not this huge issue people have made it out to be. And if I were to run into a scenario where it does show up, a simple IR cut filter solves the problem.
Clearly no-one speaks about thoses topics ! Thx for covering the subject so professionnaly
You are welcome. Thanks for watching.
I absolutely love watching your videos!
Everything is explained so clearly and thoughtfully, with just the right touch of personality, amazing motion graphics, and plenty of visual cues that make every topic easy to grasp.
On top of that, I always learn something new, whether it's shortcuts, different keying techniques, or even more than I expected about the video's subject. I always come away feeling like I’ve gained new knowledge.
Keep doing what you're doing, and don’t mind me sticking around for the journey! :)
Thanks so much, we appreciate your kind comments. Glad to have you here.
Does downsampling in post not take into account the original detail? Surely a UHD crop on sensor or in post would be the fair comparison if you want to negate the resolution differences…
Yes, the Burano does benefit from the extra detail.
But the important thing to remember is that the FX9 also downsamples. It has a 6k sensor, and downsamples to 4K in camera. So it’s a fairer comparison than you might at first think.
Yes the burano’s superior resolution does give it an advantage. But the biggest factor affecting the quality is the codecs being used by the cameras. That’s what this test was meant to highlight.
Yes like you said a fairer comparison would be to shoot in the Burano’s 6k mode downsampled to UHD in camera, but then we’d have to shoot in XAVC and we wouldn’t be able to compare the codecs. There’s no perfect way of comparing the cameras because they offer slightly different features.
Does that make sense? Please hit us back if you have more questions or observations.
Guys, fantastic video! Really appreciate the effort you put in to dive into the nuances that few had touched on. 2 points:
1. Yes please for that omniscope video. A yes for the Aries review as well.
2. Having reviewed the Komodo (16 bit raw) and the Mavo (12 bit prores 444), where would you rank these three, image quality wise?
Thanks so much! Appreciate your kind comment and your excellent questions.
The Komodo has the better image. However, that has very little to do with its codec. 16-bit RedCode does not contain dramatically more information than 12-bit ProRes 444. It's just a better sensor.
On the other hand, the Mavo is a more versatile camera. It's cheaper. Has a better selection of accessories (EVF, screens, mounts, etc), and can record a more flexible array of sensor crops. For example, it can downsample the entire sensor to UHD or HD. If you want UHD or HD out of the Komodo it's got to use sensor windowing.
Those differences are why our Mavo video is entitled 'Making a Good Business Decision'. For some people, the highest possible quality is the right business choice. For others, the versatility, flexibility and economy of the mavo is a better choice for driving a profitable business. The discussion of the mavo vs Komodo in the mayo video is still relevant.
@@team2films Thank you for taking the time to write that detailed answer. And yes, haven't bought quite a few mirrowless cams myself, economy and easy-of-use definitely need to be factored in ---- often more so than image quality alone.
Your videos are always informative and clear. Thanks for sharing these techniques!
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it.
Great content, quality and audio. You have a slight delay of around 300ms.
Great value 🎉
Ah no! Sorry, thanks for pointing that out. We will check that out.
Once again, what a great video!
Though one note - comparing two cameras on a chromaticity diagram only shows one thing - whether they are different.
You can't really say whether one sees more "color" (color isn't really the correct term as that's perceptual and we're talking about the sensor's response to stimuli).
Why?
Each camera manufacturer has one or more color spaces they use for their cameras, which have a set of primaries. These primaries are all set in the CIE XYZ color space. Now through testing, the manufacturer finds and applies a 3x3 matrix to the debayered values to help make certain memory colors (common colors we subconciously expect to look a certain way) look correct. Unfortunately this doesn't guarantee that all colors are "correct", especially those further away from the memory colors.
So... why can't we match two or more cameras perfectly?
One of the major factors is the SPD (Spectral Power Distribution) of the sensor ie how the sensor reacts to different wavelengths of light. Everyone's eyes have an SPD, which is different from that of camera sensors and as such cameras fundementally see "color" differently from us (not to say that every human has an identical SPD) and as such what manufacturers are trying to do with the 3x3 matrix is to get a "close enough" match.
Even this is a simplification, but I hope it helps shed some light onto why it can be so difficult to match two cameras.
Thanks Kaur! What an awesome knowledge drop and we appreciate you sharing it with everyone here too. We need to get you in another video soon :) It looks like I have more learning to do. See you next week?
@@team2films I'd be delighted to collaborate on a video! See you next week :)
Simply : The BEST CHANNEL on UA-cam for Video Material... CONGRATS
Thanks so much, that means a lot. Great to have you here.
You guys continue to produce some of the best most thoughtful and detailed content on video. Love the green screen fusion workflow here!
Thanks so much, appreciate you watching.
Fascinating comparison!
I appreciate these these deep dives because I learn so much!
You are welcome. Thanks for commenting.
Just curious, what shutter angle you used to capture the rolling shutter handheld scene? Great work as always.
I think it's captured at 90 degrees. Thanks for watching.
Very interesting, thank you! is the FX9 XAVC codec the same in the A7 series ?
It's in the same family, but the A7 cameras are likley to have lower bitrates. There's also different flavours of XAVC. Some use long-hop compression, others use intra compression. Some also use more chroma sub sampling (like 420) or they use lower bit-depths (like 8-bit). Read Sony's white papers or your cameras manual to learn more about the specific codecs it uses.
Amazing video, guys! 👌
Thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed it.
Yes, please a video about Nobi Omniscope 😊
It's on the list for the future.
I have no desire to buy into the Sony ecosystem, but this was very well done and very informative. Enjoyed the pacing, the information provided, the testing methodology which could be used for other cameras in the future (hint hint) and the Resolve use to clearly show the differences.
While those people working at the pointy end of the market (Venice, V-Raptor, Alexa) likely have the skills and means to do this kind of testing themselves, this kind of testing is EXTREMELY useful to those working at more moderate levels (Burano, Komodo/Komodo-X, Kinefinity, Ursa/Pyxis, etc.). Also greatly appreciate you using models with differing tonalities. That is something many people miss and it's important.
Thank you very much for doing this.
Thanks so much Perrone. Like you pointed out, the general methodology translates well to other cameras too. Too often equipment or software is categorised as good or bad but without context. The Burano is the right camera for someone. It's not a mass market product like the FX6, but understanding the Burano in context is a stepping stone to understanding other cameras in their proper context.
Glad the choice of models worked out well too. Don't want people to get sick of seeing our faces constantly in camera tests too 🤣
We've got videos on the V-Raptor X, PYXIS, Cine 12k and more in the pipeline! It's great to have you here, thanks for leaving such a nice comment.
@@team2films while this is PURELY selfish on my part, it would be amazing to see you toss in some workhorses of yesteryear into this mix. Something like a RED Dragoon/Helium, Alexa Classic/Mini, etc. Cameras that we've seen master very high end films but are now several years old. Those types of cameras are out on the used market at prices competitive to things like an FX9 or Burano but were built to live in the space the Alexa35 and Venice now occupy. It would be fascinating to see if those older cameras still hold up against these more modern offerings.
I particularly noted how the menu system of the Burano frustrated you and you noted how some settings weren't available. I couldn't help but wonder how the 8K Helium would stack up in comparison with it's excellent menu system, color science, better codec, etc. And that camera can now be had for the price of an FX6!
X OCN had always confused me, now I get it! Thank you
Thanks Jamie, glad the video was so helpful.
Would love a comparison with the Pyxis and BRaw, great video as usual.
For sure! As soon as we get our hands on one :)
Me with my $200 gopro...
This is absolutely fantastic. Amazing video.
Thanks Dustin!
Also i wish you threw in a fx3 in the mix. Next video please test fx3 and use gmasster glass please
Thanks so much for watching, that's a great idea, but unfortunately we don't currently have access to that equipment.
I love that you also showed how you are doing the green screen. Will try it out! Thank you for a another quality video.
Hahah, yeah, come for the camera review, stay for the fusion demo! Thanks so much.
Really Really Really good video, thanks. I'd love to see more of this
Thanks Pablo, much appreciated.
i think its also a matter of resolution regarding the details in the hair and the noise.
We did address that point in the video.... our comparisons were made on a 4k timeline, thus helping to level the playing field.
Remember the FX9 has a 6k sensor that is downsampled to 4k internally. While the Burano's increased resolution definitely improves detail, the bigger gains in image quality comes from the better codec. The FX9's 422 has half the colour resolution of the Burano's 444.
Low hours FX9s are up on eBay UK for less than the cost of a new FX6, does this imply an impending replacement for the FX9? Either way, I'm happy with my FX9, it's a study workhorse, though the menu on the FX6 is a bit better.
I've used the Burano on a few projects now, and coming from the FX9, it's been a noticeable upgrade on all fronts. If you have the budget to rent one for a project, I'd recommend giving it a try.
We have no idea what is coming! But for sure, the FX9 is a great camera. There's two things you can take from this video... 1. That the Burano is better... and 2. How capable the FX9 still is and how close it is to the Burano.
Be happy with your FX9, it's a great camera and it delivers more bang for buck than the Burano does.
No one is talking because no one has that damn cameras
All thanks to ProAV for hooking us up with the equipment.
Really awesome video. How about an X-OCN battle for next your video? Burano VS F55. X-OCN on the F55 was a forgotten but incredible upgrade to that Super35 GLOBAL SHUTTER camera. Definitely worth an extensive analysis
Oooo, that's a tasty idea. I'm not sure when we'll get time to look at that though. There's already a long list of cameras waiting for us to cover this year.
It's great that there are so many awesome cameras out there, including the FX9 and F55 that you can still make incredible images with. The Burano's good, but the best camera is always the one you have.
Excellent breakdown! Thank you!
Thanks so much.
How do you export your videos for UA-cam? The sharpness and grain of your talking head look amazing!
Also, tip for Fusion : instead of copy/pasting node trees between clips you can right-click the thumbnail of a shot and select “Apply Composition”! You can apply the composition to as many clips as you want.
Super cool video this would take me 2 years to make
Thanks so much. We're a tiny bit quicker than that. 🤣
It's crazy how bad the FX9 looks compared to Burano.
Yeah... it's true. There's definitely a time and place for XAVC though.
@@team2films at that price point?
Simply say Mp4 vs RAW
Thanks so much for watching. Yes, I understand where you are coming from but saying mp4 vs raw would be inaccurate and misleading. You might find this information helpful. mp4 is not a codec, it's a container. An mp4 file can contain many different codecs. So it's important to be specific about what codec you are referring to. For example it could contain mpeg-2 or h265, which are very different. Further more the FX9 does not use the mp4 container, it actually uses MXF.
Similarly with raw, it's an overarching term that can mean many different things. Recode is different from arriraw, which is different from X-OCN, and so forth. Also, raw is not an acronym or abbreviation, so there is no need to capitalise it.
Hope that information dump was helpful! Thanks once again for watching.
@@team2films By saying Mp4 I meant H.264/5 only these all cams are same old wines in new bottle instead of developing better RAW codecs Sony & some other consumer oriented manufacturers are fooling those customers who are unaware of codecs and tech , I am a RED & Blackmagic user I never felt to go back to these toys again after playing with R3D or BRAW files of DR
@@arunr4103 Yes, R3D and BRAW are fantastic codecs. I think it's important to recognise the legitimate place that h264 and h265 based codecs have in video production though. The file size of 'raw' codecs increases the cost across the board, both in production and post-production. There's a lot of scenarios where the extra quality doesn't have any meaningful impact. An FX9 isn't a toy... it's just built for a different kind of work.
Great video...personally if they come out with an FX30 Mark II...with an increase from 14 to 16 stops of dynamic range, better lowlight on a 12MP sensor, and 4k (do not need 6 or 8k) I would be happy. I am working on a documentary and people are amazed at the quality and I am only using an FX30...😁
Yeah, for sure... The Burano costs many times more than an FX30 and but it's not many times better. In some instances, the FX30 will be the better camera than the Burano.
We don't expect the Burano to be the perfect camera for everyone. It's got a niche audience.
We're blown away by what Canon has done with the C400 and C80. Very exciting stuff.
@@team2films yeah I mean even on the Canon C70 which is a Super 35 sensor Canon got a legit 16.5 stops...if Sony could release a Mark II FX 30 with 16 stops I would be very happy 😁 I love to window shop but I am staying with Sony for now...truth is...I spent 150 hours this summer filming and I still have not mastered daylight exposure...so better off mastering my tools than jumping ship for a stop of dynamic range...my night shots are next level though...I have a 32 inch 10 bit Benq...and my night shots of dowtown Montreal with the Protests are impressive....I have figured out how to expose for nighttime shots but the daytime shots need work...
@@seancloutier2577 Yeah, they are awesome cameras. Although dynamic range wise it's similar to Sony's cameras. CineD have good benchmarks for Dynamic range that make it easier to compare cameras.
followed!
Well done report. Appreciate the effort!
Thanks Tim. Great to have you here.
I have been looking for a video like this for so long!
Glad you found this!
Does this guy look like Lenard Nemoi
It has been said that there is a resemblance!
What is this talking head shot on? A lot of noise in the highlights on your cheek? Doesn't look like a set up that you couldn't get really clean image from?
It's not noise, it's grain and it's been added in post. It's partly a style choice, but it also helps to hide youtube's heavy compression. Hope it looks ok!
@@team2films l was just telling myself, I love the grain you added, and you just confirmed what I thought.
Did anyone compare the Venice 1 to the Burano? They are in the same price range now, ofc. the Venice is used, but anyway...
Yes, that's a very good point.
Here's something that people forget though... The Venice 1 requires an external unit for raw recording and the media is VERY expensive because it's still used on the Venice 2. So it's not the killer bargain people think it is.
@@team2films I just looked at the used stuff, there are listings from 15-30k for packages, around 20k USD there were some with the RAW module and cards, reader, etc. The ones with Rialto is closer to 30k. I don't know how killer or not, but can be a good option to consider. Or even RED, they had a HUGE price drop, ALEXA LF's are sometimes also under 30k but they are big and heavy. :D Minis are also in the 20k range but S35 and not natively 4k if it's a deal breaker, Mini LF is still 45-50k-ish. And there is the Canon C400. It would be so good to compare everything with everything else, but i know how much work this stuff needs so thanks for doing it! ;)
@@Sgyozo Yeah, the second hand market has some REALLY interesting options. And like you said there are some other new cameras out there that are really tempting too.
That's why in our conclusion we think this camera is for existing Sony users who want to stay in the ecosystem but want better quality than the FX9 can provide. The Burano seems expensive when you compare it to the FX9 and cheaper cameras, but it's price is more reasonable when you compare it to a Venice 2... Or a Venice 1 second hand system (currently).
Hopefully we will make more camera comparisons like this in the future. This was a great test for a future format.
Ok ok ok … I’ll buy the burano
Hahah! Thanks so much for watching. The Burano isn't for everyone, and the purpose of this video is not to convince people to buy one :) There's been a lot of discussion about the Burano and we wanted to add some context to the conversations. There's lot's of great cameras out there :)
Is there a reasonable workflow for vertical video monitoring on Ultrastudio 3G for social media when the reference monitor is placed vertically?
Is the camera oriented vertically as well?
@@team2films The camera recorded the material vertically, the timeline is Vertical 1080x1920, so in the working space it looks OK. The problem occurs when going to the Ultrastudio Monitor 3G output (or any Ultrastudio system). It can't interpret the vertical video properly and it crops it on the reference monitor. Basically it's impossible to grade a vertical video on a vertical time line with the monitor set vertically. There is workaround presented by Creative Video Tips but it's still very frustrating.
Sorry! Can I recommend posting about it in the official resolve forum?
Thanks for the video! It is great and quite educational in some aspects! But when you tried to show different effects of different codecs, you should have used single camera, and just show the difference between burano xavc vs burano x-ocn. Your comparison feels slightly apples to oranges when it comes to codecs.
Yes, that's a good point about showing different codecs out of the same camera. Duly noted for the future.
At the very least you can consider the video as showing the difference between the highest quality the FX9 and Burano respectively are capable of. That's a relevant question for people considered whether or not to justify the additional expense of the Burano over the FX9.
Thanks so much for watching. It's great to have you here.
Thanks, Excellent video. Balanced, eloquent and informative..
Thanks so much. Appreciate you watching.
This just shows how Sony are crippling their cameras by limiting codec options, in theory raw formats should be the easiest for these cameras to record yet they don't use them. Another thing I've found with their consumer cameras is the Long-gop formats in general give better quality than All-I simply because the bitrate is way too low.
I understand why you would think raw is easy to implement in cameras on account of the fact that it requires 'less processing'... but I think it would be the wrong conclusion to take from this that Sony are crippling the codec choices in their cameras. It's worth considering things like....
1. Red have had a stranglehold on in-camera raw thanks to their patents. It's either taken a license fee, or the development of new technology to overcome that.
2. Raw can be computationally intensive and difficult to implement. It's not a free ride. Remember most 'raw' codecs still have a lot of processing happening. A good camera needs to be able to play back the files it has recorded in camera too. Raw playback takes a lot of oomph!
3. Implementing other codecs in camera requires specific hardware that would increase cost.
How many cameras can you name that have usable internal raw recording?
That is an interesting thought about long gop vs intra. But I would imagine there are definite areas that long gop excels and definite areas where all intra excels too. XAVC is designed with a specific purpose in mind... the low-bit rate is an advantage when you're shooting factual and unscripted, yet it still offers quite a lot of quality!
Hope those thoughts make sense! Thanks for watching and commenting. Looking forward to continuing the discussion.
Loved it !! Watched all …
Thanks, glad to have you here.
Wish you used gmasters
Sorry!
Very impressive and helpful information. Thank you for making this video.
You're welcome. Thanks for watching.
It is not hech 264 ..it is H
Hahahah! Sorry for the pronunciation. Thanks for watching though.
this is one of the best comparisons i've seen. Would LOVE to see the burano vs the new canon c400
Yeah, that would be an interesting comparison. The value that the C400 delivers is pretty astounding.
0:30 triggered my elevated heart rate warning on my watch. Great video and thanks for sharing the raw files.
You're welcome. Thanks for watching.
Every time I watch your camera reviews with curiosity, because you present the smallest details of cameras and their capabilities amazingly. Of course, Burano wins in all parameters , except for the size of the recorded files. I discovered new knowledge in codecs and their capabilities, what amazed me is the new and perfect X-OCN codec (even if not full-fledged like Venice), but it already decides a lot in the quality of the picture. Also, the concept of microblocking and its role in detailing were perfectly demonstrated. And no less brilliantly demonstrated how to get a clean cleanplate in Fusion Thank you for your efforts
It encourages us a lot to know people appreciate the details in our videos. Thanks for watching and thanks for taking the time to comment.
People can criticize the Burano, but the they certainly can't criticize the people that are using it. Top notch info, thanks
Thanks so much. It's not a perfect camera, but I think there's a niche that will find it's feature set useful.