TomTheDP

Says a lot of nothing imo. Will we see redraw in mirrorless is the question from me.

Yes I'm talking shooting in 8 bit 709. When I mentioned log I meant 10-12 bit. I was saying even though the master is 709 you can potentially make 10 bit log better looking than a baked in 709 profile. For instance the emotive color lut looks nicer than the 709 profiles out of most cameras straight off the card.

I'll answer it for you and I've used the A7s3 and FX6 but not the A7IV. Both cameras have heavily processed shadows that ruin the image. The A7s3 and FX3 are superior because you can shoot RAW externally and bypass the processing. Dynamic range isn't useful when it's being ruined by noise reduction. The fx30 has much less processing at the lower native ISOs and would be my choice over either of those cameras. Or get a Nikon Z8.

I really think Redraw is coming or at least a varient of it. I get market segmentation but Nikon already displayed its willingness to put internal RAW in their cameras with no caveats. REDraw is coming to Nikon mirrorless. I don't think this will kill sales for any of the "RED" cameras. They are made for a traditional on set workflow. No one is going to want to use a Z8 with HDMI on a large production unless its a crash cam. Plus the RED Komodo is priced the same as the Nikon Z9 to begin with. It's not like its ARRI where they don't sell any cameras lower than 50,000 usd. RED never had the capacity to put out a mirrorless body and compete with the likes of Nikon or Canon, now they don't need to. We shall see soon enough.

True latitude tests are the best indicator. With firmware 3.0 the Z9/Z8 does peform incredibly well and like you said bests the Venice 2 which is crazy. The Venice 2 captures 16 bit linear RAW which I would imagine gives you a much beefier file to work with. That said 8.2k 12 bit RAW with that kind of latitude is more than enough for any application. One of the biggest draws of the Z8/Z9 for me is the NRAW, Prores RAW, Prores, and H265 options all in camera. Pretty much can fit to any workflow in any NLE without needing to transcode. If they actually put REDraw that would be awesome for possible compression options. No Opengate square aspect ratio options for anamorphic but hey you can't get everything. I appreciate Nikon's new move of not holding back. Feels like Lumix until recently where they seem to put out the same thing over and over again.

Makes sense. I think the main differences between these Sony cameras are rolling shutter and the ability or lack of ability to record RAW if that is a feature you want to use. Dynamic range is all very similiar in latitude tests and imatest measurements. My pick for Sony is the FX30 as it is the cheapest and has a damn good image and a lot of cheap 3rd party lenses for it too.

If you expose and white balance on point most 8 bit cameras will look nice in REC709 profiles. You have a bit more range to play with if you are shooting log on a higher end sensor. However you will be compressing everything down into that colorspace and dynamic range limitation regardless(Unless you are mastering for HDR displays).

https://www.eoshd.com/news/is-n-raw-real-raw-nikon-z9-under-the-spotlight-at-eoshd/ Generelly when greatly underexposed RAW looks better than H265. You usually get weird compression artifacts and blotchy looking texture with more compressed codecs. Noise Reduction can reduce noise but nice texture is usually a sign of a better sensor with more dynamic range. That said there are other reasons to shooting RAW like color information which would be the main draw for me. The Z8/Z9 also have Prores which looks quite nice.

With FX3 you have the optinon to shoot RAW which will give you a bit more dynamic range. Testing shows the FX3 and Sony A1 have about 1 stop more of usable dynamic range which can be seen in latitude tests. Outside of that the FX3, A1, and A7IV all perform very similiar. The A1 has the best internal codec, least processing. FX3 has too much noise reduction but it can be avoided by shooting raw externally.

Not a scientific test either but maybe more informative than the first one haha. I think each camera's processing is just as important as the codec itself. That is what RAW theoretically gets around, the processing. Though with BRAW it's not really getting around that as much as it isn't a true RAW format.

That is LA for you haha. Yeah I think you are right. Too many variables in that kind of test. This might be a better comparison. Same camera and Prores 422 HQ has less compression than what the FX6 is doing. I also imagine the readout is the same in prores as it is in RAW. Can't confirm that though.

Prores 444 and 4444xq are really nice codecs to work with. The issue is compressed RAW is often actually smaller in terms of file size compared to Prores 444. I shoot 2k Prores 444 which is about 500mbps, which is a reasonable size. To me 12 bit is important but it doesn't matter if it in the RAW format, Prores 444 or semiraw like BRAW. For me I notice the difference in shadows and skintones compared with 10 bit recording. The differences can be subtle though. This video demonstrates some differences you can see in a real world scenario. FX6 10 bit vs REDRAW

Yeah it's not bad at all, but still too much when on set. If you are using a Sony FX9 it could be as quick as a lens swap because the you can get adapters that attach the same as a lens. That isn't as secure as a mount that is bolted in though. If you aren't using vintage or stills glass it doesn't matter though.

For me as someone who isn't renting high end cine glass it gives me more lens options. Most vintage lenses can be adapted to EF but very few can be adapted to PL, at least not without really expensive modifications done by pros. If I want to throw on an old FD lens or something like that I'd have to swap the mount from PL to EF, which is time consuming. Now that depends on the camera. Swapping the mounts on a mirrorless system is usually fast. On an ARRI or Blackmagic it is a pain.

True though a lot of budget "cinema" lens options have an EF mount option. Even some mid range lenses like the CP3 have an EF mount option. Often times they are swappable so you can switch to PL relatively easily. I definitely prefer RF mount (or any mirrorless mount) as it just opens up more lens options, particularly vintage ones. The form factor and output options on the C500 are much better but that may not be valuable to you.