When you have millions of pixels on a video sensor it isn’t surprising to find that every now and then one or two might go out of spec and show up in your footage as a white dot. These “hot” pixels are most commonly seen when using high ISO’s or the upper of the cameras two base ISO’s. Hot pixels are not uncommon and they are not something to worry about.
The Fix:
Thankfully the issue is easily resolved by going to the cameras main menu and – Setup Menu – Setup Option – Pixel Mapping. Then cap the lens or cap the camera body and run the pixel mapping. It only takes around 30 seconds and it should eliminate any white, black or coloured sensor pixel issues. The camera will ask you to do this periodically anyway and you should do it regularly, especially after flying anywhere with the camera.
Sensor pixels can be damaged by energetic particles that come from cosmic events. So a hot pixel can appear at any time and without warning. They are not something to worry about, it is normal to get some bad pixels from time to time over the life of a camera. When you travel by air there is less of the atmosphere to protect your camera from these particles, so there is a higher than normal likelihood of one going out of spec. Polar air routes are the worst as the earths magnetic field tends to funnel these particles towards the north and south poles. So, whenever you fly with your camera it is a good idea to run Pixel Mapping (or APR if you have an FX6, FX9 etc) before you start shooting.
Please watch the video to see my video review or read on:
A few weeks ago I borrowed an FX3 from Sony for some testing in order to better understand the performance of this budget Cinema Line camera. I used it over a long weekend to shoot some circus acts and to perform some basic tests. By the end of the weekend of testing I decided to get one for myself even though I already own an FX3 and FX6.
I shot various circus acts with the FX30.
So what made me buy the FX30?
For a start it’s cheap. At around $2000 for the body only you get a lot of camera for the money. If you want the same handle as the FX3 with XLR inputs, add another approx $500 to the base price. But as well as the low price I also I really like the fact that it is super 35 rather than full frame. The FX30’s 6K APSC sized sensor delivers really good oversampled 4K from a scan area very similar to super 35mm film. This means you can use it with almost any classic cinema lens, of which there are many to choose from. You can use it with zoom lenses designed for s35 (again which there are many to choose from) as well as lower cost APSC lenses. A combination that I am particularly fond of is the FX30 plus the Sony 18-105mm f4 G APSC power zoom. While this combination isn’t ever going to win an award for the ultimate in image quality it is very reasonable. It gives me great look images at a wide range of focal lengths in a surprisingly small package.
But just how good is the image quality?
Sony advertise the FX6 and FX3 as having 15+ stops of dynamic range, while only claiming 14+ stops for the FX30. So one of the first tests that I did was to compare the dynamic range of both the FX6 and FX30 using my home made dynamic range tester. While this device isn’t necessarily ultra accurate, it is consistent and it allows me to visually compare the DR of the two cameras. I also thought it would be interesting to include the FS7, another s35 camera in my tests.
Dynamic range test to compare the FX30 to the FX6
As you can see from the above image, the dynamic range of the FX30 is extremely close to that of the FX6, so close in fact that I was unable to measure a difference with my home made tester. There is a 15th stop buried deep in the noise of both cameras and at 800 ISO the noise is very similar from both camera, if anything, visually I prefer the look of the very fine noise from the FX30, probably a result of the 6K over sampling.
But what about compared to the FS7? In this image you can see how in the shadows the FS7 produces a lot of coloured chroma noise compared to the FX30. It is this chroma noise that makes it desirable to expose the FS7 a bit brighter than Sony’s base recommendation as it is quite distracting in lower exposures. So against the FS7, for me the FX30 is a clear winner in the dynamic range stakes.
Coloured noise in the shadows of the FS7 limit the useable shadow range compared to the FX30/FX3/FX6. In a video sequence the FS7’s noise is very obvious. Click on the image to enlarge it.
What about resolution?
OK, so the FX30 does not lack dynamic range, what about resolution, how does it compare with the FX6? To see this image larger please click on it. And be aware that scaling of the image that may be happening in your browser or computer and that scaling may add aliasing and moire to the images not in the original.
Comparing the resolution of the FX30 and the FX6. Click on the image to enlarge it.
What you can see from the above test is that aliasing starts to occur at a slightly lower resolution for the FX6 than the FX30. Aliasing happens when the resolution of the image falling on the sensor exceeds the resolving power of the sensor. This result isn’t really a surprise, the FX6 like the FX3 has a sensor that is a little over 4K pixels wide and it would appear that Sony tuned the optical filtering to squeeze as much resolution from this sensor as possible. Meanwhile the FX30 has a 6K pixel wide sensor, so it is easier to get close to 4K resolution without excessive aliasing.
We can also see a difference in the coloured moire of these two cameras.
The FX6 produces more moire and aliasing than the FX30, click on the image to enlarge.
And I also chose to test the FS7 to see how much moire the FS7 produced. The FS7 was the worst of the 3 cameras by some way with a fair amount of strong coloured moire.
The FS7 produces more moire and aliasing than both the FX30 and the FS7, click on the image to enlarge.
I think what we are seeing here is simply improvements in the design of the Optical Low Pass Filter (OLPF) combined with the oversampled 6K sensor of the FX30 delivering an improvement in both resolution and moire/aliasing performance. The FX30 is a camera that is 8 years younger than the FS7, so you would hope that it would be better.
So, in the resolution stakes, the FX30 wins against the FS7, FX6 and FX3.
What about low light performance?
The FX30 has a Dual Base ISO sensor with 2 base ISO’s when shooting S-Log3 of 800 and 2500 ISO. The performance at these 2 ISO is very similar. The dynamic range is broadly the same and the noise is similar. But I would not say the noise is the same, there is more noise at 2500 than there is at 800, but not significantly more.
On the other hand the FX6 has a dual sensitivity sensor and its two base ISO’s are 800 and 12,800. This is a huge difference. You would need to add 24dB of gain to get from 800 ISO to 12,800 ISO and while the 12,800 base is noticeably noisier than the 800 ISO base, it is still quite useable. There is a small reduction in dynamic range at 12,800, but it isn’t really significant.
If you need to shoot in very, very low light the FX6 and FX3 are the clear winners, they are more sensitive than the FX30. But the FX30 isn’t as far behind as you might think. The 6K to 4K oversampling means the noise grain is very fine, so even with a bit of extra gain added in post production to bring it up to the equivalent of 12,800 ISO it doesn’t look terrible. It’s clearly not as good as the FX6, but if you needed to shoot in very low light the FX30 isn’t going to be a complete disaster.
First the FX6:
FX6 shot at 12,800.
And then the FX30, shot using the exact same light levels and exposure using 2500 ISO and then graded to match the FX6 which was at 12,800 ISO.
FX30 shot at 2500 ISO then graded to match the FX6. Same light level and exposure as the FX6.
I recommend you watch the video review to see these frames larger. There is more noise in the final FX30 image, but it’s not as far from the FX6 as you might imagine. But, on the sensitivity stakes, the FX6/FX3 are without doubt the winners.
What about colour matching?
A couple of quick tests, done both with S-Cinetone and S-Log3 confirmed what I expected I would find. As the FX30 is a part of Sony’s Cinema Line it looks pretty much like every other Cinema Line camera. The colours are extremely close to the FX6. It’s not totally identical, There are some very, very small differences. You do need to match the white balance of both as if you dial the same preset into both the colour temperature of each will be a little off, but once you find the matching white balance the images each produces will be close enough that only close side by side, like for like examination will reveal the subtle differences that do exist. I certainly have no concerns over using both the Fx30 and FX6 on the same shoot.
What else do I need to know?
The FX30 does have more rolling shutter than the FX6, but it really isn’t terrible, it’s little different to the FS7. I suggest you watch the video and look at the circus footage that I shot with the FX30, rolling shutter didn’t cause me any issues.
The one thing that the FX30 does exhibit is a little bit of image smear. This occurs when you have a very bright highlight against a very dark background. What you get is a brightening of the background in line with the bright highlight. The FX6 isn’t totally smear free, but it’s very difficult to see the smear on the FX6, it’s not quite so hard to find it on the FX30. But for the vast majority of real world applications I doubt this will cause any major concerns, it certainly didn’t spoil any of my circus footage which often included very bright lights agains dark backgrounds.
FX30 CMOS smear (circled in yellow)
As you can see, even when looking for it, it isn’t always obvious.
In Conclusion.
Both practically and technically I really like the FX30. Mine will be used on my gimbal with the 18-105 zoom or handheld as a pocket sized camera (yeah, OK, a very big pocket). It has all the same codecs as the FX3 and it has breathing compensation, a fine step variable shutter (similar to ECS shutter) and you can use it as a very high quality webcam. It has the same CineEI modes as the FX3 plus an additional CineEI mode that allows you to add gain to the S-Log3 recordings.
Technically it performs really well. It has great DR and delivers a high resolution image with very well controlled aliasing and moire. Skin tones look great, full of subtle and fine textures. It’s plenty sensitive enough for most normal applications thanks to it’s two base ISO’s of 800 and 2500 (for S-Log3) and the colours extremely closely match those of the FX6, FX3 and FX9.
Sony released a minor update for the FX3 and FX30 cameras but almost immediately withdrew the firmware. If you have already downloaded the update package I recommend you do not install it. There may be a bug in the firmware. Sony are investigating to understand whether there is a bug or something else causing an issues that some users have reported. So for now, don’t do the FX30 version 1.01 or the FX3 version 2.01 update, wait until Sony have had a chance to look into the situation. It remains safe to continue to update version 1 FX3 cameras to Version 2.00, it is only FX3 version 2.01 and FX30 version 1.01 that is affected.
I’ve added a new LUT for S-Log3 and SGamut3.cine to my free LUT collection. The new LUT is called Elixir and is the first LUT from a collection of 3 new LUTs with similar contrast and brightness but quite different colours that I will be releasing between now and the end of the year. Elixir is designed for short film projects and drama to provide rich colours with pleasing skin tones. Blues are shifted slightly teal, but there is no distracting colour cast, just pleasing colours with mid to high contrast. The LUT can be used with any Sony camera that has S-Log3 and SGamut3.cine, so that includes the whole of the Cinema Line including the FX6, FX3 and FX30 as well as cameras like the FS5 and FS7. For more information and to download this or any of my free LUTs please go to the LUT page: https://www.xdcam-user.com/picture-settings-and-luts/alisters-free-luts/
Although I wouldn’t normally recommend removing the screws from Sony cameras there are times when this is something you need to do, for example to remove the microphone mount on an FX6.
Most of the small screws have a thread locking compound applied to the threads to prevent them from shaking or vibrating loose. This can make them hard to unscrew.
JIS NOT Phillips!!
The main issue is that most cross of the commonly found small and miniature head screw drivers are manufactured to the “Philips” standard. But the screws used on the Sony cameras are manufactured to the JIS standard. The differences between these two very similar looking standards means that you will not get a secure and tight fit between a Philips screw driver and a JIS screw head. The edges of a Philips screwdriver are at an angle that is too shallow to properly engage with the full depth of a JIS screw head. So when you try to undo a tight screw the head of the screw will deform or strip, often to the point where it can’t be undone.
Whenever working on Sony cameras you should use JIS standard screwdrivers and ensure the screwdriver is the correct size for the screws you are working with. The smaller screws used for thing like the microphone mount on the FX and Alpha series cameras are JIS size +0 or +00. A JIS size +0 seems to fit most but I would also get a +00.
Don’t try to use a miniature Philips screwdriver on a tight JIS screw. It might look like it fits, but only a very small part of the screwdriver head will be correctly engaged with the JIS screw and once the screw head is damaged you can’t undo the damage and it may become impossible to remove the screw without drilling it out.
If you search for “Vessel JIS” you should be able to find good quality small and miniature JIS screwdrivers on Amazon, ebay or from other suppliers.
A fundamental aspect of electronic cameras is that the bulk of the noise comes from the sensor. So the amount of noise in the final image is mostly a function of the amount of light you put on to the sensor v the noise the sensor produces (which is more or less constant). This is known as the signal to noise ratio, often abbreviated to SNR.
Whether you use S-Log3 or S-Cinetone, even though the base ISO number the camera displays changes the sensitivity of the camera is actually the same, after all we are not changing the sensor when we change modes. In fact if you set the camera to dB you will see that in custom mode the base for both S-Cinetone and S-log3 (and every other gamma curve) is always 0dB.
All we are changing when we switch between S-Cinetone and S-Log3 is the gamma curve – which is a form of gain curve. The base ISO number changes between S-Log3 and S-Cinetone because if you were using an external light meter this would be the number to put into the meter to get the “correct” exposure, but the actual sensitivity of the camera remains the same.
First let’s think about what is happening at the base ISO of each if we were to use an external light meter to set the exposure…..
If we shoot at S-Cinetone and use the 320 ISO value in the light meter the aperture will be a little over a stop more open than if you shoot with S-Log3 and use 800 ISO for the light meter. So when using S-Cinetone at the base ISO there is a little over twice as much light going on to the sensor compared to S-Log3 at the base ISO and as a result the S-Cinetone will be much less noisy than the S-Log3. Not because of a sensitivity or noise performance difference but simply because you are exposing the sensor more brightly.
And if we use the SAME ISO value for S-Cinetone and S-Log3?
So now think about what might happen if you were to put 400 ISO into your light meter and use the values for shutter and aperture the meter gives and shoot with either S-Cinetone or S-Log3 using the very same aperture and shutter settings so that the same amount of light is hitting the sensor for both. The result will be that the amount of noise in the resulting image will be broadly similar for both and the same would happen if you were to use, let’s say, 4000 ISO (assuming you switch to high base for both).
There will tend to be a bit more noise in the S-Log and CineEI at the default settings, because by default NR is turned off in CineEI. But with the same in camera NR settings, again both the S-Log3 and S-Cinetone will have very, very similar noise levels when the sensor receives the same amount of light.
What about when there isn’t enough light?
So – when you are struggling for light, both will perform similarly from a noise point of view. BUT where there may be a difference is that with S-Cinetone all your image processing is done before it is compressed by the codec and what you see in the viewfinder is what you get. With S-Log3 the “underexposed” image gets compressed and then you will need to process that in post and when you add your post corrections this will be to the recorded image + compression artefacts so there will always be a lot of uncertainty as to how the final image will come out.
Personally I tend to favour S-Cinetone for under exposed situations. Generally if it’s under exposed dynamic range isn’t going to be an issue. S-Cinetone also spreads what image information you do have over a greater range of code values than S-Log3 and this may also help a little. But there is no right or wrong way and any differences will be small.
Here’s a handy chart of the base ISO levels for Sony’s cinema line cameras including Venice, the FX9, FX6, FX3 and FX30 as well as the A7SIII and A7IV. The new Sony FR7 is the same as the FX6. I’ve include the base ISO’s for both S-Log3 and S-Cinetone. If you use other gammas the base levels may be different to the S-Cinetone base level, so these values should only be used for S-Cinetone and S-Log3. You can click on the image for a bigger version or left click on it to download it.
The base ISO levels for the FX9, FX6, FX3, FX30, and Venice Cameras.
As explained above there is a difference in the way the dual ISO functions work between the FX6/FX3/A7SIII and the other cameras. Venice, the FX9 and FX30 have sensors with two distinctly different sensitivities. These cameras offer near identical performance at either the low or high base ISO. Sony call these cameras “Dual Base ISO” as in most cases the two base ISO’s can be used in exactly the same way depending on which best suits the light level you are working at and a near identical image produced.
The other cameras (FX6, FX3, A7SIII) probably have a dual gain sensor plus additional processing to deliver their 2 distinctly different sensitivity ranges. The result is that there is a more visible increase in noise at the high range (compared to the Dual Base ISO cameras) plus a very slight reduction in dynamic range. However, the noise level in the high base setting is significantly lower than you would have by adding gain to get to the same level and the upper base sensitivities are very usable and allow for shooting at very low light levels.
The new Sony FX30 has been much leaked and much rumoured. I got to see one and briefly play with one at IBC and I actually think this is a rather exciting camera. From the outside it looks just like an FX3 and the overall specs and menu system is pretty much exactly the same. The body of the FX30 does use a bit more plastic than the FX3, but this does make it a bit lighter without it feeling flimsy.
The big difference is the sensor. The FX30 has an APSC sensor, so this means that for video it is the equivalent of a super 35mm sensor. Go back 5 years and Super 35 dominated the large sensor video camera market. But now Full Frame is the flavour of the day, so s35 seems a bit dated, but is it?
Super 35 was/is the most widely used frame size for film production. There is a vast range of lenses available for Super 35. If you want a parfocal zoom lens there are many more options for s35 than FF. s35 lenses tend to be smaller, lighter and more affordable that their direct full frame equivalents. There is a vast range of classic cinema glass out there.
One of the best things about Sony’s Venice and FX9 cameras is the ability to use either full frame or super 35 for 4K. So, you can pick and chose which to use depending on what you are shooting. For wildlife and natural history super 35 remains very popular. For news and documentary work the range of zoom lenses available for super 35mm means that many will chose s35 over full frame. And sometimes you just don’t want the extra shallow DoF that FF may mean (of course you can always stop down in FF).
An interesting proposition.
I think the FX30 is a very interesting proposition. For a start it’s a fair bit cheaper than an FX3 (half the price). In addition APSC lenses are cheaper than full frame lenses, so for a student or someone starting out it’s an interesting low cost option. It might also be an option for a crash camera or some other hazardous job where the camera may get damaged. APSC lenses are often smaller and lighter than full frame so this may allow you to get the camera into smaller spaces. If you have an FS5 or FS7 you will be able to use all of the same lenses.
Dual Base ISO and Speed Boosters.
Something I learnt about the FX30 is that the sensor it uses is a true dual base ISO sensor. As a result there is almost no difference in noise or dynamic range between its low base of 800 ISO and it’s higher 2500 ISO base (for S-Log3). I also feel that this is a more useful split between the two ISO’s. With the FX3 and FX6 the higher base sensitivity of 12,800 ISO is often a lot more than you really need and it is not a true dual base ISO sensor. Instead the FX3 and FX6 have two base sensitivity modes and this means the higher mode is noticeably more noisy and the dynamic range is very slightly reduced. This might be great for specialist low light work, but it’s not so useful for drama or short films. If you do need to work at very low light levels then you can add a speed booster to the FX30 and use full frame Canon or Nikon lenses. In fact, if you want the so called “full frame look” (something that doesn’t really exist and is a bit of an internet myth) then use a speed booster and full frame lenses.
26MP Sensor = Oversampled 4K.
If your sensor has 4096 x 2160 pixels, that’s only 8.8 megapixels. 26 megapixels on an APSC aspect ratio sensor, with 20MP used for video suggests that you’ll have around 6.2K x 3.6K of pixels when shooting video, so your 4K recordings will be nicely oversampled. Interestingly the raw output seems to be 4.7K x 2.6K, so I’m not sure quite what goes on when shooting raw (it appears to be oversampled or downconverted). Potentially the FX30 may deliver higher resolution images than possible from the 4.2K sensor in the FX3 and FX6 (remember a bayer sensor only resolves at around 70% of the pixel count). I need to test this! This oversampling also means that if you want to shoot anamorphic, even after you have made the necessary crops into the image, the resolution will exceed that of a classic open gate Arri camera, although the side crop will mean you will have a reduced field of view. For anamorphic the FX30 may be an interesting choice, don’t forget that most anamorphic lenses are made for 35mm movie film, not full frame. 1.2x anamorphic lenses on the FX30 will look great. Of the lower cost cameras I still feel that the FX9 is the best choice for Anamorphic.
The dynamic range is specified at around 14 stops, so perhaps a little lower than the FX3/FX6/FX9 etc. Perhaps given the smaller pixels this isn’t really much of a surprise. But again this needs to be tested and in most applications I doubt anyone will really notice.
Rolling Shutter?
Typically Sony’s APSC sensors have exhibited more rolling shutter than the full frame sensors in cameras like the FX3 and FX6. And this remains the case with the FX30. It does exhibit more rolling shutter than these two cameras. But it isn’t terrible, I’ve seen much worse. I didn’t get a chance to do any side by side tests so it’s is difficult to be precise, but I don’t thing the rolling shutter is any worse than an FS5 or FS7.
CineEI Mode.
With the same CineEI mode as the FX3 the FX30 will be a great camera for shooting Log. Like the FX3 it can shoot at up to 120fps in 4K. There isn’t much not to like about the FX30, especially for those on a tight budget or those that need a super 35 sensor.
Ultimate Webcam!
Another exciting feature is the ability to use the FX30 as a webcam. The FX30 supports the UVC and UVA standards allowing it to be plugged into a computer via USB to use it as a high quality web camera or streaming device. My brain is already thinking about things like using one to stream the Northern Lights from Norway next January.
Manage your privacy
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
The new Sony FX30 has been much leaked and much rumoured. I got to see one and briefly play with one at IBC and I actually think this is a rather exciting camera. From the outside it looks just like an FX3 and the overall specs and menu system is pretty much exactly the same. The body of the FX30 does use a bit more plastic than the FX3, but this does make it a bit lighter without it feeling flimsy.