Sony Venice – Full Frame Digital Cinematography Camera
pro.sony
pro.sony
I suspect that this is the tradeoff for pixels of that size and speed on CMOS.
Probably. I find it interesting that people in the film industry prioritize everything having to do with light (bit depth, color gamut, resolution) over spatial/temporal characteristics. Not saying it's the wrong choice, it's just interesting.
The one tell I see with the rolling shutter is light flashes where only part of the frame catches the flash. The next frame is then usually flipped as to which part of the frame caught the flash.
Not all rolling shutters are equal and most modern cinema ones are fast enough for most use cases without artifacts.
If it was egregious, people would definitely choose less artifacts over light performance.
It's all compromises and we're just getting better at making those compromises smaller.
Second, there is no reason that every shot has to be done with the same camera. Back before digital cameras and fluid manipulation it might have been more difficult to match shots in a sequence, but even so vistavision cameras were still used for visual effects plates.
If there was a fast whip pan where the rolling shutter would have a large impact, it could be shot with a different camera.
Global shutter is more a feature for machine vision sensors only now, where artifacts are not tolerable because you are processing the image assuming absolute and precise temporal locality in each pixel's information and acceptable image quality for those products has flatlined the last few years on ~60% QE and around 15ke- FW.
You say that as if it costs too much. In fact, given what it does, and what analogous cinema cameras cost, this is a bargain.
A camera sensor doesn't care what shape the image is, as it only cares about if photons are hitting it or not. Yes, you can tell the camera you are shooting a certain aspect so that it doesn't energize parts of the sensor that's not needed. So some additional dev costs to add that feature.
What else am I missing?
I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of buyers would prefer more available features (and a longer hardware lifetime) and having to pay for them instead of fewer features for free.
Besides the lense is probably more expensive than this camera. It’s not really that expensive given the industry.
RAW
This ultimate 16-bit linear RAW format preserves all the
information captured in 4K, with 16 times more tonal value
than 12-bit RAW.
Remember it doesn't give a wider dynamic range, it just gives a greater number of graduations within that range. How the image is displayed also affects how it looks, but having a better source should give your less degradation during processing and display.
Its also useful in VFX for things like matchmoving, as you can crank up the exposure so the tracker can grab onto something (again assuming low noise.)
That's the theory, with RED it never delivered, being noisy and not very sensitive (see DoP/ set deisgner's mutterings in the hobbit.)
Its useful for "day for night" shots. Originally one would slap a blue filter on your lights and under expose the footage by x amount.
Assuming the sensor has a dynamic range wide enough, you can just alter the exposure in post, without clipping the blacks too much.
The D810 for example can slightly exceed 12 bits when used at very low ISOs, <200. If Sony has managed to make an extremely low noise sensor here then there can be some benefit.