Kino

I recently shot this cover song and music video in 8K RAW on the R5C with a Great Joy 1.8x Anamorphic (50mm). My daughter sings here and I recorded the music, so I was occupied with a lot of things aside from the camera. Having said that, the camera performs really well for what it is and is a great addition for those who already own Canon glass. It's not going to replace a proper cinema camera in terms of the best DR or latitude, but it is an amazing tool and the in-camera anamorphic de-squeeze is a priceless feature. The video is uploaded in 8K so choose that for best quality:
 

I recently shot this cover song and music video in 8K RAW on the R5C with a Great Joy 1.8x Anamorphic (50mm). My daughter sings here and I recorded the music, so I was occupied with a lot of things aside from the camera. Having said that, the camera performs really well for what it is and is a great addition for those who already own Canon glass. It's not going to replace a proper cinema camera in terms of the best DR or latitude, but it is an amazing tool and the in-camera anamorphic de-squeeze is a priceless feature. The video is uploaded in 8K so choose that for best quality:
 

I recently shot this cover song and music video in 8K RAW on the R5C with a Great Joy 1.8x Anamorphic (50mm). My daughter sings here and I recorded the music, so I was occupied with a lot of things aside from the camera. Having said that, the camera performs really well for what it is and is a great addition for those who already own Canon glass. It's not going to replace a proper cinema camera in terms of the best DR or latitude, but it is an amazing tool and the in-camera anamorphic de-squeeze is a priceless feature. The video is uploaded in 8K so choose that for best quality:
 

Absolutely, but when will it be here? I mostly have EF lenses, though I may consider the Sony FX9 II if that comes along sooner and has the better features/price. The FX9 already looks great with the in-camera 10 bit:
And, with the RAW expander, it reproduces some beautiful colors:
Sony's advantage is that they don't need to introduce a new mount at this stage and have a better native and 3rd-party lens selection.

It's more that I'm disappointed that Sony didn't shoot the video with the A9III exclusively, as they did with the Sony A1 promos.
Based on other footage I've seen from the camera, I think the A9III is fully capable. There is even an unsubstantiated but plausible rumor from a Chinese website that the exact same A9III sensor will feature in the FX9II with 6K recording:
https://m-weibo-cn.translate.goog/u/2424567755?jumpfrom=weibocom%2Fu%2F2424567755%3Fjumpfrom%3Dweibocom&_x_tr_hist=true&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp#&gid=1&pid=1

The Venice 6K is a certified Hollywood A-cam and I don't think it should be compared with the Burano, as the latter only offers X-OCN LT. That is a significant downgrade from the RAW and X-OCN options on the Venice cameras. My hope is that if they do bring out a Burano 6K, it will have X-OCN XT and ST because of the lower resolution and the fact that the Venice 6K is a much older design. In scenes with a lot of movement or change, X-OCN will scale resolution, especially when it comes to the LT compression. That is how Sony's X-OCN avoids artifacts. This means that Burano's 8K X-OCN LT will not be a true 8K image in all scenarios.

XDCA module was part of Sony's legacy design. On the FX9, it allows for much more than 16-bit RAW and 4k 120 (S35). You can power a giant B4 lens, for example, and offset the weight. You can also stream and transfer files. It's a full professional feature set for those who need it, especially broadcasters and those in field recording. This is all before they integrated RAW output into the body of the FX6. It will be interesting to see how they move forward with the FX9 II design in case they drop the module or modify it.
At the moment, we have the aging FX9 at $10K and the brand new Burano 8K at $25K. That's a huge price gap in the Sony cinema lineup that they need to fill. The "Burano 6K" could fill that gap nicely and still separate itself from both cameras. I believe the "inflation adjusted price" for the F5 was $3000 over MSRP, so I'm not sure how that will work.
I think you will find buyers for the FS7 who don't want to pay FX6 prices. It is still a capable camera and perfect for many applications. I still shoot with the C500 (original) and the image is great, especially in RAW. The only problem is the size/weight of the camera and Odyssey recorder when all rigged up.

@Andrew Reid Burano has shipped with X-OCN LT. If Sony charges you $25K for the lowest quality 16-Bit codec, it means that you will never see that on any Sony mirrorless. The smaller bodies wouldn't be able to deal with the heat management involved in 16-Bit readout, processing, and recording for video. This is also a slap in the face for those shooters who were hoping to see X-OCN in the FX series, since that is also less likely to happen for several years. It is Sony's answer to REDCODE, although it doesn't violate RED's patents as it is not technically RAW.

@Andrew Reid Burano has shipped with X-OCN LT. If Sony charges you $25K for the lowest quality 16-Bit codec, it means that you will never see that on any Sony mirrorless. The smaller bodies wouldn't be able to deal with the heat management involved in 16-Bit readout, processing, and recording for video. This is also a slap in the face for those shooters who were hoping to see X-OCN in the FX series, since that is also less likely to happen for several years. It is Sony's answer to REDCODE, although it doesn't violate RED's patents as it is not technically RAW.

I've had my eye on the Sony A1 for a long time. I was hoping Sony would announce the A1 II, so that the prices on it could drop a little. At $6500, it is a bit steep. LongGOP 8K is also not ideal, but the video footage overall is very impressive for a mirrorless full-frame camera. The DR, roll-off, ISO performance, and texture are all amazing. These are video frame stills if you can believe it!
























 

Nikon really dropped the ball when they released this camera with N-Log, which is not capable of maximizing the sensor's DR. They need to release "N-Log 2" in firmware if they can, since all the non-RAW formats in the camera still suffer from N-Log's limitations. The tests linked above demonstrate the significant difference between N-RAW processed in N-Log gamma and N-RAW when using ARRI Log C in Resolve:




 

Nikon should pay this guy! That video will sell cameras.










 
 

Nikon should pay this guy! That video will sell cameras.










 
 

Although the grade is always important, NRAW's rich tonality is once again evident in this beach footage, which has been interpreted in linear color space as opposed to N-Log gamma (where DR could be better preserved). Despite the varying workflow, the expansive tonal range is consistent with Nikon's own Venice clip as posted above.

The Z9 test shows 12.5 usable from a possible 15.5 overall on an 8K timeline. That is not bad at all. NR can add only about half a stop. Compare that with the R5C in 8K RAW, which shows only 11 usable from a possible 13.4:

If you scale 8K down to 4K, you can improve the Imatest result for both 8K cameras, so you have to keep that in mind when comparing with lower resolutions. For example, the 4K C70 with its DGO sensor attains 13 usable from a total 15.3 with NR applied in-camera:

In terms of DR, Dxomark measured the Z9 RAW photo performance at 14.4 EV at its base 64 ISO and just over 12 EV at ISO 800, which is the native ISO for video:

https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-z9-sensor-test/#:~:text=As for the individual scores,at the same ISO sensitivity.
All that is very consistent with the Imatest DR above and very similar to other 8K cameras at the same ISO. What interests me more is the color depth comparison between photo and video, which is the only way to test whether the color information is retained in the 14 bit NEV files.

Unlike the Canon R5, which switches to a 12 bit readout when engaging the electronic shutter for photo and video, the Z9 electronic shutter is 14 bit, as that is all it has. Therefore, it is possible for the 14 bit readout to carry over to video, which Resolve apparently confirms at 24 fps in this example:

Of course, it could still be a 12 bit source wrapped in a 14 bit file, or there could be an error in how Resolve interprets the files. However, looking at the N-RAW footage, I'm seeing a color depth and tonal range that I don't associate with 12 bit cameras. This is very close to 16 bit R3D files or 14 bit RAW photos:

 
 
 
 

It seems that he added the NR on the Z9 N-RAW 8K in post using Resolve, but it does not include downsampling. With downsampling to 4K, you should be able to get another .5 stop. So, if you take out the NR but downsample to 4K, you should be back at around 12.5 usable stops.
As for why Nikon did not advertise the 14 bit NEV files, I'm not entirely sure, but I plan to find out . . .

I managed to download a few brief 8K 50fps NRAW NEV samples from another forum and view them in the latest version of Resolve (18.1.4):
https://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/editors/editing-with-edius/572094-n-raw-from-z9-sample-download
They are now listed as 12 bit according to Nikon specs. There must have been a decoding problem that has been solved since Resolve 18.0. Perhaps NEV files are captured in 12 bit log and Resolve previously converted them to 14 bit linear. It is hard to know what the issue was as TicoRAW compression is new to the camera world (hence the RED lawsuit).
The same TicoRAW conversion that the Z9 utilizes when compressing for photos in the "High Efficiency" RAW mode at 14 bit readout is also utilized to create the NRAW files. In photo mode, this is limited to 20fps at full sensor readout (8256 x 5504). Although the video mode uses a crop (8256 x 4644), which produces a 38mp image, it doesn't seem possible that you could get 14 bit RAW video at frame rates higher than 24/25. The Canon R3 could do 14 bit RAW at 30fps with its 6K video, but Canon would never do such a thing! That would obliterate its current cinema line.
In any case, the rich color tonality we were seeing in the Z9 footage is still there and the files edit nicely on a 4K timeline. They are perhaps not as optimized as R3D files, but they should be easier for editing than Canon 8K RAW Light.

I tried the Z9 on a few jobs but didn't keep it in the end. The colours are beautiful and I loved the ergonomics and battery life but as you mentioned the workflow wasn't ideal. I just couldn't get decent dynamic range out of it using the supplied Nikon conversion LUTs. As it's a bit of a niche camera there wasn't much info out there on how to get the best out of it. 

I liked the DR in this shot

C70 in low light featuring rich tones and subtle gradations:
RAW in this camera would be amazing, but you don't really need it. The camera is already reaching C300/C500 RAW quality with XF-AVC: