Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. Collapse Details
    FS5 RAW performance and Prores RAW
    #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    7
    Default
    Hello everybody, I would like to share with you my impressions about the RAW performance of the FS5, with particular reference to 12bit linear RAW and newly Prores Raw.

    I’ve spent long hours reading discussions and comments on dvxusers about all the problems of 12bit linear RAW from fs5 and I was little scared about purchasing the camera. I’ve read a lot of negative comments, sometimes I stumbled on statements like “raw from fs5 is useless” or “inadequate for low key scene” or “plenty of artifacts in shadows and deep blacks” etc...

    Based on what I’ve read on these discussions I should never have purchased the FS5. Honestly, there’s some misleading informations and sloppy statements concerning the raw output of FS5 and I believe there’s a need for clarity for everyone is going to buy or rent the fs5 with RAW option.

    The 12bit RAW of FS5 is amazing, yes, amazing my friends! There’s nothing wrong with 12 bit linear raw, it is exactly what you expect from any slightly compressed 12bit raw of any digital SLR or mirrorless around there. You should try to compare a .dng from fs5 to a 14bit uncompressed .arw file from a7sII on the same scene and you will see what fs5 is capable of. Latitude is extreme, colours are deep and rich, there’re lot of fine details in the shadows and honestly I have no complaints about noise. Once and for all, there’s nothing wrong with noise in the shadows of the FS5 raw output. At iso2000 noise is there, yes, exactly where it should be considering that no noise reduction is being applied by the camera. Noise perception really depends on workflow and postproduction techniques you’re capable of, and you should count yourself lucky to be in full control of noise in post instead during images acquisition. Computing power and options at your disposal during postproduction cannot be compared to any real-time noise reduction during acquisition (a process that occurs with in-camera log encoding for example). Also consider that, until now, the power to choose the right level of noise based on what you think is noise or film-like grain was only achievable with very very expensive workflow like arri raw or redraw.

    Now you can do that in a very efficient way and with very inexpensive tools and user friendly workflow available to anyone, like Prores Raw (cDNG is not very user friendly, actually). After what I consider the most exciting announcement of the last years, namely Prores Raw, I believe indie filmmakers have finally a way for crossing the bridge between the "indie land", where the choice of camera is determined by budget, and "cinema production land" where cameras and gears aren’t a budget issue. I believe we’re at the point where ideas and content really make the difference, and no longer the budget for cameras and gears. I’m using the fs5 with Prores Raw right now, and it’s fantastic. We’re saving a lot of time in postproduction and time is money for my buisness.

    The debate on “true raw” or not is pointless in my opinion.. Prores Raw is RAW, from both technical and psychological point of view. I have access to all the colours and luminance informations that my fs5 is capable of, directly inside fcpx. There’s absolutely no visual difference from a proper developed Prores Raw and proper developed dng file. Also the debate on 12bit linear raw vs 10bit log with FS5 becomes insignificant when you’re dealing with a prores raw file: log encoded files are bigger and don’t include more informations than 12bit raw output, whether you’re recoding in camera or to external recorder. I know the math too, 13 or 14 stop of dynamic range stored in a 12bit file etc etc... that’s certainly true, sure.. But I also believe on what my eyes can see and I’ve nothing to complaint about latitude of 12bit linear raw, also in comparison to 14bit raw from a larger and less noiser a7sII sensor.

    I would add that Prores Raw is also fast, really fast, I’m editing a ten minutes sequence in 4K 25p with real time playback on a late 2013 i7 imac, with full control on exposure and wb on every clip. Outstanding.

    I would encourage everyone who is still undecided or scared about raw to have a try with FS5. Rent the camera and take a session on fcpx 10.4.1. It’s definitely worth a try!


    5 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member moldcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,334
    Default
    So it looks you are joining me in the 12-bit RAW from FS5/FS7 "enthusiast club", haha . Like you, having tried CDNG RAW recording on my Shogun Inferno using the XDCA RAW SDI output, I always thought the image is superior to every other option I tried (with the internal FS7 recording and/or with external Prores/DNxHR Inferno encoding). I do have a working Prores RAW acquisition hardware, alas - not using FCPX - I didn't have an opportunity to watch it; BMD doesn't answer questions if or when they will implement reading this codec by Resolve under Windows - but i do hope that it will happen sooner or later, if Apple is serious about this new format becoming a new industry standard!

    Piotr
    Last edited by moldcad; 05-08-2018 at 04:04 AM.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    7
    Default
    Absolutely, I’m with you in the club.
    I see no reason why Resolve should not support Prores Raw. Perhaps it might take some times to implement it, but I’m pretty sure it will become a standard acquisition format, and it shall be cross-platform to became a standard, as is ProresXQ or HQ. It is already cross-camera and cross-brand (Shogun supports prores raw recording from most popular japanese camera right now).
    In the format and coded jungle, Apple did it again.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Default
    As an active FS5 (w/ raw upgrade) and Shogun Inferno user, I 100% agree with the above statements....

    I have tried Cinema DNG a few times but always ended up going with Apple ProRes HQ codec instead in the past to keep file sizes down and workflow at a quicker pace for clients. From my experience the Cinema DNG files were indeed superior to the Apple ProRes HQ codec for sure with increases in IQ, exposure latitude, flexibility in grading, etc. but the workflow was not optimized in comparison. Very little of my client types would notice the differences in IQ between Cinema DNG and Prores HQ, so unless someone specifically requested it I was not shooting Raw and was keeping to Apple codecs for use in FCPX to keep post production costs down.

    However comparing Cinema DNG to Apple ProRes RAW codec is a different story. I see only a slight increase in IQ in the shadows with cinema DNG (better handles / deciphers information in low light areas) but the highlight retention, grading latitude, and color manipulation is about the same which is outstanding considering that I have had as fast or faster render times with Prores Raw than I did with the original Prores HQ codec. Maybe it's just in my head..... but ProRes RAW is really FAST!

    For anyone doubting ProRes Raw you should check out this comparison video comparing Apple ProRes Raw to Apple ProRes HQ. It really shows you where there were improvements were made, especially when it comes to fringing (huge advantage for green screening / keying) for anyone that does that. Be sure to check it out...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zdwkyly-m0

    Overall I really have to say, I have been tickled with my FS5 with Shogun Inferno and the addition of ProRes RAW was simply the icing on the cake. I am sure we will see integration with Resolve and other NLES in the near future and I am sure you are going to see a lot of use of this codec in the future from not only the Sony Mirrorless Crowd but also from the Panasonic crowd as well (EVA1 & GH5's).

    I am constantly on set as B-cam working with my friends Red Scarlet-W (A-Cam) and a lot of times our 4k footage really is indistinguishable when it really comes down to it unless in instances where you are really pushing dynamic range (12-bit vs 16-bit) but overall the FS5 12-bit really stands up to the test when lighting is on point (which it should be in the first place).

    So how much more are you willing to pay to only get a little better IQ? The FS5 / Pansonic EVA1 cinema bodies paired with the Inferno are the best $$$/value out there for a 4k image at HFR's its that simple. I recommend to any of the doubters to rent a set-up and try it out first hand especially now with the addition of ProRes Raw. The only thing that could make this setup better would be a slimmer, lighter, and more ergonomically friendly Apple ProRes Raw capable recording monitor with SDI port (HINT HINT ATOMOS, make the Ninja V with an SDI port!!!!!!).


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,147
    Default
    klausd, it would be great if you could post some split-screen examples of graded external RAW recording is vs. the graded internal recording on some real shots (not charts). Based on your enthusiasm I'm guessing the visual difference must be significant. I'd love to see some examples.
    Last edited by Doug Jensen; 05-09-2018 at 11:12 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    161
    Default
    As an Odyssey owner I am so jealous! I gave up on CDNG, not because of the file size but because of the slowness in Resolve. So at the moment I'm going FSRAW>Prores slog2.
    I would switch to the Inferno in a heartbeat except that I use an EVF that is attached to the SDI out of the Odyssey, and I understand that it's not possible with the Inferno.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    7
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Jensen View Post
    klausd, it would be great if you could post some split-screen examples of graded external RAW recording is vs. the graded internal recording on some real shots (not charts). Based on your enthusiasm I'm guessing the visual difference must be significant. I'd love to see some examples.
    Doug, It wasn’t my intention to compare RAW output to internal recording. RAW and XAVC-L have nothing in common. I have reason to believe XAVC-L is a total rubbish, as is often the case when dealing with long gop codecs, especially at 50fps with very limited data rate. It could work for static shooting, interviews and slow camera movements, but as soon as you try to shoot fast action or simply a fast pan or tilt movement you’ll get motion artifacts everywhere.. I can actually see these artifacts from lcd monitor too, even without open the file and watching it frame by frame. I cannot believe how many reviewers on the web are reporting extra good performance of internal recording.. In order to be credible they should start to shoot something different than static charts and color checker on their grandmother’ drawing room! In the shadow of thousands of stupid "comparison/should I buy/hands on impression", is getting harder to find accurate info in 2018.. By the way, for those who want to see how is crappy (on real world hand-held fast action) I’m going to upload a short sample. It is ProresHQ because was converted during importing in FCPX, but it doesn't matter, the original file was exactly the same. Take a look at the blurred frames when bike goes past the camera.

    Getting back to RAW, you can download a still of the same scene captured with FS5 12bit .dng and A7sII 14bit .arw (I've included .dng for those who haven't fcpx 10.4.1, but there's no visual difference on proresRAW file, at least on this scene).
    It's interesting to see how good is the compressed 12bit raw of FS5 compared to one of the most powerful sensor out there, the 12MP sensor of a7s. Play a little with these file... You'll probably end up forgetting which is which…
    It would be even more interesting to see a low key scene with both camera shooting RAW, but I'm short on time at the moment..

    download it there:
    https://we.tl/D3lT1Tqo2p


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    161
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by klausd View Post
    Doug, It wasn’t my intention to compare RAW output to internal recording. RAW and XAVC-L have nothing in common. I have reason to believe XAVC-L is a total rubbish, as is often the case when dealing with long gop codecs, especially at 50fps with very limited data rate. It could work for static shooting, interviews and slow camera movements, but as soon as you try to shoot fast action or simply a fast pan or tilt movement you’ll get motion artifacts everywhere.. I can actually see these artifacts from lcd monitor too, even without open the file and watching it frame by frame. I cannot believe how many reviewers on the web are reporting extra good performance of internal recording.. In order to be credible they should start to shoot something different than static charts and color checker on their grandmother’ drawing room! In the shadow of thousands of stupid "comparison/should I buy/hands on impression", is getting harder to find accurate info in 2018.. By the way, for those who want to see how is crappy (on real world hand-held fast action) I’m going to upload a short sample. It is ProresHQ because was converted during importing in FCPX, but it doesn't matter, the original file was exactly the same. Take a look at the blurred frames when bike goes past the camera.

    Getting back to RAW, you can download a still of the same scene captured with FS5 12bit .dng and A7sII 14bit .arw (I've included .dng for those who haven't fcpx 10.4.1, but there's no visual difference on proresRAW file, at least on this scene).
    It's interesting to see how good is the compressed 12bit raw of FS5 compared to one of the most powerful sensor out there, the 12MP sensor of a7s. Play a little with these file... You'll probably end up forgetting which is which…
    It would be even more interesting to see a low key scene with both camera shooting RAW, but I'm short on time at the moment..

    download it there:
    https://we.tl/D3lT1Tqo2p
    “Grandmother’s drawing room!” Couldn’t agree more.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    161
    Default
    These images are very consistent with what I'm seeing. I come from VFX where image quality is everything. And a lot of what I shoot will be used by a compositor who will be zooming in 4x on the screen and be stopped on a frame for an hour, working on the composite. So the losses of shooting ProRes from RAW are apparent.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    161
    Default
    Can somebody confirm that the Inferno doesn't have SDI out when shooting RAW? If I could use it with the Gratial Eye I would switch from the Odyssey. But I thought I read somewhere that it doesn't work...


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •