Jump to content

Sony FX3 vs. Canon R6 for Video


SRV1981
 Share

Recommended Posts

Agreed, I have an R6 and it can spit just as good IQ as any latest-gen Canon/Sony in 10-bit Clog3. 

At least give it a try before giving up and switching systems.

If you haven't even shot with it in Log yet and have no grading experience, then you really haven't given the camera a proper chance to prove it self yet.

What lenses do you have? Also having ND filters or even something as basic as choosing the right time of the day in relation to forecast/sunlight and avoiding harsh backlit shots etc can make or break footage looking video/filmic.

Let's analyse the (FX3) wine commercial you referenced:

notice how all shots are done before/after/during sunset (aka golden/magic hour) and on a cloudy overcast day.

good location, composition, shot diversity, camera movement, tight editing, synced music, adequate grading that fits the LA beach scenery, faux 8/16mm cuts etc. Plus you know good looking smiling stylised actors living it up with their favourite beverage. 

that's quite bit of work/experience to get there. every shot is prepared, calculated and staged, not just point & shoot random people at random time/location with an expensive camera.

pro video is hard work, having the right tools is just 101 prerequisite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
21 minutes ago, Django said:

Agreed, I have an R6 and it can spit just as good IQ as any latest-gen Canon/Sony in 10-bit Clog3. 

At least give it a try before giving up and switching systems.

If you haven't even shot with it in Log yet and have no grading experience, then you really haven't given the camera a proper chance to prove it self yet.

What lenses do you have? Also having ND filters or even something as basic as choosing the right time of the day in relation to forecast/sunlight and avoiding harsh backlit shots etc can make or break footage looking video/filmic.

Let's analyse the (FX3) wine commercial you referenced:

notice how all shots are done before/after/during sunset (aka golden/magic hour) and on a cloudy overcast day.

good location, composition, shot diversity, camera movement, tight editing, synced music, adequate grading that fits the LA beach scenery, faux 8/16mm cuts etc. Plus you know good looking smiling stylised actors living it up with their favourite beverage. 

that's quite bit of work/experience to get there. every shot is prepared, calculated and staged, not just point & shoot random people at random time/location with an expensive camera.

pro video is hard work, having the right tools is just 101 prerequisite.

Great points! I will be spending the next week thoroughly shooting and trying to grade the R6 Clog 3.

 

Here is another video he took with the FX3:  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I struggle with this - so much of what I see from those cameras (GH6/S5, etc.) looks like video to me and what I am seeing on a C70/FX3 looks more cinema-like.

Do you think perhaps that the person who uses the cheapest L Mount camera ever made vs a person who buys and uses a Canon Cinema Series camera are two very different types of people??

Could that be a greater reason for the differences you're seeing rather than the camera body itself? 

 

Anyway, for something totally different, take a watch of these (without googling them first! Or after):

 

 

 What do you think of each of these?

How do you find them to be different from each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Django said:

What lenses do you have? Also having ND filters or even something as basic as choosing the right time of the day in relation to forecast/sunlight and avoiding harsh backlit shots etc can make or break footage looking video/filmic.

Yup, shooting exclusively in golden hour can make almost any camera and in the hands of almost any idiot look good! 

  

1 hour ago, FHDcrew said:

Soak that info like a sponge and stop reading the camera forum debates. It’s a waste of time. 

Wise words of advice that I should listen too as well! ha

(my own emphasis added)
 

1 hour ago, Django said:

notice how all shots are done before/after/during sunset (aka golden/magic hour) and on a cloudy overcast day.

good location, composition, shot diversity, camera movement, tight editing, synced music, adequate grading that fits the LA beach scenery, faux 8/16mm cuts etc. Plus you know good looking smiling stylised actors living it up with their favourite beverage. 

that's quite bit of work/experience to get there. every shot is prepared, calculated and staged, not just point & shoot random people at random time/location with an expensive camera.

pro video is hard work, having the right tools is just 101 prerequisite.

Being able to create a video that looks/feels "effortless" is extra impressive! 

Funnily enough, creating a staged/artificial look that is impressively beautiful is often "easy" to do than to create an unassuming "normal" looking image that is also nice looking. 

I remember years ago, one of the first times I got blown away by seeing a DoP's talent at work was during this 48Hour Film Festival. 

It was getting to be late on Saturday, we were losing light, this couldn't be shot tomorrow! As by the time it was daylight again tomorrow we'd be late into the final hours of editing before the deadline that same day. 

We'd got the scenes in the car driving up in driveway. Got the scenes around the car when they'd stopped. Got wide shots and the scenes walking up to the door, just! As dusk was setting. 

Phew! Disaster adverted??

Wait... hang on, we still need the big confrontation outside at the doorway between those who answer the door and those who are at the house. 

Uh oh! But all the light is gone???

Nope, our DoP lit and framed it (with all the right camera movements) so well it was as if it was still daylight. 

Of course we still had all the interior scenes too, often with quite big windows too. 

No problem, we kept on shooting late into the night, getting all the shots done. 

When we saw it in the theatre (we were a finalist!) it all looked beautifully "natural". 

That's when it really really impressed me, when I saw the final result, and I realized likely EVERYONE (except me, and the rest of the crew/cast) in that movie theatre thought we'd shot the entire film during the day time. And these were just nice pretty "natural" pictures. When in reality it was all FAKED! Everything was totally artificial. That's when I realized how much talent there is in making a quietly unassuming "nonimage". 

Which is exactly what the story called for. The DoP did what was right for the director. He shouldn't be bringing attention to himself and his flashy lighting techniques. (although he certainly had very elaborate lighting setups!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Do you think perhaps that the person who uses the cheapest L Mount camera ever made vs a person who buys and uses a Canon Cinema Series camera are two very different types of people??

Could that be a greater reason for the differences you're seeing rather than the camera body itself? 

 

Anyway, for something totally different, take a watch of these (without googling them first! Or after):

 

 

 What do you think of each of these?

How do you find them to be different from each other?

Thanks ! Love stuff like this... so

 

Video 1 - hard to evaluate it was 720p and looked poor due to that but I could tell the production was high

Video 2 - I thought it had too much contrast/crushed blacks, well lit but it was so dynamic and moving around too much to enjoy or evaluate the image

Video 3 - Not bad, looks like video but with really good lighting

Video 4 - Looked the best due to anamorphic I believe, the color was pretty good though a little greenish

 

The difference is I believe the video I shared has better DR, highlight roll-off, color, resolve and all done in camera with no lighting, etc.  if that makes sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Could you unpack this ?

A simple curve in the highlights will do it, and if the curve requires too much contrast to be added to the highlights then you can augment it by desaturating the highlights a touch too, which is a great trick to blend over the areas where the channels are clipping at different points.

Digital sensors all clip very very harshly, it's what the camera/NLE/colourist does after that that creates the rolloff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Thanks ! Love stuff like this... so

What's your thoughts/guesses to as to what each different camera might have been for each of the different videos?

 

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Video 1 - hard to evaluate it was 720p and looked poor due to that but I could tell the production was high

Yeah, to be fair, even blockbuster AA film titles with the biggest movie stars were not necessarily always getting their trailers in 2013 uploaded in 1080 (let alone 4K!)

Maybe I should have shared this video instead, was uploaded just a year ago, and seems to be a higher resolution copy:

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Video 2 - I thought it had too much contrast/crushed blacks, well lit but it was so dynamic and moving around too much to enjoy or evaluate the image

Sure, but think about the context of what the video clip was for? It wasn't a movie trailer like the others, this was a promo video for a festival 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IronFilm said:

What's your thoughts/guesses to as to what each different camera might have been for each of the different videos?

 

Yeah, to be fair, even blockbuster AA film titles with the biggest movie stars were not necessarily always getting their trailers in 2013 uploaded in 1080 (let alone 4K!)

Sure, but think about the context of what the video clip was for? It wasn't a movie trailer like the others, this was a promo video for a festival 

 

They all look like XT1's hacked from Driftwood.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

highlight roll-off

I agree with @kye that highlight roll-off, when shooting log, is dependent on the tone curve applied/created in grading.

In addition to this point it's worth considering that if your camera doesn't have enough stops above middle grey to capture the highlight information you're interested in retaining, you have the option of deliberately underexposing your footage to preserve the highlights and boosting the exposure in post - at the expense of increased shadow noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Cheated and googled if so! 😉

Ha - no I didn't google.  I was close!!!  

 

54 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

I agree with @kye that highlight roll-off, when shooting log, is dependent on the tone curve applied/created in grading.

In addition to this point it's worth considering that if your camera doesn't have enough stops above middle grey to capture the highlight information you're interested in retaining, you have the option of deliberately underexposing your footage to preserve the highlights and boosting the exposure in post - at the expense of increased shadow noise.

So I am confused - correct me if I misunderstand, but are you saying Clog, Clog 2, Clog 3, Slog 3, Flog, Vlog - are the determining factor of how cinematic (highlight roll-off capability) and not other factors in the camera?  I may be misreading because it seems that clog3 on the R6 isn't nearly as good as clog2 or 3 on the c70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Ha - no I didn't google.  I was close!!!  

My point was going to be how even an old old GH2 can look good, and we're four generations on now. 

And also how different the images can be even with the same camera. 

Although I suspect you googled (or already knew about the famous Upstream Color) and figured that out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

My point was going to be how even an old old GH2 can look good, and we're four generations on now. 

And also how different the images can be even with the same camera. 

Although I suspect you googled (or already knew about the famous Upstream Color) and figured that out. 

You’re not wrong about cameras and getting a good image. The real area I’m exploring is so some cameras produce better images than those good enough ones and can you do it with less lighting, grading etc.  the more I explore the more I think yes - there’s a difference in those two questions on an r6 or s5 vs. an fx3 or c70

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have enough money to get an FX3 or a C70, then go for it. They're fine cameras. If you haven't seen it yet, @Oliver Daniel has shot a gorgeous music video on his FX3 and a7siii.

Personally, I didn't find anything WOW about the videos you posted. I don't want to be disrespectful to the filmmaker, they are fine videos and he is very talented/skilled...

But the second video you posted looked very video to me. They were all wide shots, stopped down and focused to infinity. Other than some cloud separation and color depth, I'd think almost any camera could capture that.

Check out Noam Kroll's website/instagram and see what he he's been capturing/grading with an X-T4 on his current feature film. It looks very high end. Even Fuji's Film Simulations have a pretty nice, SOOC look. I assume they may take a hit in DR, but that can be molded, a touch, in post with some aggressive curves.

I believe @kye has a similar video, to the beach one you posted, that he shot on an OG Pocket or Micro and it looks fantastic, maybe he'll repost it to give you an idea what can be accomplished with some care.

I've seen some really nice footage from the R6, so I'm sure it's very capable.

Also... what type of stuff are you looking to shoot? You've used the word cinematic a few times, so am I to assume you want to shoot narrative films?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

My point was going to be how even an old old GH2 can look good, and we're four generations on now. 

And also how different the images can be even with the same camera. 

Although I suspect you googled (or already knew about the famous Upstream Color) and figured that out. 

I think the color science was better on the GH2 with Hacks than is on the GH5. I see it seems better on the GH6 than GH5, so progress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
33 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I think the color science was better on the GH2 with Hacks than is on the GH5. I see it seems better on the GH6 than GH5, so progress. 

GH2 certainly had character. Distinctive colour science.

With the GH3 they switched to a Sony sensor for first time.

GH4 they modernised the image processor quite a bit for 4K.

GH5 I think has really nice colour science especially in 10bit but it is way more modern and clean.

GH6 is more of the same I think, whereas the OM-1 has more character. It's not just the sensor or colour profiles, or LOG and which LUT, but how the white balance is baked in as well.

Sometimes a bit of weirdness is good for character.

I tell myself that when looking in a mirror too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • EOSHD Pro Color 5 for All Sony cameras
    EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
    EOSHD Dynamic Range Enhancer for H.264/H.265
×
×
  • Create New...