Worthy competitor for the EPIC??

[Rob Ruffo]

This is the way Sony has been operating for a decade -- crippling the technology of newer, more affordable cameras, in order to protect their high-end cameras. It's a disgraceful practice, IMO. I hope they will not continue with that type of business practice.

It's not disgraceful at all. What's disgraceful is taking $100 000 or more of someone's money and then making that investment worth zilch the next day by releasing something almost as good for almost nothing. Only Black Magic does that.

They are protecting their high end customers, not just themselves. There will be no more high end camera buyers if everything is cheap, and the high end cameras pay for a lot of R&D.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

There is limit to how much oversampling is beneficial. More pixels also mean smaller pixels, less DR, and higher noise per pixel.

Actually that only matters on very small sensor like those in cheap video cameras and cell phones. Cinema sized sensors don't lose much by shrinking the size of the pixels because the pixels are still gigantic compared to those on tiny sensors. Oversampling is more effective at increasing dynamic range and reducing noise because you can use more advanced algorithms and noise reduction in post.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

There is limit to how much oversampling is beneficial. More pixels also mean smaller pixels, less DR, and higher noise per pixel.

Your supposition might be true if all sensor photo sites were created equal. Different types of manufacture, shielding of low voltage signal prior to AD conversion, CFA transmissivity, etc all impact DR and noise. It could even be argued that smaller photo sites are capable of higher fill factor as they can be packed closer together due to smaller geometric null space.

IAC, I would expect a 1.5:1 downsample (like 6K to 4K) to look noticeably better than a 1.25:1 (5K to 4K) downsample. That said, I would also expect other sensor and phototsite metrics besides oversample ratio to make a more meaningful difference in IQ if the tech has been refined/improved significantly as well - such as MX vs Dragon.

Cheers - #19

 

[Bob Gundu]

SLog2 will be available on the new "f" camera.

http://cinescopophilia.com/s-log2-on-the-sony-thenewf-camera/

-Log2 will be available on that TheNewF camera from Sony coming on the 30th of October. There you go another piece of the puzzle scheduled ahead of the future, but really just now. First we tell you about a new XAVC codec from Sony coming to TheNewF and now some good gamma news. S-Log2 previously only available for the fully specked out flagship F65 cine camera from Sony will be on the F5 / F7 F whatever, or whatever plural. The S-Log2 Gamma Curve was designed specifically for the extended dynamic range to support full Sony F65 latitude at 1300%, and now you can experience S-Log2 on a brand new camera series coming October 30. But what does it do really you ask? Sit back and take in the goodness from Keith Roush from Roush Media as he grades Sony F65 camera S-Log2 footage in real time.



Read more: http://cinescopophilia.com/s-log2-on-the-sony-thenewf-camera/#ixzz2ASLKP3FZ

 

[Tom Lowe]

It's not disgraceful at all. What's disgraceful is taking $100 000 or more of someone's money and then making that investment worth zilch the next day by releasing something almost as good for almost nothing. Only Black Magic does that.

They are protecting their high end customers, not just themselves. There will be no more high end camera buyers if everything is cheap, and the high end cameras pay for a lot of R&D.

Cameras should be priced on what it costs to make a profit from them. Sony spent years charging $250,000 for 1080p cameras, then crippling all their affordable cameras in order to protect their overpriced cameras. It's an incredibly foolish business model, which is why Sony is near bankruptcy right now.

The goal of capitalism is: provide the best technological solutions at the cheapest price. That's how you win a free market.

 

[Rehan K]

Cameras should be priced on what it costs to make a profit from them. Sony spent years charging $250,000 for 1080p cameras, then crippling all their affordable cameras in order to protect their overpriced cameras. It's an incredibly foolish business model, which is why Sony is near bankruptcy right now..

Sony's money woes had nothing to do with their imaging department. They lost money in the past few years mainly on their TVs, play station and mobile phones. Their imaging department (camcorder/still camera ) was/is still making profit. It never lost any money.

Here is Sony's financial report from last quater

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/12q1_sony.pdf

as you can see imaging department is still making profit.

 

[M Most]

Cameras should be priced on what it costs to make a profit from them. Sony spent years charging $250,000 for 1080p cameras, then crippling all their affordable cameras in order to protect their overpriced cameras. It's an incredibly foolish business model, which is why Sony is near bankruptcy right now.

The goal of capitalism is: provide the best technological solutions at the cheapest price. That's how you win a free market.

I disagree. The goal of capitalism is to make money, the more the better. That's always been the case, and it still is. How you do that is up to you, and there are different ways to accomplish it. Selective marketing at a premium price is one way. Volume marketing at a lower price is another way. Coming up with a better mousetrap and dominating a market that you basically create is another.

"Capitalism" and "free market" are both descriptions of a consumer driven marketplace. They don't have only one approach, and they don't have any one way to success.

 

[M Most]

Sony's money woes had nothing to do with their imaging department. They lost money in the past few years mainly on their TVs, play station and mobile phones. Their imaging department (camcorder/still camera ) was/is still making profit. It never lost any money.

Here is Sony's financial report from last quater

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/12q1_sony.pdf

as you can see imaging department is still making profit.

Correct. Sony's problems have nothing to do with the camera and imaging devision, nor do they have anything to do with the entertainment division, which is also doing pretty well. They have to do with the rise of both Korea and China as consumer electronics manufacturing centers, particularly the rise of Korea in terms of LCD screen manufacturing. They also have to do with the earthquake a few years ago, and some other factors. But they have absolutely nothing to do with how they price digital cinema products.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Which is precisely one of the reasons for Dragon being a larger sensor size in physical dimensions to maintain a larger physical pixel size to allow for greater DR and cleaner low light performance. If Dragon was trying to shove 6K in where MX 4K is at the moment, I don't thing that would be a good plan in terms of pixel size/design.

That's actually not correct, Phil. Not trying pick on you but... First off, the pixels on Dragon are a bit smaller than on the Mysterium / X sensors. The sensor itself is a bit larger because there are more pixels. You can actually shoot 5K within the S35 window area on Dragon. M/ MX sensors have pixels of 5.4 microns in size. Pixels on Dragon are right at 5 Microns, I've heard they're like 4.98um to be more precise, but either way, we're talking about a decrease in pixel size by about 15% for Dragon.

It's also a misconception that larger pixels provide for better DR and low light performance. As Jim has said it in the past, it's the quality of the pixels that matter, not the size or quantity of them. If you want more DR and better signal to noise ratio, you have to build a better pixel... Making the pixels larger is one way of dealing with this, but it's not how most sensor developers are trying to handle such issues these days.

 

[Rehan K]

It's also a misconception that larger pixels provide for better DR and low light performance. As Jim has said it in the past, it's the quality of the pixels that matter, not the size or quantity of them. If you want more DR and better signal to noise ratio, you have to build a better pixel... Making the pixels larger is one way of dealing with this, but it's not how most sensor developers are trying to handle such issues these days.

If the sensor technology is the same, the larger pixel sensor will have lower noise and more DR. It's simple physics.

 

[Ruff]

It would be a fair guess that the new Sony F will have very good on-board audio. It will not have a fan that kicks in and out. It will have a TV friendly post workflow.

For those reasons alone they will sell a truckload.

I will buy one for Documentary, and simple Interviews etc.

I will keep my Red's for commercials.

But sony will do very well with this camera...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

This is the way Sony has been operating for a decade -- crippling the technology of newer, more affordable cameras,

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/history.html

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/sonyhistory-f.html

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/sonyhistory-g.html

in order to protect their high-end cameras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_segmentation

The goal of capitalism is: provide the best technological solutions at the cheapest price.

http://www.apple.com/

 

[Tom Lowe]

I disagree. The goal of capitalism is to make money, the more the better. That's always been the case, and it still is. How you do that is up to you, and there are different ways to accomplish it. Selective marketing at a premium price is one way. Volume marketing at a lower price is another way. Coming up with a better mousetrap and dominating a market that you basically create is another.

"Capitalism" and "free market" are both descriptions of a consumer driven marketplace. They don't have only one approach, and they don't have any one way to success.

When Sony crippled their prosumer cameras to protect their overpriced 1080p cameras, it was filmmakers on a low budget who paid the price. Many of us here were affected, whether people realized it or not. We were denied large-sensor prosumer cameras with interchangeable lenses.

I did not claim that the CineAlta division itself caused Sony's slide toward bankruptcy. But it is indicative of a poorly run corporation that does not understand how to make profits. Thus, their looming bankruptcy.

When Canon released the 5D2 with a large sensor and interchangeable lenses, they experienced an explosion in profits. This, however, came as no surprise to anyone who actually understood the camera market.

To me, crippling affordable cameras is a wrong-headed business practice that is anti-consumer. It is also a failing business strategy, in my humble opinion. Put out the best cameras you can, when they are ready, at the best price you can afford... that's the ticket to success... as Jim is so ably proving.

 

[Jay Birch]

It is very easy to champion RED and make out the others were/are overpricing and crippling.... But you have to remember that RED is a one off, funded by a billionaire.

Sony simply could not launch a product like RED-1M, with all the bugs and issues that it had. It was an experiment and the buyer was the Guinea pig. Sony cannot operate like that and therefore each camera cost a hell of alot more.

RED have done wonders for the industry, but to try and use their completely unique business model against the more conventional camera companies... that have shareholders and 1000s upon 1000s of jobs to protect.... It is just pointless.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

Sony simply could not launch a product like RED-1M, with all the bugs and issues that it had. It was an experiment and the buyer was the Guinea pig.

Well it's not like the F65 was super polished on release either...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Well it's not like the F65 was super polished on release either...

It's still pretty buggy. I just recently had the "privilege" of working with F65 footage on a project and they still have yet to address the streaking issues and other artifacting present. And that's just from an image perspective, I've heard the camera feels like a complete kludge to work with compared to an Epic or Alexa. I personally have not shot with the F65, so I guess that's just hearsay. The footage speaks volumes, though and I have yet to see any from that camera that impresses me on a technical or pixel level. I've seen beautifully shot images come from that camera, but I've seen some masterfully composed stuff via Instagram as well, that's not the point.

RED's business model is hardly unique. It's just atypical for the camera industry. And to say it's pointless against more conventional companies is short-sighted. RED continues to grow in popularity and to make in-roads into various avenues of production. Sony's business model is not going to hold out much longer, they will be forced to change because other competition, not just RED, is eating at them from all sides. Sony still runs their pro video division as if they're selling photocopiers -- another industry with antiquated business models on the verge of collapse, but that's another discussion.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Well it's not like the F65 was super polished on release either...

Lol...

 

[Terry VerHaar]

There are some pretty simplistic claims about capitalism here and we can all have our own definitions, but I would disagree that maximizing profit is the only consideration insofar as that could lead to any number of other unwanted consequences over the long run. The smart business owner might optimize profits (which doesn't necessarily mean keeping them at their highest level) but there are way to many other things to consider when keeping a business health, competitive pressures being just one obvious one.

 

[Rehan K]

I did not claim that the CineAlta division itself caused Sony's slide toward bankruptcy. But it is indicative of a poorly run corporation that does not understand how to make profits. Thus, their looming bankruptcy.
proving.

Sony is not bankrupt yet. Sony lost money in the last few years mainly on TVs, but they are still the largest and best sensor maker (a critical par of digital camera) -- with hundreds of unique patents and fabrication facilities worth billions of dollars. At the very worst, even if Sony drops TVs, gaming, and mobile phones completely (not going to happen), Red will still have to deal with Sony imaging (cameras, camcorders) that is still profitable. I am not sure why Red fans are so gleeful /obsessed about Sony finances. Red (along witrh Canon, Panasonic, etc) still will have Sony Imaging as competition, even if the rest of Sony is totally bankrupt.

You were posting the same thing about Sony's fiances when F65 was released last year ( is that a pet line?), but yet there comes theNewF tomorow. Didn't help, did it?

 

[Jay Birch]

I am not sure why Red fans are so gleeful /obsessed about Sony finances.

Considering how hard Sony are pushing 4K and that nearly every 4K projector is currently made by Sony... You do have to wonder.

Sony is to 4K projection what RED is to 4K capture. It is a symbiotic relationship and RED users should be a little less snide about Sony, just because they have a different way of doing business.