Sony FX9 Lab Test – Rolling Shutter, Dynamic Range and Latitude

September 9th, 2020
Sony FX9 Lab Test - Rolling Shutter, Dynamic Range and Latitude

When the Sony FX9 arrived at the CineD headquarters earlier this year, we were eager to run it through our lab test procedures. But when we reviewed the first results from the lab test, we reached out to selected industry experts. Read on why…

EDIT: Surprisingly and earlier than expected, Sony has just released a new firmware update for the Sony FX9. We will evaluate how the new update affects the results of our tests and if needed we will repeat them.

You might have wondered why we have not published a lab test of the new Sony FX9 yet, although my colleague Nino already bought one in January 2020. Well, we did the lab test as early as January – but the results using the internal codec made us wonder what is going on here.

Was the firmware/image not final yet? Would there be an update soon? So we reached out to Sony and some selected industry experts and shared all our findings and measurements with them. The initial replies and subsequent conversations were not leading to further insights. Sony stated that they have their established ways to measure sensor performance and if CineD does their own lab tests then fine, it is what it is.

In addition, nothing hinted at a new firmware or any kind of image improvements arriving anytime soon – and we learned in April already that a the 2.0 FW release would happen only later this year in October, after originally being announced for “summer 2020” when the camera was released last year.

(Sony recently announced another 3.0 firmware update without giving a release date, with a few more additional features: S700PTP Remote Protocol, Center Scan mode for Super 16mm lenses, and B4 Lens support when using the adaptor).

So after a careful review again (and again …) we decided to publish what we found earlier this year.

Rolling Shutter of the Sony FX9 – full-frame UHD 16:9

Using our strobe light at 300Hz, we get the typical sequence of black and white bars (due to the readout nature of CMOS sensors). Counting the bars gives a result of 22.2ms for the Sony FX9, see the figure below.

This value is a tad worse than the readings we got for the SIGMA fp (20.8ms) for example but is in the middle field for a full frame sensor reading a 6K image. The Panasonic S1H for example has 24.2ms in full-frame 4K DCI 17:9 mode (7% less picture height than 16:9 UHD mode).

However, comparing that to the new Canon C500 Mark II which shows a value of 15.8ms (in DCI 17:9 mode) the FX9 clearly falls behind – and now the new Canon R5 showed even 15.5ms in 17:9 8K full frame readout – the best result we have ever measured for a full-frame sensor in 17:9!

Now we know why the FX9 cannot do 60 fps in UHD full-sensor readout – there is simply not enough time to read the entire sensor. By the way, this explains why there will be 5K crop modes for 60fps in the upcoming new firmware (recording in 4K).

Rolling shutter measurement of the Sony FX9 in full-frame UHD mode at 25fps.

Dynamic Range of the Sony FX9 in XAVC UHD ISO800

If you are not familiar with how we test dynamic range please have a look here.

The Sony FX9 has a dual ISO sensor with 800 and 4000 as the two native ISO’s. Hence we first test ISO800 – here is the waveform plot of the XYLA21 stepchart – it shows 12 stops. A 13th stop and even a 14th stop are still visible, but inside the noise floor:

Waveform plot of the Xyla21 stepchart at ISO800 for the Sony FX9 UHD internal XAVC all-I SLOG3.SGamut – 12 stops can be identified above the noise floor.

Running the files through IMATEST this result is confirmed:

IMATEST dynamic range analysis of the Sony FX9 at ISO800, using the internal all-I XAVC codec at UHD 25fps with SLOG3.SGamut. 11.5 stops are calculated at a signal to noise ratio of 2 – the medium value in the upper right hand table.

This dynamic range result of 11.5 stops at our threshold value of a signal to noise ratio of 2 (SNR = 2) in UHD (3840×2160, internal noise reduction “off”) for a full-frame sensor which downsamples from 6K is OK but nothing special.

As you can see from past measurements, it is about one stop better than the full-frame mirrorless Sony a7S II or a7 III cameras show in UHD mode, but it is less than the full-frame Panasonic S1 and Panasonic S1H, the latter having 12.7 stops in 6K mode (see our article here). Also, the Canon C500 Mark II comes in at 13.1 stops (internal XF-AVC, full-frame) according to IMATEST (see the article here). Note that we have yet to receive a production model version of the Sony a7S III to perform our lab tests with it (but you can watch and read our real-world review here).

What is important to note: yes, while our noise threshold (at SNR = 2, Medium value (pink line)) kicks in already at 11.5 stops, there are clearly additional stops visible, have a look at the left-hand side of the middle graph (RMS noise) in the IMATEST result – see the figure below.

Sony FX9 IMATEST result at ISO800 – a few additional stops are visible beyond the SNR=1 value.

Given that the used codec can encode those additional (noisy) stops properly, you can work with those in postproduction using noise reduction, etc… If you fast forward to our latitude test (further down), you will see that the internal codec is not capable to do so properly. However, future firmware RAW options should definitely allow for that.

Cranking up internal noise reduction to “high” by the way leads to 11.9 stops for the Sony FX9 at ISO800.

Now let’s have a look at the second native ISO, 4000.

Dynamic Range Sony FX9 at ISO4000

At ISO 4000 we are getting exactly the same result as with the lower native ISO 800 – this is the first camera we have tested that fulfills the promise that the higher native ISO settings have no impact on the image. The Panasonic S1H for example shows a slight drop of dynamic range (0.4 stops) when switching to the higher native ISO circuit, as does the BMPCC6K.

The waveform plot of the stepchart at ISO 4000 confirms this – it looks strikingly similar to the waveform plot at ISO 800:

Waveform plot of the Xyla21 stepchart at ISO4000 for the Sony FX9 UHD internal XAVC all-I SLOG3.SGamut – again 12 stops can be identified above the noise floor.

Also, the IMATEST analysis shows this result at ISO 4000, 11.5 stops are calculated for a signal to noise ratio of 2 (Medium value in upper right-hand table):

IMATEST dynamic range analysis of the Sony FX9 at ISO4000, using the internal all-I XAVC codec at UHD 25fps with SLOG3.SGamut. 11.5 stops are calculated.

Latitude (underexposure test) of the Sony FX9

Of course, we also performed our standard underexposure test for the FX9: using S-Gamut3 / Slog3, noise reduction “off”, we exposed Nino’s face at max. 60% luma value on the waveform monitor, the white sheet of paper comes in at around 65%.

This gives a base exposure of 360° shutter at f4.0 at ISO 800 (UHD 25fps) – our 0 stops under baseline. From there we successively underexpose the studio scene by decreasing the shutter angle to 180°, 90°, 45°, 22.5° and finally 11.25° (5 stops underexposure).

Then, in post production (using DaVinci Resolve 16.1 studio) we push the underexposed images back to the 0 exposure value.

This test reveals a lot of insight about how well a camera (and the used codec) retains colors and detail. Most cameras break apart at 3 to 4 stops underexposure. The most recent exception so far: the Canon C300 Mark III which retains a usable image at 5 stops underexposure.

The aforementioned Canon C500 Mark II for example retains a usable image at 5 stops underexposure as well (but having faint lines in the image and using additional noise reduction in post).

So, let’s see how far we can push the Sony FX9

The above image shows the base exposure. Now let’s jump ahead and have a look at 3 stops underexposure, pushed back to zero:

Unfortunately, already at three stops underexposure, pushed back to zero we can see very blotchy patches of noise, especially in darker areas on the lower right-hand side, or on the dark side of Nino’s face.

Here is a noise reduction test using DaVinci Resolve 16.1, with 3 frames temporal noise at 5 threshold and 5 spatial:

Alright, with noise reduction the 3 stops underexposed image is still usable. Now, moving on to the 4 stops underexposed image:

As can be seen, the noise is corrupting the image to a point where it is not fully recoverable – I tried even stronger noise reduction again in DaVinci Resolve, see the resulting image below:

The nature of the noise shown in the 4 stops underexposed image is not finely dispersed, but represents rather blotchy patches of chroma noise – those cannot be easily removed in post without further sacrifices to the image.

Finally, just for reference here is the image at 5 stops underexposure, pushed back to zero:

It is difficult to tell why the image falls apart rather early, also compared to other cameras that we tested so far.

A potential reason for the poor performance could be the internal codec and how capable it is to capture noise. Although highest quality settings were used (and I reconfirmed them in post using Sony’s catalyst software, see the screenshot below) the all-I codec has only 250 Mbit/s – for an All-I codec in UHD this is a rather low bitrate and may be contributing to those large, nasty patches of chroma noise that we are seeing.

Internal codec used for the tests reconfirmed in post by Sony’s Catalyst software.

Summary

The results we got for rolling shutter and dynamic range are more in the middle to lower end of the spectrum for a full-frame sensor – to an extent that we reached out to Sony and selected industry experts. Those discussions took a while but didn’t reveal further insights – it is what it is as it seems.

In addition, the latitude test displayed above showed that you cannot go lower than 3 stops of underexposure and push back the image, otherwise ugly noise is corrupting the image to an extent that it is not recoverable – using the internal XAVC codec.

Of course we are curious to see if future firmware upgrades potentially improve the image quality. The next one is coming quite soon (in October), as mentioned above, so we will see – and this one should also allow 16-bit RAW output via the optional XDCA-FX9 unit (though we will have to see if at that point, there will also be a recorder available that is powerful enough to record 16-bit RAW). Also don’t forget that Sony already announced that it will release a little sibling to the FX9, the Sony FX6, until the end of 2020. No technical details were given yet though.

Are you using the Sony FX9 already? What is your experience using the camera? Please let us know in the comments below.

76
Leave a reply

guest
1
1
- 2
Filter:
all
Sort by:
latest
adam baker
adam baker
Member
12 days ago

I think this is interesting test and numbers dont lie. As former Fx9 owner who shoots weddings the biggest issue I had was green macro blocking in backlight.

When I first heard about the issue I thought it was some1 using vtg glass. I use GM.. glass .. I would have any issues..

DEAD WRONG.. IN BACKLIGHT 24MM GM SHOWED AWFUL GREEN OUTLINES ON BRIDES IN BG…

I had to return $11k fx9..

Fx9 was best IQ I ever seen as owner operator.. I can’t afford reds or Alexis. But iq is great 90% of time. Don’t shoot into light.

Sony aware of issue. Idk if it can be fixed w firmware. Could be caused by auto ND. Easily best feature w new AF.

The real thing holding back Fx9 imho is no internal raw codec. Xavc I class 300 codec is now offered in a7siii at 1/4 cost. Plus bEtter DR.. better rolling shutter.. better frame rates.. smaller body and 16bit raw out w no huge brick add on for $3k has made me not regret choice.

New firmware 2.0 is big deal but raw is useless w huge back add on and costs. With all competition offering internal raw on cine cameras at fraction of cost.

Sony must add internal raw to fx9 and class 480 xavc i.

Hope they will add features in v3 or v4 and also unlock 6k.

Despite all that IQ is great.. codecs need improved. And auto ND can’t be added on A7siii. Best u get is vari ND.

Fx9 and upcoming Fx6 simply need Internal raw codec added. Sraw.. version of braw. Or pay 4 internal prores raw 12bit codec. Offer as paid add on.

Fix raw internal codecs and fix green macro blocking and u got near perfection. Wont ever do 4k120p though. 4k60p cropped tops.

Curious to see if Fx6 gets more processing power. They need to compete w c70 and komodo both offering 4k120. At s35. Safe to guess fx6 will be FF.

Curious to see what Sony does..

So n y

I had to return camera.

Denis Kunz
Denis Kunz
Member
September 12th, 2020

Results for FS7 and FX9 are misleading.

Thank you for providing the community with this numbers and for taking the time to investigate prior to publishing, whitch proves your commitment and diligence.

I was a working student for a camera manufactutrer some years ago, conducting hundreds of tests under strict NDA on preproduction models in their inhouse lab, so I understand and respect the results. They are valid.

As a Cinematographer I used Alexas regularly and also have hundreds of hours with Sony F5/55 and years with the Sony FS7 in documentary production. Now I work on the FX9 nearly exclusively.

The calculated dynamic range for the FS7 is ridiculously high in my experience. It might be there by numbers but it looks awful if you have challenging scenes. The F5 delivers a way more usable dynamic range and overall IQ. Now the FX9 beats the F5 hands down in challenging High Dynamic Range situations. The FX9 is closing in on the Venice, whereas the FS7 struggles in regards to dynamic range in real life applications.

But numbers don’t lie. So what is going on? Honestly – I dont know. I assume there must be a quality to the response of a sensor – ampflification combo along the graph that we cannot yet describe in numbers through a common standardised test. A single Imatest/Xyla evaluation seems to be misleading even for the stated purpose of describing the dynamic range of a camera package in real production use. CineD is also clearly not proposing this to be true.

I found the posted results very interesting and thought provoking. Thank you again for your time and investment.

Seth Marshall
Seth Marshall
Member
11 days ago
Reply to  Denis Kunz

Do you have any links to tests between the F5 and FS7? They’re both a bit long in the tooth but I’d love to read. Unless this was all things you’ve gathered.

Per Merakerli
Member
3 days ago
Reply to  Denis Kunz

I own the FX9 too, and I must say , I am realy tired of all the issues. You certainly must have heard of them ?or ?

So, I am curious. I fond U inthe FX9 grup on Facbook, but, I cant really see what, and where you are wokring. Can you tell me little more of where you work as a cinematographer ?

By the way, I shoot film : http://www.land4sale.no , and have some experiance, first hand, but here I am stuck ! I relied on the GYro, and therefor, used a lot of handheld, now when that Gyro in Catalyst acutally are ruining ! the shoots with banding , spots and artifacts, I started a returncase in Norway.

If it ends in court, we will just have to wait and see . But, I mean, if you go and buy a car ! brand new ! You just dont accept the f.ex ” SPorts mode”, in the gearing system, or the pormised 4 wheel drive, or the aricondition………. or, not to say . You would not accept the tracking control in winterdriving to have issues, that would potentially be dangerous ?

In my oppinnion SONY is lying, and in a desperate manner is putting out on the market a Beta-priduct !

so…… I am asking money back, and we will see ………

Ben Long
Ben Long
Guest
September 11th, 2020

Maybe I’m crazy, but this test does nothing to dissuade me from using the fx9. Helpful information, yes. But this is still an incredibly capable camera system. I’m a cinematographer, not an electrical engineer. I’m ultimately in charge of where a
I place my code values on any given scale–be it 12 stops or 14–not Sony, not Arri, not CineD, not Imatest.

Having .3 extra stops of DR isn’t going to make anybody a better DP. Knowing the physical limits of the system you’re using is obviously important, but getting good locations and production design will have a far greater impact on the image than quibbling about how to define the noise floor.

I also happen to like a physically large camera. Still more ergonomic than a millennium xl2, doesn’t get jostled around like any of the brain-cube cameras, and clients generally like seeing their money spent on something that doesn’t look like a toy.

If you can afford an Alexa, that’s awesome and I’m sure you’ll use it to its fullest potential. If you can only afford this camera, I guarantee you that whoever is watching your sports drink commercial will never be able to tell the difference. If you’re a good DP, that is.

Last edited 16 days ago by Ben Long
Lane McCall
Guest
September 11th, 2020
Reply to  Ben Long

Yeah.. even with a little noise reduction added you’re looking at more like 13.5 – 14 stops according to that chart.

Per Merakerli
Member
2 days ago
Reply to  Lane McCall

NO, you are not ! I own the camera, but are returing it, bacaseSONY lied to me about almost everything with this camera. You wil NEVER get anywhere near 13.5 stops with this camera .

Coop Productions
Coop Productions
Member
September 11th, 2020

Something seems odd here. Was this recorded in CineEI with correct High/Low light modes?

Taehun Yoon
Taehun Yoon
Member
September 11th, 2020

This review is very interesting for me, because me, and so many cinematographers have thought lack of [email protected] in FX9 is just a problem of processing power or saving higher line-up like VENICE.

But look at this. strict technology-based review show all things clearly to us. that’s why I really love CineD and recommend to other cinematographers. Thank you, all of you.

German Libenson
German Libenson
Member
September 11th, 2020

Nino and Gunther and all the crew at Cined r are the only people who say it like it is. Their Imatest is the standard DR test used by the Germans. That’s why an Arri Alexa, the camera with the best dynamic range in the world, has 14 stops. These stops are usable dynamic range at a signal to noise ratio of 2. That is the standard. Red claims 16 stops, Sony claims 15 stops, Canon claims 15 stops, that is the advertised dynamic range. That is not the usable dynamic range. I have shot with FX9 and it clips the highlights 2 stops sooner than the Alexa Mini. Same with Red Dragon, Red Gemini, Red Helium and Red Komodo. Canon C500 mark 2 also clips the highlights before the Alexa sensor. Arri produces the best sensor in the world. Nobody, not the Chinese, not the Japanese, not even Red can come close to it. It is because of the dual output of the sensor. Arri in Germany has spent millions of dollars in the development of the best sensor this world has ever seen.

Last edited 16 days ago by German Libenson
salty
salty
Guest
September 11th, 2020

I don’t think anyone is doubting this… and I don’t think anyone ever thought the c500ii would be better than the ALEV III. What we really need is to get away from Bayer pattern sensors to see some real advancement in sensor tech.

Adam Finmann
Adam Finmann
Member
September 10th, 2020

So many upset Sony users. I’m just gonna sip my tea with my C500MKII.

salty
salty
Guest
September 11th, 2020
Reply to  Adam Finmann

Meh, even c300iii looks better.

Tim N
Tim N
Member
13 days ago
Reply to  Adam Finmann

Mmm… Indeed.

*sips tea*

Per Merakerli
Member
2 days ago
Reply to  Adam Finmann

I own this crap camera myself,…..of course I am pissed off :)) not at Cined, but SONY. I started a case; consumer somplaint case in Norwy, and I urge others to do the same ! This camera is not only perfoming a LOT worse than the specs claim, but it has some severe issues. Its basically a Betaproduct.

I can wait to get a Canon, or Panasonic, or balackmagic…….pick any, and it is better than FX9 .

Ther is ONE thing though, I can say and that I found, cos I did lots of research on 500mII. The 28-135 lense for SONY, F.F is actually very good ! it costs 3000$ . I can not really find any affordable lense for either the 500 or the 300, thats sad :)

I got used to F.F camera with Zoom, thats the say I want to work. If you can give me one recomendation, I would be thankful :)

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020

On the C500 Mk2 test you count a 13th stop thats just sticking out of the noise floor in the shadows but you discount a 13th stop that looks pretty much identical on the FX9? In addition your FX9 waveform clearly shows additional stops, actually more than your waveform for the C500 MK2 does, in the noise floor but still clearly defined, where there are none on the C500 MK2. Why are these vague stops counted on some cameras and not on others? Also several people who know more about this stuff than I have commented that the first 2 highlight chips should be aligned in exposure for this test to be accurate.. can you elaborate on that? The test doesn’t seem to make sense nor does it concur with anyone else’s findings on the matter. In particular the result being worse than an FS7 is a clear red flag that something has gone wrong in the testing process as several others have done side by side tests and found the FX9 to over over a stop more range in the shadows and significantly lower noise.

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Matthew Dove

Also SLog 3 is meant to clip at about 94% I believe.

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

Ok fair enough. I’m not a technician, nor do I fully understand the process but can you at least answer me this which I don’t understand.

Why are your peaks not at 92% IRE when this is the clip point for the FX9? And why are the blacks at 10% when they should be about 3%?

I know those figures for the FX9 in Slog3 are correct because I have one and it’s easily testable.

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

I would suggest swapping them out now if they are completely inaccurate.

Duke
Duke
Guest
September 10th, 2020

Looks like Sony dropped the ball on this one. No wonder people moving back to Canon when there has been so little innovation since the fs7.

salty
salty
Guest
September 10th, 2020

You guys measured Sony FS7 @ 12.4
Now FX9 @ 11.5
Something must be wrong with one of the tests. Time to get both cameras up side by side and look at the waveform.
Are you sure these isn’t a video / full range mismatch in your color pipeline? I know this is a common mistake made with Sony footage as these cameras record a full range signal in s-log [0,1023] which may have caused your blacks to be crushed.

Lars Gafpa Gear
Lars Gafpa Gear
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  salty

That’s a lot of bla bla.. The fs7 is around 12 stops in s/n 2. This one a half stop less. But the linearity of the fs7 was worse. Basically only 8 stops in the middle had a okay color response. This is something important to consider. And yes the fx9 is known to be a mediocre cam with very bad rs low dr. Its because of the brand that’s en grained in so many broadcast companies etc amd the fact that they focus with their features on both broadcast and a bit documentary helps. But if we are honest.. So many cameras perform better, for instance the very underrated panasonic varicam which also can be used in many environments. Rating 13.2 stops.

salty
salty
Guest
September 11th, 2020

Great way to start a conversation with ‘that’s a lot of bla bla’.

salty
salty
Guest
September 11th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

Sounds good, can you elaborate on how the range of signal has no influence on the DR result?

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020

Suspicious of the DR measurements here. It doesn’t tally with my experience of the FX9 coming from an FS7.

It also doesn’t tally with the ACS Technical Committee evaluation of the FX9 where they state that it “has a stop to a stop and a half advantage over the FS7 in the shadows”.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/01/02/acs-technical-committee-evaluation-of-the-sony-fx9/

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Matthew Dove

And it looks a lot like there’s still headroom on the highlights..

per gunnar Merakerli
per gunnar Merakerli
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Matthew Dove

ther si no “headroom” in the higlights. All the other cameras tested starts at the same level. In this range its not perceptable for the eye. Y ou cann ont compare to Fs7. its a totlaay different camera, with much more noise in the shadows .

Lars Gafpa Gear
Lars Gafpa Gear
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

@gunther we executed internally the same ima test and it looks similar. Basically a 12 adc sensor can never deliver more than around 11.5 in s/n 2. Unless they use heavy nr. These are the facts. These are all imx 12 bit video mode adc sensors. Dome may look better due to heavy nr. Only varicam etc have 14 bit adc or alrxa which crossconverts two pixels simultaneously. Therefor i doubt ima test says a lot. I mean one can het a bit higher rating towards the maximum patch range by doing nr. But its ugly bit right now no mirror less cameras have 14 bit adc. Same goes for komodo. Maximum 11 stops. Still fun for a global shutter camera and ofc uses backed in highkight retention to get dr higher etc and some other tricks. I love the ima test of cined they demystify a bit all the lies. It shows that over the last 10 years no big inventions were made on a sensor level. Onoy invention is fake news

Last edited 17 days ago by Lars Gafpa Gear
Lars Gafpa Gear
Lars Gafpa Gear
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

Thanx gunther and sorry for all my typos. I was in a car on a bumpy road

James Zsigmond
Member
September 10th, 2020

The sony F65’s Q67 sensor also utilizes 14-bit ADC sensor for 16-bit linear output, however the DR really suffers under tungsten lighting, in internal tests conducted by Sony, the F65 was able to produce a stop and a quarter more DR under daylight balanced lighting.

Under tungsten at a s/n 2 the F65 renders 11.7 stops DR

Under Daylight at a S/N 2: 13

It would be interesting to know if the test for the FX9 was conducted under tungsten or daylight balanced lighting.

per gunnar Merakerli
per gunnar Merakerli
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  James Zsigmond

this is probably too techincal to me, but I guess you rpoint is that the lighting should meet the satndards of CRI velues. COlor rendering Index . All tungsten lights had 100 CRI, also maybe the colortemperature had got something to say, and maight affect the D . R ?

per gunnar Merakerli
per gunnar Merakerli
Member
September 10th, 2020

that makes me even more curious, of why SONY is accouncing false values of D. R. At lease they have to answare to me, coz I started a case against SONY today .)

Last edited 17 days ago by per gunnar Merakerli
Dennis Schmitz
Dennis Schmitz
Member
September 11th, 2020

Start a case against RED, Panasonic, Z-Cam, Canon, Blackmagic, Nikon, Kinefinity etc. also then.

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020

This is really interesting! But also would mean that the IMA test is a bit irrelevant.. in that if you are measuring DR against SNR then all current cameras in that class will basically perform almost identically as they are all limited by the 12 bit sensors? So that being the case it means that the only really useful way of camparing the usable DR between these cameras is more subjective, looking at the actual visible stops in the waveform and the subjective usability of the noisier ones, the nature of the noise etc. Interestingly if you look at it that way the FX9 actually thrashes the C500 Mk 2 according to CineD’s own tests!

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Matthew Dove

In terms of how many stops the FX9 can detect at all compared to the C500 Mk2 I mean.

per gunnar Merakerli
per gunnar Merakerli
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

I started a refund / compensatioin process to SONY, in Norway, today. The fact that they lie about performance is not aceptable. You should also add to the arcticle that shoots get ruined, and useless after stabilitsation in the Catalyst Brows. Me, among others bougt the camerea cos of D. R and Gyro, and :N.D filter. Its a will known issue, and lik emyself, I saw it, and lost time and money . SONY dont mention this anywhere ! so I sawsuit will probably be raised .

Last edited 17 days ago by per gunnar Merakerli
per gunnar Merakerli
per gunnar Merakerli
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Matthew Dove

well, the standard meeasurements is used. So why suspicious ?? You can read the result, can you ?? The poorest camera off all, even the samll DSLR from Panasonic is better, what embarrasing, lie from SONY !!!

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

But the same test gives the FS7 a higher score. That doesn’t make any sense if the ACS say in their testing the FX9 has a stop to a stop and a half advantage over it.

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

But regardless of methodology or the precise numbers found. If both yours and the ACSs tests are correct they should have the same basic conclusion. The FX9 is better or worse than the FS7. And they don’t agree?

Matthew Dove
Matthew Dove
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

I think they state in the video that everything was done internal.

Lars Gafpa Gear
Lars Gafpa Gear
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Matthew Dove

Well this test confirms our tests we did. Nothing wrong here, just a well executed ima test. Might be a bit better with the raw coming. But lets be honest. This camera has a 12 bit adc on the sensor 16 bit raw want magically chance these physics..

Last edited 17 days ago by Lars Gafpa Gear
Dennis Schmitz
Dennis Schmitz
Member
September 11th, 2020

I’m expecting it to be the same. The IMX410 used can’t do anymore than that with its 12 bit ADC.

Same should apply to the S1H in ProRes RAW.

Jack Jin
Jack Jin
Guest
September 10th, 2020

I mean one of the reason for the low numbers is definitely noise reduction, but how come the bmpcc4k with it’s mft sensor still manages beat out the fx9? The bmpcc4k doesn’t even do true internal noise reduction, and is a 4k 1:1 readout compared to the fx9’s fullframe 6k downsampled to 4k, so I think this should definitely alarm potential buyers of the fx9, doesn’t look too good.

Dennis Schmitz
Dennis Schmitz
Member
September 11th, 2020
Reply to  Gunther Machu

Well, the FX9 internal H264 compressed image looks more RAW than the Pocket 4K in Braw. Why? Quite a bit of noise reduction and also edge enhancement on the P4K

Last edited 16 days ago by Dennis Schmitz
Daniel Wye
Daniel Wye
Member
September 9th, 2020

What about the overexposed test? it looks like there’s still headroom and the highlights according to the chart. And from other test I’ve seen thats where the camera is the strongest, and pays to overexposed the image a touch.

per gunnar Merakerli
per gunnar Merakerli
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Daniel Wye

NO people, not ven this Alisteer Champan, say you should overexpose footage form SONY fx i, Its a crap camera, we gort the proof. Iand I am angry “! coz I bought it. SONY , I will make you regret this !!! scam !

Gergö Nyirö
Gergö Nyirö
Member
September 9th, 2020

this is surprising because the A7SIII has one stop more DR

Nino Leitner
Nino Leitner
Guest
September 9th, 2020
Reply to  Gergö Nyirö

We’ve yet to run lab tests on the production a7S III but yes, other tests suggest the DR results might be better. The reason for this is most likely severe noise reduction inside the camera, which earlier models of the a7s series were also known for. Hence the low light sensitivity.

Last edited 17 days ago by Nino Leitner
Dennis Schmitz
Dennis Schmitz
Member
September 9th, 2020
Reply to  Nino Leitner

Yep, absolutely right. And reason why the FX9 looks like twice as good as the A7sIII despite its lower measured dynamic range.

IMATEST doesn’t care about a one-dimensional, clinical video look with bad tonality and motion cadence as long as it has a clean noise floor. So take these results with a pinch of salt.

Same happened with the S1H which shows like 12.7 stops but honestly due to its heavy NR the image was actually garbage. Quite happy Panasonic fixed it with firmware 2.0 and NR set to -1.

Would love to see the results with the new firmware as well. ;)

Gediminas Vansevicius
Gediminas Vansevicius
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Nino Leitner

Please test a7siii raw output to ninja v. That one should show the truth overriding the NR garbage.

Dennis Schmitz
Dennis Schmitz
Member
September 11th, 2020
Reply to  Gergö Nyirö

And like 10x more noise reduction to achieve it – which results in an image looking like plastic with motion artifacts.

Both cameras only have a 12 bit ADC video mode and therefor can’t do anymore than 12 stops.

Lane McCall
Member
September 9th, 2020

Curious how the results are worse than the lab tests for the FS7? User experience and other testing report otherwise.

Dennis Schmitz
Dennis Schmitz
Member
September 9th, 2020
Reply to  Lane McCall

The FS7 had some heavy noise reduction going on which made the image look like plastic. The FX9 looks many times better than that but can also be forced to look like plastic by turning on in-camera NR. ;)

Lane McCall
Member
September 11th, 2020
Reply to  Dennis Schmitz

Yes… so these numbers truly fail to tell the real story of the quality of an image that is being produced by the cameras. This seems almost like the mexapixal race – where consumers think the higher numbers are better. Who cares about number of stops if the image is plastic crap?

I actually purchased the FX9 over the C500mk2 because the images feel better to me. The color, the motion – just everything. To each their own. I’m happy with my images.

Last edited 16 days ago by Lane McCall
Shawn Bannon
Shawn Bannon
Member
September 9th, 2020

I was so excited about this camera coming out and I have always loved my FS7 but a lot of the reasons stated in these tests are the reason I moved away from Sony for my full frame camera.

per gunnar Merakerli
per gunnar Merakerli
Member
September 10th, 2020
Reply to  Shawn Bannon

I regret bying it, I and I will ask SONY for a refund !! this is a misinformation from SONY, comming out with 15+ stops, ! I will send back the camera, and. What camera did you buy insted ? some advice .

Last edited 17 days ago by per gunnar Merakerli
Yuk Hong Law
Yuk Hong Law
Member
September 9th, 2020

I always have this confusion. How do you know you exactly push/pull one stop in post production? And when you adjust exposure by stops, do you just adjust gamma? or you need to adjust lift gamma and gain at the same time?

per gunnar Merakerli
per gunnar Merakerli
Member
September 9th, 2020
Reply to  Yuk Hong Law

I own the camera. I did some tweaking in D. R, for my film. I am sad and dissapointed hearing this :( Why the Utubers, and the selling-agants, like P. Bloom and other are lying about and boasting abouta camera that is simply : poor ! ?
Just note this also, everyone reading this . If you bougt the Fx9 coz of the gyro stabilizer ! like i Did, just know that. When you stabilize shoot in Catalyst Brows, your footage get ruined ! by banding and dots and spots. I alreade wrote yto SONY and told that that I want some compensation for that. I ruined shots in my movie !!!

Last edited 17 days ago by per gunnar Merakerli
Aleksander Haugdal
Aleksander Haugdal
Member
September 9th, 2020

Is that a worse result than fs7?

1
1
- 2
Filter:
all
Sort by:
latest

Take part in the CineD community experience