Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100

[Christopher Young]

"nibbled on by a lion or something..." LOL!

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydbey

[Terence Morris]

Has anyone cleverer than I been able to estimate the native ISO of the x70 - and how does this compare to an PMW-EX1 or equivalent?

[Paul Anderegg]

I tested my CX900 against my work JVC HM790, and found that 15db of Sony gain equalled 0db of JVC gain. 33db of Sony gain equalled 18db of JVC gain. The JVC is f10@2000, and is about the worst camera I have ever used in low light. The Sony is cleaner at 33db than the JVC is at 18db. I don't believe the db of the Sony, I use it as a reference to what percentage of the gain "range" I am at. :-)

The JVC can go even higher with LUX gain modes, but these are practically useless for anything other than absolute emergencies where movement is happening.

Paul

[Terence Morris]

Thanks for that, Paul.

I found this clip and thought it was informative. Comparing image brightness by eye seems to indicate the native ISO of the x70 is around 400 (to me anyway).

Sony pxw-x70 / canon 5d mark III iso test:

sony pxw-x70 & canon 5d mark III iso test - YouTube

[Mike Griffiths]

For anyone that bought Catalyst Browse, there is a 50% discount off Catalyst Prepare, makes it just about worth buying!
Link here
news@mail.sonycreativesoftware.com

[Richard D. George]

.. and if you did not buy Browse, you can still get Prepare for around $150 through B&H, versus around $200. This is what I did.

[Tim Akin]

Is there a paid version of CB? I downloaded and installed for free but after installation it said I needed openCL, so I haven't used it yet.

[David Johns]

Originally Posted by Christopher Young

I think I would be suspicious of the unit you have in hand.

Indeed it was, as suspected, a duff version, I think perhaps even a pre-release one that's done the rounds of various people before me.

I'm pleased to report that the replacement unit - so shiny it's clearly never been touched by human hands - is sounding much better. No mysterious beeps and no chronic self-noise emanating from channel 2!

Regards
David

[Mike Griffiths]

Originally Posted by Tim Akin

Is there a paid version of CB? I downloaded and installed for free but after installation it said I needed openCL, so I haven't used it yet.

There was (?is??), but I think you had to buy it before Prepare was introduced to be eligible for the discount

[Christopher Young]

I don't know if anyone is interested but I've found a full zoom through wide angle adapter that works beautifully with the X70. A little distortion on full wide but totally usable. It's an HD Fujinon .82 x adapter that was made for the 1/3" 16x zoom lens that came with some of the later JVC HD 1/3" cameras.

I've had this lying around for a couple of years or so and saw it on the shelf the other day and thought "I wonder, hmm!"

It actually has an 82mm thread diameter so way too big for the X70's 62mm filter thread. The other problem was that the 82mm thread on the Fuji adapter it too far forward on the adapter for a 62-82mm step up ring to be fitted. With a bit of measuring I calculated that if I used a filter ring only off an old 82mm filter and a 62-82mm step up ring I would be in business.

Sure enough. I unscrewed the retainer ring out of and old 82mm filter, removed the old chipped filter element and then just screwed this now empty 82mm filter ring, now a spacer, onto the back of the Fujinon wide adapter. Next I screwed a 62-82mm step up ring on the old 82mm filter ring ring /spacer and Voila! I now had a nice full zoom through adapter that had an effective width in FF terms of just under 24mm. It works a treat.

What I like about this unit is that it was designed to work with an 82mm front objective but on a 62mm lens mount you are using the juiciest central part of the adapter only and are well away from the edges. It's nice and sharp right across its field of view at all apertures on the X70.

The other nice aspect of this adapter is that unlike many other wide adapters it's not conical, it has parallel sides. Most wide adapters are conical in shape and don't allow a small camera to sit flat on a flat surface. With this unit there is about 1.5mm parallel clearance between the bottom of the adapter and a flat surface such as a table top. Just to ensure the rings don't unscrew and for added security I just put a wrap of electrical tape around the adapter and the two rings.

Occasionally these adapters turn up on eBay. The model number is a Fujinon WCV-82SC. One went for $10.00 last week! These cost in the high hundreds when they came out. Great value if you can score one.

If interested have a look at the attached pics.

[David Dixon]

I finally got my X70 on Monday but have been unable to test it much until the last two days.

One thing I haven't seen is a depth of field comparison of the 1" chip. I've been using the Canon XF100, a single 1/3" chip camera. But the Canon's iris is 1.8-2.8, the Sony is 2.8-4. Does the Canon's wider iris negate much of the advantage of the Sony's bigger chip when looking for blurrier bokeh?

Well, the Sony *is* better, but not by a huge margin. I'm sure there are more combinations that would show more or less difference. I could get closer to the subject and have the background farther away and get more of the blurred background effect. But, here's what I did. Both cameras were set with iris wide open. I decided to set both at 80% zoom. The teapot is 6 feet from the camera. The books are 10 feet from the camera. Don't judge the color, saturation, sharpness, etc. - but the Canon is the bottom, warm looking sample. The Sony is on top and was shot using a flat PP I'm experimenting with that was not graded. You need to click to see the image larger to really get the effect.

Notes:
1. On the Canon, the book titles "Parasite" and "Ozu" are still pretty readable. I don't think you could read those on the Sony if you didn't already know what they said.
2. Note how the scrollwork design on the brown chair at the left is almost gone in the Sony version.
3. The blue behind the books and chair is an exterior glass door with mini blinds 3-4 feet behind the books. On the Sony the slats have mostly disappeared.
4. Finally, this was shot in very low indoor lighting. Note the graininess/noise in the Canon - it was at 12 db Gain. The Sony's Gain is tighter and smoother - and it was at 15db. The Sony was shooting the max quality XAVC 1080p60, the Canon its best 4:2:2 codec @ 1080p30 (it doesn't do 60p@1080.

[David Dixon]

I've studied with interest all the PP settings posted by Paul Anderegg and Christopher Young. Don't laugh, but now that I have the camera I'm testing their settings - calling the settings Paul and Chris :-)

However, I really like to shoot flat, then do tweaking in post (nothing too fancy and I won't even call it "grading"). But I don't shoot on a deadline, enjoy the creative aspect of this, and have the time to mess with it.

Paul and Christopher - it sounds like you are always looking for a finished look in-camera, but I've been experimenting with flatter variations of your settings. I'm raising the Black Level even more, setting Black Gamma to its highest setting, dialing down Saturation, setting Knee even lower than 87.5 and -2, etc. I'm getting some looks I like, but am still testing.

I even tried your settings with Cinematone1 - that didn't go well. I realized that the Cine gammas *already* have some stretching built in and adding more led to some banding. And as Christopher posted earlier, I've found the Cine gammas to be noiser anyway.

Paul had asked for some feedback. I haven't tested your settings yet in sunlight but indoors with careful custom white balance I'm finding them just slightly magenta/blue. I'm experimenting with backing down the Color Phase a couple of notches. And, Christopher, in my testing yours is slightly yellow/green and I'm liking it with the Color Phase tweaked *up* a notch or two.

You probably haven't tested this at all, but do you have any comments on how to tweak your settings for a flatter look? Am I on the right track with that? Should I be making WB adjustments instead of Color Phase if I want to tweak the overall color?

Thanks for all that you've done already testing the camera!

[Paul Anderegg]

Chris, I use an EXII that looks almost identical to that, in fact, I believe the newer JVC version is based on the EXII from 16x9 Inc. On the X70, it's almost impossible to tell it's attached. On a JVC HM650, the sides and corners are blurry and have CA. On my HM790, the corners vignette. Seems these adapters are just right for these little cameras, and really don't feel too odd or heavy once attached. 16x9 Inc provided me a direct 72mm thread to replace the stock 82, and a 62mm step down, so i can use it on the HM650 and the X70.

David, thanks for playing with my settings. By custom white balancing, do you mean push to white? Everything I do is with the presets or with manual kelvin, because once you push to white, the camera changes things other than b-y kelvin temperature. Unless you are in a 3200k studio, or in sun light, push to white is not really a viable alternative IMO. Playing with the base phase adjustment can provide real usable correction, just crank that sucker up and down till the LCD or EVF looks better. Works for scene by scene, don't crank and leave it there.

That being said, I am working with a new PP set-up based on Cinematone 1. I am finding that this little camera is not "scope friendly", meaning the color correction settings are meant to be done by eyeball. I am also finding that there are large expanses of color revision numbers that will look identical on the scope, but will change the visual appearance of a color dramatically. Weirdly enough, you can go to a +4 then color changes at +5, then changes back to what it looked like at +4 at +6. So for any further testing, the DSC chart and vectorscope will be used to get the most offensive colors (reds are most important!) in the neighborhood, then further adjustments will be made by eye. Cinematone 1 is a bit noisy, but it gave me the most accurate mustard color yellows, instead of the almost rubber duck yellows the rest give, mostly with a severe hint of neon green!

Important note, color revision/correction settings for picture profiles are only good for the PP they were adjusted for. They are not interchangeable, and in fact, on a vectorscope, the base color matrix settings vary wildly in where they paint their colors. If you want to see the variance, find some yellows and just scroll through stock PP's 1-6, and see how the changes appear.

Paul

[Paul Anderegg]

David, have you played with the PP WB settings? They really need to be factored into your PP settings, they are there for a reason, and that reason is these cameras are all over the place color wise. You can store two WB of-sets, one called LB and one called R-B. You are able to toggle between them. They simply move the entire color palette (on the scope) in a singular direction, putting your white in the center.

Got magenta/blue? Try -B a couple and a -R. Alternately, on the LB, just decrease magenta, go to green. :)

Paul

[David Dixon]

Paul - yes, I've been using Push to White. So you're saying you just eyeball the white balance while manually changing the kelvin? OK, that may explain why I was getting some color shifts on both your settings and Chris's, but I'm glad to know that Color Phase is a good way to adjust.

But all this just makes me more certain I want to continue my shoot flat and adjust in post approach. I did try Cine1 and liked it, but realized your color settings wouldn't work for it, and I haven't had a chance to test in anything but low light, which is not my usual scenario. I did find Cine1 not as noisy as Cine2, and liked the smooth rolloff of highs and lows. I'll experiment some more and await what you find out.

Yes, I did realize that your extensive Color Revision adjustments would only apply if using the Still color mode (assuming that's what you meant).

I'll keep in mind the PP level WB as a way of further refining the looks.