Sony FX6 FX3 A7SIII - Dual Native/Base ISO - Explained and Noise Test

[@smryt9728]

I can’t begin to tell you how useful this will be for many people. Using CINE EI has really helped me keep a clean image because I can now confidently overexpose while monitoring everything clearly. My rule is if necessary bring Exposure Index down (to overexpose) but never bring it up (underexpose). Your tests clearly show why.

[@danielhallett5193]

I was not prepared for how dramatic the colour shift was in the skin tones!! Great video, concise, easy to follow, informative, love it!

[@scentmystyle]

Best breakdown on YT. Simple and straight to the point.

[@Goshjeyer]

Great video! I wish I had found this sooner, for a long time I assumed that because everyone referred to 640 and 12,800 as 'Native' on the a7S III, the quality was the same. Just recently I switched to shooting almost exclusively at ISO 640 when I can, and I'm able to get much higher quality images in terms of sharpness and color.

[@pablovillar686]

exactly the ISO test I was looking for. Thank you so much!

[@Adanedel666]

Great video, dude. Not many such videos about FX6

[@Song1022]

Amazing video!

[@EnginesInsider]

Hi and thankyou for your video, helpful for sure. A related FX3 question: I recently did a KZbin video chasing a train doing switching ... in varying lighting conditions. Since I've recently got this camera and am not a professional ... I decided to use only Flexible ISO mode, without an ND filter. Therefore, when conditions had more light than desired at 800 ISO ... I used lower ISO's, all the way down to 160. To explain further about the outdoor lighting ... there was dramatic differences in foreground and background, dark shadow foreground and bright sun lit background. So next test will be to stay at ISO 800 and use an ND filter, to adjust for brighter conditions. Back to question, in your opinion ... is there a noticeable difference with using lower ISO's in lighter conditions compared to compensating with a ND and staying at 800. note: I think there might be some image difference with a ND in front of the lens. Thanks

[@deadendboredom]

Yes, it does make a difference whether you use an ND filter or reduce the ISO, and both have distinct effects. I should note that the following primarily applies when shooting in SLog. You can roughly visualize it like this: when recording at ISO 800, you have approximately the same amount of information (slightly more in the highlights) in bright areas as in darker areas. If you record at a lower ISO, you lose information in bright areas earlier, but gain details in darker areas (less noise). Adjusting the ISO essentially shifts whether you capture more information in brighter or darker areas, always in relation to what is correctly exposed at that ISO. With an ND filter, this is not the case; you alter the entire exposure. In other words, when exposing for lower ISO, highlights clip earlier, but you have more information in the shadows, and it's the opposite for higher ISO. If you're shooting in a different color profile that can't capture the full dynamic range of the sensor, it adds another layer of complexity. This is often overlooked but crucial, and it's a complex topic with usually no simple answer applicable in all situations.

[@deadendboredom]

I just watched a few of your videos, and especially when the frame shows the sky, the exposure looks quite good. It's a matter of personal taste, and there's no right or wrong, but personally, I prefer recording in a way that retains details in all highlights without blowing them out. If that means having very dark areas under the train where it's essentially black because it's genuinely dark there, I'm okay with it. Unless the goal is to show technical details, I find it more „cinematic“ that way.

[@EnginesInsider]

@@deadendboredom thanks for taking time to reply. I like the way you explain how to roughly visualize it, thanks. Appreciate your other info too, it's helpful.

[@EnginesInsider]

@@deadendboredom Thanks for taking time to watch and give advice. Was a bit of a juggling act to balance between a blown out sky and too dark of shadows for primary subject ... for most recent train video. Goods points you make about retaining sky highlights, and keeping darker shadows for more cinematic and perhaps more realistic look.

[@philpritchard8772]

amazing, well done and thanks

[@rikmills]

This was very useful, thank you. 👍

[@magpiemike100]

Thank you! Great help. I will predominately be shooting Cinetone on my Fx6. My question is what ISO values do you have assigned to your db switch? As of now in S -Cinetone I have Base ISO LOW switch set at L: 320, M:640, H:1250. In Base ISO HIGH L:5000, M:10,000, and H:20,000. For Slog; Base ISO LOW L:800, M:1600, H:3200. In Base ISO HIGH L:12,800. M:25,600. and H:51,200. I know you primarily shoot Slog, but I would be interested in how you would set your db switch. Thank you again.

[@deadendboredom]

I'm afraid I can't provide you with a satisfactory answer to that. Personally, I see no reason to capture anything other than Log. To put it bluntly, it essentially gives me the choice of how I want to adjust my exposure afterward. If, for any reason, you need a finished image straight from the camera, why not conduct your own test with different settings and see at what point the noise is acceptable to you, etc. In the end, all the settings you assign to customizable buttons (just like the dB switches) are tailored to your workflow. If you find that you frequently use 320, 640, and 1250 at the base ISO, it's convenient to have these on the quick access panel.

[@magpiemike100]

Thanks. That’s a choice for my corporate clients for the Big Three in Detroit. Most of the footage is handed off immediately after gathered. Sometimes they option for grading, especially if new vehicles and new colors are represented. I get that you only shoot in log-for me it’s of my hands.

[@bluenightsky]

​@@deadendboredomcinetone would be for a quick turnaround where client does not want or know how to grade. There is a lot of time needed to render that often some clients won't notice the difference between slog3 and cinetone.

[@deadendboredom]

I'm familiar with the difference. I'm probably too accustomed to the color-managed workflow, where I experience only benefits with SLog and no drawbacks or increased render times, etc. On request, I provide clients with a suitable LUT if they don't understand SLog.

[@Diminish12]

A test that no one has done is Dynamic range vs ISO. SONY shows you on there website but only up to 3200iso. Not 12800iso. By looking at the chart you would notice the lower the ISO the less highlight range. For example iso200 captures less Highlights and more shadows then iso800 which captures more highlights and less shadows. So technically the higher ISO doesnt mean better in low light for capturing shadows. Also someone else had compared iso 12800 to others. And 12800 noise level had the same number as 3200iso. I was thinking of testing iso 1600 on sunny days with an ND filter by sony chart it captures more highlights, and the noise is still low enough.

[@deadendboredom]

That's actually a topic that I originally wanted to cover in this video. During the recordings, it turned out to be quite challenging to create a test setup that is controllable and meaningful over a wide range of brightness levels. What would be your suggestion for a meaningful Test setup? And what would also interest me on a philosophical level is: in which situations do you think it's practically relevant? I'm a big fan of exploring things thoroughly and understanding all aspects, but especially regarding the dynamic range, I'm somewhat skeptical about the advantages of deviating from the two base ISO values. So far, I haven't encountered a situation where I needed significantly more stops in the highlights and could simultaneously sacrifice details in the shadows. It might be a personal preference, but in my workflow, I've found that if an exposure isn't well-balanced in terms of light and shadows, it's a problem that needs to be addressed by adjusting the lighting Setup.

[@coolpras26]

So, what are the 2 base ISOs for the FX3 for different modes? As in, S-Log, S-Log2, S-Log3 and S-Cinetone?

[@deadendboredom]

S-Log3 = 800 / 12.800 S-Cinetone = 100 / 2000 S-Log and S-Log2 do not exist in the cam

[@CTcoreytrevor]

I have been looking for some of these answers everywhere and you addressed them, so thank you! Just to clarify....(I am new to filmmaking) does it introduce MORE noise if you take a video clip that is kinda dark and boost the exposure in premiere pro lumetri color? Like does this create more noise in the image than just increasing ISO during the shoot to get the room perfect?

[@deadendboredom]

As you can see in the example with the underexposed shot 5:01, the subsequent brightening goes hand in hand with noise. A little bit is always possible, if necessary, but it is better to increase the ISO in the camera so that the exposure is correct. But even that I would only do if all other possibilities to change the exposure have been exhausted. I would see if it is possible to open the aperture or brighten the shot with reflector or artificial light - because if that is possible, we can avoid increasing the ISO and don’t have to worry about the additional noise.

[@fwm-Alexanderforde]

What do you recommend for the internal noise reduction setting on the fx6 to match the image of the fx3 tho? The fx3 has built in noise reduction that can’t be changed, the fx6 allows you to turn it off completely or put it on a low, medium or high setting. I want to kno which setting of internal noise reduction on the fx6 will match the internal noise reduction of the fx3…

[@deadendboredom]

I haven't noticed a significant difference in image noise while filming with the FX6 with noise reduction disabled. However, I always shoot at the base ISO and with sufficient lighting. I've never really paid attention to it, and it hasn't stood out to me without actively looking for differences. If you believe that the difference in noise could be relevant for your needs, you might want to conduct a test yourself.

[@Scriptshepherd]

Isn't the first base ISO 640 for the A7siii in S-LOG 3?

[@deadendboredom]

Yes, fortunately, the difference between the A7siii with the 640 and the FX3/6 iso 800 isn't really decisive and doesn’t really change the results.

[@dejayeazy2770]

Iso 800 and 3200 work on me on my sony fx3

[@jimr879]

Hello, I have a doubt as i own FX6 and Sony A7s III but i was thinking to sell one, the question im asking is if its really worth it to keep the fx6 as I thought before the all intra option made the fx6 much better quality than the a7s iii

[@deadendboredom]

It depends on what you usually shoot with it. In terms of codec, the cameras are quite similar. I personally explicitly have the FX6 and FX3, because of the respective strengths and weaknesses. I love the ND in the FX6, that it has shutterangle, the output options with HDMI and SDI and their better configurability and that I don’t need CFexpress Type A cards to record high frame rates. With the FX3 I love the small FormFactor for gimbal work and if a shoot needs to be more discreet. For many, IBIS is also an argument for the FX3 (or A7SIII), but I personally rarely use it, because the movements with IBIS look a bit „uncinematic“. White balance is a little better, the file naming is possible more precisely and in contrast to the FX6 there is autofocus at 120 fps. The great advantage of having both of course is, that they are visually very similar and complement each other perfectly as an A and B cam. All in all, both have advantages and disadvantages and you have to analyze accordingly what you need and what you don’t. For example, I no longer want to shoot without the grandiose variable ND.

[@jimr879]

@@deadendboredom thanks for taking your time to answer, your channel is great hope i gets more subs with time, i think you should focus on the thumbnails to make more people click on the video though but great channel

[@deadendboredom]

@@jimr879 Thank you! You’re right: I would probably get more clicks if I had „better“ thumbnails. But It is important to me that it is not clickbait with promises that are not fulfilled and at the same time I am aware that this would help. What would you suggest?

[@deckard1985]

@@deadendboredom You are making a very interesting observation with "IBIS look a bit uncinematic“. It's the first time I am reading this and I never thought about this before. For now, I have only shot with cameras without ibis and I was thinking about buying one that has one to help me in handheld shoots. I have since long time this fantasy of shooting a full feature with a very small and discrete camera. The goal is to be unnoticeable in the streets, to look like a tourist but to still be able to record a professional image. The camera right now that is the closest to this dream is in my opinion the sony zv-e1. Very discreet, It has the same sensor than the FX3 (fast rolling shutter which is very important for me), great autofocus, good dynamic range and good IBIS. The only think that was bothering me are the codecs, I am not big fan of XAVC, I would prefer braw or prores raw to have more flexibility in post. But now, I have even more doubts, it's true that IBIS create a weird uncinematic look, same reason for which I don't like gimbals. I guess that there is no perfect solution, you have to make many compromises.

[@BONLEV]

I have the fx6. Shoot also run and gun. S-cinetone profile. In the menu for low base i set the AGC limit to iso 5000 for example. I have a custom button for high base but when switching to that it goes up to 80 000 iso for example. When i go to menu and agc limit for high base and change to iso 12800 for example. I start again in low base but now the agc limit to iso5000 is gone? Can't you set agc limits on low and high base?

[@deadendboredom]

At first glance, I also didn't find that you can enable different autogain limitations for both base ISOs. However, I may not be the ideal person to ask, as I never work with automatic gain and also not in S-Cinetone.

[@cyvideoprods]

Yes. You can set both Lo and Hi Base to reflect the same gain increases when using the AGC. What one has to understand is the basic differences between ISO and dB. ISO made sense in the film world, as it was an indication of the film stock's sensitivity. But as an old film shooter using ISO on electronic sensors makes no sense to me. As It tells me nothing about what is going on noise wise on the sensor. Getting back to your FX6 Lo / Hi Base settings dilemma. Forget using ISO. Set your camera as it is an electronic camera to the much more meaningful "dB" gain setting. Now if you set your camera base dB settings to let's say 0, 6 and 12 in Lo Base these settings will carry over to your Hi Base. Where you will still see 0, 6 and 12 dB. These are the Base dB settings as outlined in your manual on page #112, of the latest v5.0 manual. Just as an illustration, you can now for example set your AGC to let's say 15 dB. You can now jump between Lo and Hi Base settings and apply exactly the same amount of gain to the sensor. Obviously, starting from the higher gain setting that is used by the sensor when it is in its high base dB mode. Importantly your AGC limit is now the same between both Lo and Hi Base. In this example 15dB. For a much better explanation than I'm giving here is to watch Alister Chapman's video covering the subject. You can find that here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5SahmBnptFriNk

[@JordiVandenBroeck]

How would you achieve this with the FX6 when shooting in CineEI mode? I am new to the FX6 and I’m wondering what I should do when 800 EI is underexposed and I have no access to lights during a wedding for example. Do you recommend jumping to second base iso and 3200 or 6400 ei and using the ND to adjust for correct exposure or…?

[@deadendboredom]

Even if there's a bit more noise, for the sake of simplicity and to be able to react to changes in light spontaneously, I might consider switching to the second ISO and using an ND filter. But to be sure, I'd recommend you conduct a small test yourself and see if 12800 ISO produces too much noise for you and if the dynamic range meets your requirements. Do you already use lenses with aperture 1.4 for example? I’m sorry if I don’t have a more satisfactory answer.

[@DarrenMcPhee]

Which camera did you use for the test footage? A7S3/FX3 or FX6? Thanks!

[@deadendboredom]

Both FX3 and FX6 - So far I have not seen a big difference between the cameras with the same sensor (just like the A7S3)

[@DarrenMcPhee]

@@deadendboredom Knowing all three cameras have the same sensor, I was curious to know if the processing had much of an impact on the final image. Good to know. Thanks for the test!

[@deadendboredom]

I don’t own the A7s3, but after tests with the other two, I assume that it also behaves similarly. There is actually a small difference when it comes to noise reduction, but these are rather small things and don’t really change the overall test result

[@mathew896]

Is this only in LOG? What about no picture profile?

[@deadendboredom]

Good thing you're asking - since I primarily shoot in log, I didn't take the other color profiles into account. I just conducted the test and can say that the two ISO settings are similar in terms of noise performance / Shiftpoint. However, the base ISO values differ: 320 and 5000 for the FX6. For example, with the FX6, I would roughly switch between 1600 and 3200 to the second ISO setting of 5000. Interestingly, the FX3/a7siii officially has base values of 100 and 2000, but you can't manually switch between them unless you're in log mode. In my test, I didn't notice any significant difference between 1600 and 2000. The noise simply gets worse consistently with higher ISO. It's possible that I may have overlooked something as well. In which situation would you not want to shoot in log mode?

[@zakmediaproductions9473]

I always shoot indoors 12800 with an ND, but recently I did an indoor shoot in SLOG3 without doing the 12800/ND and I adjusted my Iso between 640 and 3200, and I was finding a weird amount of noise at 1600, where my image was exposed properly. Is something wrong with my camera, or should I just attempt to stick to 12800 with the ND?

[@deadendboredom]

Your camera should be fine. If you're getting better results with ISO 12800 + ND in your specific situations, then there's no reason not to continue working that way. Whether there's an optimal setting depends on your shooting style and, particularly, whether you have control over the lighting on set or not. If you do have control over the lighting, the results will be better if you don't increase the ISO but instead make the light brighter. I should make a video about this topic; it's best explained with images and examples.

[@iDealMedley]

A7SIII is not the same as FX3. A7siii has noise reduction built in. Fx3 doesnt

[@deadendboredom]

There are small differences, even the base ISO is slightly different - But on the whole, the cameras are very well comparable. By the way, you can’t completely deactivate the noise reduction in the FX3, that’s only possible in the FX6 (unless that comes via firmware update)

[@iDealMedley]

@@deadendboredom there's no noise reduction on fx3 sir. Apparently they remove it on firmware 3.0. Wish I can send u the test someone on reddit sent me the noise between a7siii and fx3

[@deadendboredom]

Good to know, then they have already implemented it.

[@nabsiteproductions9943]

Amazing work, thank you.