Jump to content

Sony Venice full frame cinema camera.


Brian Drysdale

Recommended Posts

low compression RAW may be very problematic if you are shooting lots of material per day and especially if shooting on remote locations or having lots of company moves per day. you may not have to worry about this if you're just the DP or Director but your poor DIT does... not a problem in high end productions but may be quite challenging in mid and low budget. or in every production which has lots of cameras and tight schedule.

 

anyway, why not adding an onboard 444 codec, preferably with both 10bit and 12bit options? maybe even something that tolerates underexposure much better than XAVC?

 

 

This is the problem for Sony really.. people don't understand the new X- OCN ST and LT formats..(extended original camera Negative) 16 bit 4-1 (30% less than the normal 3-1 Raw).. . these files are 50% smaller than Pro res 4444 XQ.. they are actually about the same file size as XAVC Class 480 (about 480 Mbps depending on frame rate).. X -OCN LT @ 23.98P is only 389 Mbps.. for 16 bit Raw !! .. I regularly shoot bigger files on 4K XAVC on docs and corps.. but yes you do need the R7 for that.. which when attached is like one camera .. there are no cables it bolts right on..

 

XAVC doesnt tolerate under exposure.?. in Slog.. its the same as Arri LogC.. bump your EI down or light it.. the codec isnt the problem.. if you dont mind me saying.. I think you should have a lot closer look at XAVC and X-OCN to get a better grasp of them..

There seems to be alot of in grained sort of anti Sony sentiment from those that know the least about the cameras and codecs.. knowledge is power !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with Robin here, look at the data rates and you'll be pleasantly surprised to learn 4444 is actually larger than Sony's 3:1 RAW, or you can have X-CON 30% or 60% smaller than Sony 3:1 RAW but still 16-bit linear.

 

60p max is only for this sensor block shipping in February. After, there will be HFR block and possible much more: monochrome, HDR, low-light, whatever the demand is... Sony can do it, the block is user swappable and can be done in the field, not a clean facility like RED.

 

Also about the extra licenses for FF $6K and Ana $4K USD - those are permanent license prices, temporary licenses will be much less let's assume. Camera is $45K for body, $11k for R7 and 1TB media, $5k for OLED VF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This camera offers everything -- everything. Expect 120 fps I grant you guys that.

This camera to me, is no different then the Canon C700. It's a camera that doesn't really have a home. Sure, DP's will wanna play with the new toy, but will it have a long lasting impact like the Arri 65 which seems to be on every major movie these days or the RED Dragon, which is used on pretty much all the shoots Alexa isn't used on. Yes, there are people who are swear by Sony, but they are far in between on "cinema" products. For televison, you can shoot with anything you want really. The XAVC-I workflow is NATIVE to Avid, no wonder why so many TV shows use Sony cameras, it's a no brainer.

 

XAVC is a perfectly fine codec. But sometimes you "need" even more quality. So they offer not one but 3 different forms of raw. And the beauty with raw is that you can turn it into any codec you want, so just convert in to whichever from of PRORES you want.

XAVC-I is a perfectly fine codec @ 400Mbps or greater. It works great in Avid, it's pretty native to most operating systems as well. However, it's only 10 bit 4:2:2 in the configuration included with this new $42,000 camera. Yes, you spend $42,000 dollars and you don't even get 12 bit 444. Forget raw, just give me a provision of XAVC-I that's 12 bit 444.

 

Ok... so they force you to buy an accessory to give you group of codecs that are proprietary and incompatible with the rest of the world. Sony's X-OCN format requires special software to decode, ya can't put it in Avid, you can't use it FCP or Premiere either, which by the way are all compatable with Red Code and Cinema DNG media. Sony wants to control your entire workflow from camra through distribution and what if you don't want to use their software?

 

The price it's dirt cheap. Just try to shoot vistavision and see what it cost you, not to mention the set up with ancient cameras, if you can even find one.

Umm, I'd rather shoot with the Alexa 65 then this new Sony camera. It's not only a "proven" camera, but it has a much larger imager and NATIVE 2.20:1 aspect ratio.

 

I don't get the negativity in today's market, there are more then good digital cameras in every price segment. Sure the Sony Venice is going to be too expensive for a lot of people, but then just buy a Sony A9 instead. It makes perfectly fine pictures and even shoots 120fps in 1080P.

Because companies like Blackmagic are killing it with features, size and workflow. Why can't can't Sony do the same thing for 10x the money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the C700. This is ridicules.

 

The Sony Venice is the first full-frame cinema camera (Don't say Red you can't really buy their version yet). When it comes to creative chooses, the e-mount means that you can put on virtually any lens ever created. You want to shot with the ARRI 65, that's perfectly fine but you can't buy it -- only rent. Also your fine with paying God knows what for an ARRI 65 rental, but not 7k on the raw recorder? I truly don't get the logic.

 

The Blackmagic argument is like saying Porsche shouldn't be allowed to exists because Ford makes decent enough cars. And yet you are perfectly fine with the ARRI 65, which in this analogy would be an Enzo Ferrari. Again I'm sorry but you don't make any sense.

Edited by Alex Lindblom
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-OCN is supported by Resolve I gather. The internal Venice codecs seem to be intended proxy editing, which would fir in with that workflow.

 

https://www.cinema5d.com/davinci-resolve-12-5-1-byebye-quciktime-hello-x-ocn/

 

Anyway, it's probably not a good idea to become totally reliant on Apple products. Although, possibly Sony might consider adding Pro res 4444 XQ as an option if enough people request it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-OCN is supported by Resolve I gather. The internal Venice codecs seem to be intended proxy editing, which would fir in with that workflow.

 

https://www.cinema5d.com/davinci-resolve-12-5-1-byebye-quciktime-hello-x-ocn/

 

Anyway, it's probably not a good idea to become totally reliant on Apple products. Although, possibly Sony might consider adding Pro res 4444 XQ as an option if enough people request it.

 

 

And Baselight.. and Sony Raw Viewer of course.. plus Resolve .. I don't really a problem working with X-OCN.. Resolve is pretty much the default those days.. no ..? .. enough with the creaking prores.. progress forwards .. model T ford wasn't a bad car .. but things moved forward.. keeping the car analogy ..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Sony Venice is the first full-frame cinema camera (Don't say Red you can't really buy their version yet).

That is all true, but why do I care? In fact, why does anyone care because truthfully, very few people will ever us it for 6k capture. It doesn't scale internally, so the only way to even use the full capabilities of the imager is to buy the external recorder and deal with their workflow.

 

Umm, no thanks.

 

When it comes to creative chooses, the e-mount means that you can put on virtually any lens ever created.

Any lens that covers full frame that is... which are far in between.

 

You want to shot with the ARRI 65, that's perfectly fine but you can't buy it -- only rent. Also your fine with paying God knows what for an ARRI 65 rental, but not 7k on the raw recorder? I truly don't get the logic.

You're telling me you would actually OWN a nearly $60,000 (with accessories) camera? The vast majority of people using professional cameras, rent them.

 

The Blackmagic argument is like saying Porsche shouldn't be allowed to exists because Ford makes decent enough cars. And yet you are perfectly fine with the ARRI 65, which in this analogy would be an Enzo Ferrari. Again I'm sorry but you don't make any sense.

The Alexa 65's imager is 20+ mm larger in both dimensions. The Venice's imager is 6mm larger in width and 4mm larger in height over the Red Dragon. I don't see the fascination of such a minuscule difference. Ohh and by the way vistavision's frame size is 37.7X25.17 compared to 36x24... when was the last time anyone shot 3:2 aspect ratio. The whole thing is just so silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony's M.O. is to unveil a camera and then 4 months later, offer up a cheaper version that's got 90% of the capabilities of it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a little brother version of this with a 6k sensor in something like an F5 or FS7 body on the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VENICE is equipped with a 36x24mm full-frame image sensor, designed specifically for the demands and performance of high end cinematography, and can capture images up to a maximum resolution of 6048 x 4032. By switching imager modes, VENICE can natively support Super35 24.9×18.7mm, 4096 x 3024 resolution (equivalent to 4-perforation motion picture film) and Super35 24.9×14.0mm 4096 x 2160 resolution (equivalent to 3-perforation motion picture film). In other words, VENICE’s new full-frame sensor can capture in almost any format, including full 18mm-height Super35 Anamorphic and spherical and full-frame 24mm-height Anamorphic and spherical. Almost any aspect ratio can be conjured up: 1.85:1, 2.39:1, 17:9, the list goes on in full-frame or Super35.

 

​Tyler surely somewhere in the above is a format you would be happy with Sir . :). there are plenty of cine lenses that cover FF..you can even change the sensor with a pocket knife in th back of a car.. wheres the love yo, all ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Tyler surely somewhere in the above is a format you would be happy with Sir .

Tyler is happy with his Blackmagic Pocket camera, which is apparently the standard by which all other cameras are to be judged.

 

"[if] ANY CAMERA and the workflow is worse then that of my $998 pocket camera and "free" DaVinci resolve software, I start to raise a red flag."

 

His emphasis, not mine.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Any lens that covers full frame that is... which are far in between.

Apart from gazillions of stills lenses adaptable vie E mount there are all these cine or cine-style lenses that cover full frame:

Cooke S7

Sigma Cine

Zeiss CP2/3

Zeiss Compact zooms

Schneider Xenon FF

Canon CN-E

Angenieux EZ zooms

Rokinon Xeen

Rokinon Cine

SLR Magic

Celere HS

Samyang Cine

Tokina Cinema

Tokina 16-28

Sony 28-135

Sigma 24-35

Lockcircle Prime

Bower Cine

and various "cine-modded" stills primes and zooms

 

 

The Alexa 65's imager is 20+ mm larger in both dimensions. The Venice's imager is 6mm larger in width and 4mm larger in height over the Red Dragon. I don't see the fascination of such a minuscule difference. Ohh and by the way vistavision's frame size is 37.7X25.17 compared to 36x24... when was the last time anyone shot 3:2 aspect ratio. The whole thing is just so silly.

No, the Alexa 65 sensor in Open Gate is roughly the same height as full frame, but much wider at 2.1:1, which is also not a commonly used aspect ratio. If you cropped full frame to 1.78 you'd end up with about 4mm less height than Alexa 65, which you just described as miniscule.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Tyler is happy with his Blackmagic Pocket camera, which is apparently the standard by which all other cameras are to be judged.

My point is if a little company in Australia can get so many things right, for far less money, why can't the big companies do the same thing?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took Blackmagic a while to get there with their cameras, currently there is a tendency to announce/launch cameras before the all the features are in place. I gather the Venice isn't available until Feb 2018, so there is still time for more firmware changes.

 

Although much smaller than Sony, with an estimated revenue of $190M according to one source, Blackmagic is not what you'd call little. For comparison, Arri, I gather, has a turnover of $375M.

Edited by Brian Drysdale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It took Blackmagic a while to get there with their cameras, currently there is a tendency to announce/launch cameras before the all the features are in place. I gather the Venice isn't available until Feb 2018, so there is still time for more firmware changes.

Yea, but from day one BM's intent was to make cameras that have an "open" codec/workflow that fits not only the cinematography aspect, but also post production, for a price point lower then pretty much everyone else on the market. This is a very different intent then Sony for instance, who is more interested in showing their prowess as a company.

 

Although much smaller than Sony, with an estimated revenue of $190M according to one source, Blackmagic is not what you'd call little. For comparison, Arri, I gather, has a turnover of $375M.

Blackmagic is a device manufacturer, they just happen to also make cameras. They're more similar to Sony then Arri or RED, who really don't make anything else but camera related products.

 

My point still stands... with or without them being a "small or big" company in YOUR eyes.

 

I'm only using them as an example because I have yet to use ANY cinema camera that's as easy to use and as well thought out. I'm not saying you can compare a $998 camera to a $45,000 camera, but companies like Sony and Panasonic could learn a lot from BM. Both Arri and RED do a great job in this area as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

No, the Alexa 65 sensor in Open Gate is roughly the same height as full frame, but much wider at 2.1:1, which is also not a commonly used aspect ratio. If you cropped full frame to 1.78 you'd end up with about 4mm less height than Alexa 65, which you just described as miniscule.

The Sony Venice has a native 3:2 aspect ratio. Thus, to get any "normal" ratio (1.75:1, 1.85:1, 2.40:1) you are always cropping the imager top and bottom.

 

So when you say people would rent the Alexa 65 and chop the sides off to get 1.75:1 aspect ratio, they're still dealing with A LOT MORE IMAGE SPACE and retaining field of view.

 

Wide imagers make SO MUCH MORE SENSE then square imagers because with a wide imager, the height always stays the same for different aspect ratio's. So the field of view isn't as disturbed as it is with square imagers that are cropped down top and bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only using them as an example because I have yet to use ANY cinema camera that's as easy to use and as well thought out. I'm not saying you can compare a $998 camera to a $45,000 camera, but companies like Sony and Panasonic could learn a lot from BM. Both Arri and RED do a great job in this area as well.

 

People select Sony cameras because they're reliable and can withstand a hard working life, I know of Sony cameras at the BBC which were nearly ten years old and being used most days of the week

 

You can also use a Sony camera without getting into the complexities of setting menus etc, some camera people never or rarely look at them. The Venice apparently has a much more simple menu system compared to the ENG cameras, apparently it's pretty much the same style as the Alexa..

 

If the Sony sensor works, it being more square hardly matters that much, you may even manage close to using full area if shooting for Imax at 1: 1.43.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I do think its a bit of a mistake to license the FF and anamorphic .. one of the camera,s main features is its the first high end camera with FF.. and this is pushed alot in marketing.. its sitting in the camera .. but you have to pay extra to use it..? probably better marketing just to whack on $4K to the price.. anyone buying is not really going to sniff too hard at an extra $4K.. or $6K.. basic phycology .. pay extra for whats already there.. or pay a bit extra in the initial price, because its such a great camera ..and your so lucky to be a buyer ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Sony Venice has a native 3:2 aspect ratio. Thus, to get any "normal" ratio (1.75:1, 1.85:1, 2.40:1) you are always cropping the imager top and bottom.

 

So when you say people would rent the Alexa 65 and chop the sides off to get 1.75:1 aspect ratio, they're still dealing with A LOT MORE IMAGE SPACE and retaining field of view.

 

Wide imagers make SO MUCH MORE SENSE then square imagers because with a wide imager, the height always stays the same for different aspect ratio's. So the field of view isn't as disturbed as it is with square imagers that are cropped down top and bottom.

 

"Format-agnostic", I think that's one of the coolest aspects of the Venice, and the right kind of approach for high-end cameras moving forwards.

 

Yes, if you're shooting a wide spherical aspect on the Venice, you'll have a notably smaller sensor size than a comparable spherical aspect on the Alexa65.

 

But that larger image circle makes the range of lenses available to shoot the full width of the Alexa65 massively more limited than what you can do on the Venice using its full sensor width.

However if you're shooting large-format anamorphic on the Venice, because of the height of the sensor you'll get basically an identical sensor size to shoot large-format anamorphic on the big Alexa. That's really frigging cool!

 

 

Personally I do think its a bit of a mistake to license the FF and anamorphic .. one of the camera,s main features is its the first high end camera with FF.. and this is pushed alot in marketing.. its sitting in the camera .. but you have to pay extra to use it..? probably better marketing just to whack on $4K to the price.. anyone buying is not really going to sniff too hard at an extra $4K.. or $6K.. basic phycology .. pay extra for whats already there.. or pay a bit extra in the initial price, because its such a great camera ..and your so lucky to be a buyer ..

I agree, strange choice, they should have just made it $5k dearer and included all the goodies. At this price point, for a sensor this big, no one would question it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Format-agnostic", I think that's one of the coolest aspects of the Venice

It's a good point you make. I just hope it plays that way in real life.

 

I personally prefer the Alexa 65 "premise" but in practice, it may not work the way it does on paper, thanks to the issues you brought up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Premium Member

Blackmagic's cameras are only slightly cheaper than the Sony FS series. I like the way they're built and the choice of codecs; it's cheaper to get to a full shoulder rig with Blackmagic, though the sensors are probably (slightly, possibly meaningless) better on Sony.

 

It's a crapshoot, frankly, but let's not assume BMD are particularly cheaper. I'd say they're fairly priced.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...