CineD Hit Piece on Sony Provokes Community

CineD recently published an article in which the author disputes Sony’s claim that the FX9, FX6 and FX3 shoot 16-bit RAW video but brings no facts to the table, only unfounded speculation. The very first paragraph begins, “In fact, a true 16-Bit sensor readout only belongs to high-end cinema cameras. Yes, that’s one of the things you’re paying for!”

CineD starts off badly with a demonstrable falsehood. The RED KOMODO, an entry-level cinema camera that sells for just $6,000, shoots 16-bit REDCODE RAW. The author’s argument that only high-end cinema cameras shoot 16-bit RAW, therefore the FX9, FX6 and FX3 can’t possibly be 16-bit is a verifiable falsehood.

Furthermore, the author states: “In fact, the bit-depth of the RAW file is chosen based on the actual, measured dynamic range of the sensor. If a camera sensor can capture 13.2 stops of dynamic range, for example, it doesn’t make sense to use 16 bits: in this particular situation, 14 bits are more than enough!”

CineD claims Sony is lying about 16-bit.

Here, the author asserts that “It doesn’t make sense to use 16 bits”. Seriously? Again, this could equally apply to the RED KOMODO, which measures less than 13.2 stops dynamic range according to CineD’s own lab tests. But never does CineD question RED’s claim that their cameras record 16-bit RAW. According to the author’s own logic, since the RED KOMODO is affordable and has a respectable if not awe-inspiring dynamic range, it must not record 16-bit RAW. Why does CineD not question other manufacturer’s claims as well? It should be noted that even cameras that only shoot 8-bit can cram 12 or so stops of dynamic range into their files.

In response to a reader, the author writes that Sony “refused to provide this information by disclosing the bit-depth used by the Analog-to-Digital Converter when shooting RAW. If the ADC was actually 16-bit, it would have been remarkable for this price range and Sony would have been happy to announce such a high-end feature for this cameras [sic]. Don’t you think so?” First of all, the Sony FX9 costs twice as much as the RED KOMODO, so it is not so surprising to anyone with more than two brain cells. That Sony did not respond to CineD’s request or that the author cannot fathom how a feature formerly only found in high-end cameras could possibly be implemented in prosumer models is not proof of anything. For example, Sony wouldn’t confirm or deny whether the a7s III had dual base ISO even when filmmakers showed how the sensor behaved. And if CineD contacted all the major manufacturers in the world and began asking them for proprietary information, they wouldn’t provide them with it. Perhaps most significantly, in general, camera manufacturers do not boast about ADCs in their marketing.

Finally, the author confuses feelings and assumptions with facts. “Furthermore, a true 16-Bit sensor readout, paired with backside illumination technology, also meant that this new generation of Sony cameras would provide a huge dynamic range and image quality improvement over the old FS7 and FS5 models. Or at least, that’s what we were all expecting.”

Really? How can the author presume to know the dynamic range everyone was expecting to see out of the Sonys? However much we searched, we couldn’t find any evidence for the author’s bold claim anywhere on the Internet. If anything, reviewers were very impressed with the dynamic range of the Sony cameras. Did the author truly expect cameras costing just a few thousand dollars to surpass ARRI in dynamic range? If the author finds it “very hard to believe that these sensors have a 16-Bit readout”, we find it incredible that CineD would not only publish, but defend, this sort of rubbish.