Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. Collapse Details
    your opinion on a more subjective perspective
    #1
    Senior Member gumonstro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    285
    Default
    biggest mistake I've made so far picking cameras is looking at specs only. a solid image, cinematic feel, etc, are things hard to describe, but they exist. these are aspects that go beyond the precision of specs, but when you're looking at a footage, what can you do when you feel 8-bit is more pleasing than 10-bit? deny it?

    one year ago I bought a GH5s expecting it to look like an old fs700 + o7q since both record 10bit 422. thing is, the sony combo is still much better IMO. it's sharp, but not the artificial sharpness of the GH5s. how to describe? dunno, but it's there.

    how to describe that sometimes a C300 mk1 feels better than a GH5 10bit 422? and the fact that the old sony F3 colors feel more natural than the fs700 o7q?

    so, what I'm about to ask is, specs free, how:

    1- FS5 MII shooting HD 10bit 422 internal feel to you?
    2- the footage looks exactly like the FS7 HD 10bit 422?
    3- mkII really improved highlights on slog2/3?
    4- how the image of a FS5mkII 10-bit 422 internal compares to a fs700 + o7q shooting prores from raw signal?
    5- the so called venice colors MKII is selling is only a LUT provided by sony to apply in post or there's an internal color science that will make its image different from MKI version?


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,152
    Default
    Nobody can tell the difference between 10-bit vs. 8-bit, or 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0, with the naked eye looking at footage straight out of the camera. There is no perceptible visual difference.
    The differences only become apparent and important when the footage is subjected to grading and procssing in post. The more you push and pull on the footage, the easier it is to see why 10-bit 4:2:2 is superior. But if you're not going grade, either one looks the same as the other.

    The differences you are seeing between cameras is due to the nature of the cameras, internal processing, paint menu settings, etc. and have nothing to do with the codec. Why should it be surprising to you that totally different cameras, from different manufacturers shoud look different? Of course they all have their own look. Just the same way as different film stocks, lenses, etc. all have their own look as well.

    Try taking a feed out of each camera and recording it to an external recorder with the exact same codec. Whatever differences you are seeing between the cameras will still be visible even when the codec differences are taken out of the loop.

    The bottom line is that if you like the look you can achieve (in post or in-camera) and/or other functions of one camera vs. another, that is the camera you should use rather than looking at the specs. As I think you have learned.


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

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member gumonstro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    285
    Default
    thanks, doug. I've watched your FS5 video, btw. t's great. problem is I can't have access to a FS5mkII body. i'm going to make a choice in the dark. from a specs standpoint, FS5mkII feels good, but I don't want to repeat mistakes from the past.

    did you have any findings concerning those questions above when you were doing your courses?

    best.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,152
    Default
    The FS5 mark II is nearly exactly the same as an original FS5. The FS5 has a different native look when you first take it out of the box and turn it on with the factory default settings, but once you start dialing-in a custom picture profile (as you should) or shooting with S-LOG, then both cameras have exactly the same look. If you want a better camera, move to an FS7 or Z280.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member gumonstro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    285
    Default
    doug, only one question for you: FS7 10 bit 422 HD internal recording vs FS5/FS5II 10 bit 422 HD internal recording look different?


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,152
    Default
    Absolutely, because they are totally different cameras that have virtually nothing in common except that they are sold by the same company.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    W Mass
    Posts
    206
    Default
    I own and use the Fs5 regularly. It is a very nice camera. It is light, customizable and produces a very nice HD image. I also occasionally use it for 4K, which is not quite as nice nor as flexible since it’s an 8 bit codec, but it comes in handy. I can easily tell the difference between the 4K and the HD image coming out of the FS5, by the way.

    Since you can purchase two FS5s these days for almost the cost of one FS7, it is a pretty good deal. Have no idea what prices are in Brazil, so that comment may not be relevant. I do know that here you can buy from B&H, try the camera out and if you don’t like it, return it. If you can rent the cameras you are interested in, use them for a small project and then get to try them out, you would be better off than just buying after researching on these forums.
    Last edited by jc01108; 07-06-2019 at 09:49 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,394
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by gumonstro View Post
    one year ago I bought a GH5s expecting it to look like an old fs700 + o7q since both record 10bit 422. thing is, the sony combo is still much better IMO. it's sharp, but not the artificial sharpness of the GH5s. how to describe? dunno, but it's there.
    I hired the GH5s once and found it excellent.. but too sharp- but I had no time to do the settings bewyond select Vlog.

    Can you not dial the sharpness back and add in post if desired?


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    NJ / NYC
    Posts
    327
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    I hired the GH5s once and found it excellent.. but too sharp- but I had no time to do the settings bewyond select Vlog.

    Can you not dial the sharpness back and add in post if desired?
    Yes, sharpness can be adjusted in the GH5s camera setup. Along with plenty of other parameters...
    Of course you'll always have a different sense of depth of field because the micro 4/3 sensor will tend to keep more in focus than a super 35 sensor. I bought a GH5s specifically to use on the Ronin-S, where having a little extra DOF is not necessarily a bad thing, using either the Leica 12-60 or a 'speedboosted' Sigma 18-35, and my clients have been happy with the way it's worked as an additional angle and intercut with a number of other cameras (EVA1, Amira, FS7, etc.) on various shoots. Occasionally I get a comment about it looking 'better' than the FS7's - but nothing that I can really quantify -- and it could just be that they like the camera moves... ;-)


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member gumonstro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    285
    Default
    thanks for the infos.

    don't get me wrong. GH5/GH5s are awesome cameras, but sharp even when you dial it all the way down.


    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

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