So, this is my FX9 video, but it's going to be a little
different from my in-depth reviews because, with everything
on lock-down and no projects to field test this thing on,
I can only provide a limited perspective.
But what I can do is test the new features
that make the FX9 different
and discuss some usability aspects
that still need improvement.
Let's get undone!
[offbeat music]
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy ♪
What's happening, everybody? I'm Gerald Undone,
and I have an all-day battery but only an 8gb SD card.
So, the three things I was most excited about
on the Sony PXW-FX9 was the automatic variable ND,
the autofocus and the ability to process
gyroscopic data into a stabilised image.
And perhaps a little extra excitement for foreshadowed
raw capabilities with a future firmware update.
But let's start with the one that impressed me the most,
the automatic variable ND.
Sony got everything right with this feature,
and it's something that immediately spoils you
and makes you wish every camera had it.
Like other cameras with built-in ND, you can deploy it at
fixed-stop densities with two stops being the minimum,
but once it's deployed, you can also choose to smoothly
increase the density with a dial, allowing for much
finer adjustments, or, most impressively, you can
enable the auto function which will then make those adjustments
for you anywhere between two stops and seven stops.
And, if you don't want ND anymore, you can clear it,
which replaces the filter with a clear piece of glass over
the sensor to keep the stack depth the same
and prevent any possible back focus issues
that people have complained about on the FS5 and FS7.
I have a fun test here to show you where I had
Julie walk backwards, holding a colour checker
to see how well it maintained middle grey.
I'll put a waveform up on the screen as well so you can see
where the bars fall as we move through sun and shade.
I'm also using the two other functions I mentioned
in the shot, the face detection autofocus
and it's stabilised in post with the gyro data.
The autofocus worked great, but everything else was
on manual, so the ISO, f-stop and shutter angle
all remain fixed, only the ND was changing.
I think it did a fantastic job.
At the end of the sequence, you can see the temperature
change as the sun went away, and this aspect could be
remedied by enabling auto-white balance as well, but I left that
off to get a more accurate result for exposure consistency.
I also tested it going from extreme dark to light by rapidly
changing the output of my light from 1% to 50% and back again,
and the auto-ND was able to keep up surprisingly well.
Next up, let's talk autofocus, which is mostly fantastic
as well, but does have one issue that I want to point out.
Now, if you want an extremely thorough evaluation of the FX9's
autofocus performance, I would highly recommend you watch
the epic saga that is Philip Bloom's review on the FX9.
But for me, I'll keep it short and simple
and just say it worked really, really well.
It's a Sony, and it's bringing their reliable video AF
from their mirrorless camera line in this style of body.
I did a two-hour live stream in Face Priority mode,
and the focus didn't hesitate or do anything
unpredictable for a single frame.
And the other option, the Face Only mode,
is a great feature for preventing focus-hunting
when your subject leaves the frame and comes back frequently.
It just switches over to manual when it loses the face,
and starts tracking again when you return.
This has a lot of practical applications
and is extremely useful. And Sony has one of,
if not the only autofocus system on the market,
that you can truly rely on for critical work.
However, there is one issue with the face detection,
and that is it doesn't work if you overexpose.
This is more of an issue in the Cine EI mode
because of the way the processing chain works.
I'm shooting in S-Log3, which is extremely flat,
and any kind of gamma view assist or monitoring LUT
takes place after the autofocus analysis.
So, the AF only ever sees the flat image.
So, when you overexpose, the face detection just disappears.
It doesn't do this on the mirrorless lineup, and I'm not
talking about a crazy amount of overexposure here either.
Even one stopover and you lose face detection in many scenes.
Now, just to preempt the questions of why I would choose
to overexpose on this camera?
It's to get better noise performance.
Admittedly, this is Sony's cleanest camera to date
in this form factor, and the noise isn't all that bad
even if you expose to the recommended 41% middle grey.
But, overexposing by just one stop does still make
a considerable difference in the amount of noise you see
once you correct for that with curves in post.
And it's the way I like to shoot when there aren't as many
highlights to protect and one of the advantages of using a Log
profile, but you just can't do it if face detection autofocus
is important to you as well, which is kind of a bummer,
because that face detection will be one of the main reasons
for getting this camera
over some of the cheaper PXW alternatives.
Autofocus still works when overexposed, and it's still
very reliable. You just lose those extra options I mentioned
earlier that require detecting a face.
So, you're left with a more generalized, center-weighted,
distance-based autofocus, unless you have the camera
in Face Only mode, then not detecting a face
will effectively leave the camera in manual focus.
Now, in Custom mode, it's less of a problem.
Probably, again, due to the processing chain
and the increased contrast, but overexposure in custom mode
is less useful anyway, one, because the noise performance
in S-Cinetone is great to begin with, but also
because there's less dynamic range to overexpose with.
Now, I've heard that there's an autofocus firmware
update inbound, so maybe that will help address this,
but if not, this is something I'd like to see fixed.
And speaking of S-Cinetone, by the way, it's a great profile.
When I heard that it was designed to be more
pleasing and less accurate, I was expecting to see
a pretty wacky vectorscope, but I'm happy to report they've
struck a really nice balance with this one between pleasing
skin tones and decent dynamic range while keeping a very
respectable level of colour accuracy on the vectorscope.
I'd only use it when I need to have something delivery ready
right away, like in my live streaming scenario or if you're
extremely uncomfortable with grading Log, but regardless,
I'd say it ranks in my top three Rec.709 profiles on any system.
Now, before we move on to the things this camera
didn't do so well, let me just give a thumbs up
to the preamps because they're great.
Here's a sound sample comparison of the FX9
recording my Octava MK-012,
which is placed just out of frame
and connected over XLR using Phantom power.
I've got the gain dial set to about 8.5 on the FX9,
and then we can compare it to my regular setup
of running it instead to the Zoom F6.
[clean audio] Following his accidental exposure to
gamma rays, Banner is physically transformed into the Hulk
when subjected to emotional stress at or against his will,
often leading to destructive rampages and conflicts
that complicate Banner's civilian life.
[soft camera hum]
[sharper audio] Following his accidental exposure
to gamma rays, Banner is physically transformed into
the Hulk when subjected to emotional stress
at or against his will,
often leading to destructive rampages and conflicts
that complicate Banner's civilian life.
[soft camera hum]
Okay, so the third thing I mentioned I was excited
for was the ability to post-stabilize your footage.
Unfortunately, this was not a very rewarding experience.
First off, it takes way too long.
You have to run your shots through Sony's Catalyst Browse
software, and one at a time, you have to choose
between auto and manual. Auto seems to set the crop
to around 15% for the stabilization,
and manual lets you adjust the amount with a slider.
I found you need at least 5% in order to eliminate any instances
of the frame extremities creeping into your shot
in the form of black lines, but even 5% does make
a noticeable improvement over no stabilization,
but 15% is markedly better still.
You can have multiple exports cued in Catalyst Browse,
but they're done one at the time, and there's no way
I could find to batch process a bunch of clips.
The software doesn't seem to be optimized
to take advantage of a beefy computer.
I was only using 30% of my CPU and none of my GPU to stabilize,
and it took around a ten times multiple of your clip duration.
So, a 90 second clip took me 15 minutes to export.
Now, it does certainly look better,
but there's other considerations to be made.
First off, since it's stabilization done in post,
it doesn't remove the impact of an overzealous footstep.
For this follow shot, I specifically stomped around
like a bozo to create a case for needing stabilization,
and the problem is the damage is already done.
When the foot drops, the sensor gets dropped vertically,
and objects in the frame have a directional blur to them,
which, of course, isn't removed by Catalyst Browse.
So, what you're left with is a significantly more stable
but softer, blurrier shot that's now 15% cropped in
and subject to diminished quality and increased artifacts
due to re-encoding. Only now, the blur seems out of place
because you no longer see the frame move, so objects just
randomly blur as if the focus was hunting.
I didn't find it particularly pleasing.
To make matters worse, the Stabilize function built
into DaVinci Resolve was not only incomparably faster.
I think it took me six seconds vs. 15 minutes
in Catalyst Browse but it actually did a better job
without the need to round trip footage.
It also achieved those results with a lesser crop
and no diminished quality, and in fact,
the directional blur issue was mitigated a bit at well.
Now, I've seen some comparisons where the
Catalyst Browse version does perform favourably against
Premiere's Warp Stabilizer, but it's no match for Resolve.
Of course, the other question is how smooth is it, comparably?
Well, here it is against the Panasonic S1H's Dual I.S.,
using both a stabilised lens and body on the Panasonic,
featuring one of the best IBIS systems on the market.
I'd say the 5% is similar to what you'd get from
a quality IBIS, but the 15% is noticeably better.
However, the IBIS doesn't have that softness issue because
the sensor is actually being stabilized, so the footsteps
aren't impacting the sensor and the recordings as much vs.
being recorded and then smoothed out in post, but IBIS doesn't
have that floaty feeling because, with really good IBIS,
you generally have to fight against it a little bit
to make any camera movements, so there's pros and cons.
The only no-compromises approach is to use a camera with
a weaker IBIS, like the a7 III and throw it on a gimbal.
Then you've got the sensor stabilization to help remove any
bad footsteps and the gimbal to give you smooth flight
without too much resistance from the end body stabilization,
which is why I said have a little bit of a weaker one.
But, a stabilised lens can also help accomplish this too.
And then, you'll have a final image that's
much more pleasing than anything you can do on post.
Two more somewhat minor things that annoyed me while
using this camera: first, the white balance tool.
I'd really like to see
a resizable reticle for white balance capture.
The zone on the FX9 is quite large,
and it can overshoot by hundreds of kelvin if the white
balance card doesn't fully fit the target box.
And, unless you have a huge reach on your zoom lens,
this is going to pose a problem if you like to capture custom
white balances. I want to see more companies adding
the ability to adjust the size of this box, like we've seen
Fuji do recently. Secondly, this viewfinder loop needs
a recent revamp when it comes to these clamps.
This has been an ongoing problem on previous Sony cameras.
It just takes way too little force to completely
pop off the loop. Make this buckle better already.
I also have a complaint about the frame rate options
and the frame rate switching.
I know that some of this is being addressed in firmware,
but there's no 60p in full-frame 4K right now.
It's supposed to be coming soon, but this should have been
a launch item, and I'm hearing now that it's possible
that it'll be a 1.2x crop when it does come
with the firmware update, which I don't think is completely
acceptable in 2020 with a camera of this size and price.
Hopefully, that information is incorrect, and it's a proper
full frame readout in 60p, because it's already
a bit burdensome to change frame rates on this camera.
You have to go into a specific menu for it, and then the
camera needs to reboot after executing the change.
It would be even worse if you then had to reframe
or change lenses due to an added crop.
Blackmagic has kind of spoiled me here, how you can easily
adjust frame rates with a slider without any lag
or frame changes. I would have loved to see something even
remotely similar to that on the FX9.
Moving on, my bonus fourth thing that I was excited about
is something that I've quickly lost interest in due to it being
unwieldy and cost prohibitive, and that's the raw video output.
It's not out yet, so perhaps things could change.
But right now, it's suggested that you'll need this
XDCA Extension Unit, which is absurd in both size and price.
You guys are always making jokes about how I make things look
small in my hands. Well, this thing is as big as my head,
and it makes an already large camera like
the FX9 absurdly long, and it's $2,500.
Now, it does offer support for more connectivity
and wireless options, it takes V-mount batteries
and will eventually give raw video output, but at five times
the price of some competing battery adapter plates,
that's a steep price to pay for raw, but it gets worse
when you factor in that right now, the only devices listed
to support that raw output are Atomos' Neon lineup,
which start at $4,000 for their smallest,
17-inch offering, which means it wouldn't be
camera-mountable anyway unless they make a smaller Neon
or expand it to the existing lineup
of Ninjas and/or Shoguns. So, as it currently stands,
for most shooters, paying an extra $6,500 for raw,
out to a 17-inch monitor and making your ENG camera feel like
you've got an Alexa on your shoulder is not ideal.
And that's where the cons are gonna stop,
because, luckily, raw is quite unnecessary
to get a fantastic image out of this camera.
The 10-bit 4:2:2 S-Log3 on this camera is terrific,
and this is where it really differentiates
itself from Sony's mirrorless lineup. Just looking at a simple
blue sky is a bit of a tell-all.
On the FX9, I can shoot this bright sky at f/4,
and the variable ND will kick up to seven stops
with no vignetting and no colour shift.
The clouds are smooth shades of grey, and the sky has
no banding in it whatsoever, and the colour resolution
is tight, with a nice spread across the frame.
You might see banding on YouTube, but that's
a YouTube thing. This image is flawless on my screen.
However, if I take the same shot with the a7 III,
and use a variable ND to achieve the same exposure
as the f/4, we get this. Significant vignetting
and a noticeable colour shift, and I'm using a top of the line
variable ND here, which, compared to others,
looks fantastic but still not near as good
as the FX9's built-in VND.
To get similar results on the a7 III, I'd have to bust
out the matte box and use fixed plates.
But that still wouldn't fix the colour resolution
or bit depth problems. Look what happens to
the sky and clouds when we zoom in.
On the a7 III, there's blotches of purple
and green swirling together and significantly more banding.
The banding is a 10-bit vs. 8-bit problem,
and colours not meeting each other well is worsened
by the a7 III's 4:2:0 subsampling.
You can see this exaggerated if we crank the contrast way up.
On the a7 III, I was shooting S-Log2, by the way.
I could have used S-Log3 to match,
but that would have performed even worse.
Now, of course, this doesn't mean that the a7 III
is unusable. It's a fantastic camera, and I shoot tons
of video with it. It just doesn't really compare to
the FX9 for image quality of dynamic range,
but how important this is and how much of a dollar value
you'd assign to that is up to you.
But, I can say that if you're shooting at 24p and following
the exposure guidelines, so 41% middle grey,
and shooting Cine EI with S-Log3.
S-Gammut3.Cine, you can pop on a free LUT from Sony,
that thanks to the impressive dynamic range and colour
quality of this camera, will give you an image
that's dangerously close to the Sony Venice.
But, with reliable face detection autofocus
and a terrific automatic variable ND,
and for $11,000, that's a pretty impressive feat.
But that's gonna be it for me. I hope you found this video
entertaining or at least helpful. And if you did,
make sure you leave it the old thumbs up and consider
subscribing if you haven't already. But if you did not
find this video helpful or entertaining,
try setting the playback speed to 75%.
Alright... I'm done.