2k RAW aliasing

Colinelves said:
If I had the money to spend I think, at a pinch, I might buy an F5. With the 240fps now being enabled on the F5, the only difference between that and the (nearly doulbe the price) F55 is the global shutter and the wider colour gamut -
Click to expand...

And internal 4K XAVC
 
evilthought said:
And internal 4K XAVC
Click to expand...

Ah, I had not noticed that. Although it doesn't actually change my calculations one bit. The sort of project you might need 4K for, you're mostly likely going to want 4K Raw, which you'll have.

The only time I could foresee using XAVC would be for HD broadcast with minimal processing - in those situations, they won't want 4K XAVC as it is a whole extra load of work and data for them to deal with.
 
I had the same dilemma re the F5, however I've invested so much money in the FS what with rigs, lenses etc and have been holding out so long for the 7Q, that for me, it's almost a question of holding my nerve. I've always found the ACHD codec very limiting unless delivering for web content and have had a 100MB 1080 HD 422 camera as part of my arsenal primarily for broadcast and green screen. This I've now sold on and will reinvest in the 7Q and at the mo, hire a KI pro mini when required. I hope that with the 7Q the FS can become my primary unit and maybe get a 4k BMCC with EF mount for support. Also felt that an F5 would require more expensive glass and was slightly surprised to see it didn't have global shutter.
 
The F5 is a natural draw for anyone using the 700 in production. Me too.

It is a better sensor (most likely) and the form factor is better and it carries a bit more kudos than a rigged out 700.

But everything you attach to it would be a little more expensive. Also there are no speedboosters, Leica M converters etc,. (or at least not for the same kind of cost). EVF is more expensive etc,.

I'm not sure i'd see a strong enough quality difference between 700+O7 and the F5. Of course it's most theory at the moment, i very much look forward to someone sitting them side by side and seeing. I think there was a comparison between a 700 and F55 with RAW file downloads, i don't recall seeing *that* much difference on a practical level.

I do think we need to work out the post workflow a little better. If you use Sony RAW viewer you can see the potential. The ACES workflow option *just looks right* whereas the LUTS to 709 just aren't hitting it 100% for me personally.

There's the other thread on the F35 which has a lovely look to it and also the venerable F3 (and FS100) has a creaminess that the current 5/55 don't appear to have, most likely due to it's huge pixel sizes as it's *only* HD.

cheers
Paul
 
paulcurtis said:
The F5 is a natural draw for anyone using the 700 in production. Me too.

It is a better sensor (most likely) and the form factor is better and it carries a bit more kudos than a rigged out 700.

But everything you attach to it would be a little more expensive. Also there are no speedboosters, Leica M converters etc,. (or at least not for the same kind of cost). EVF is more expensive etc,.

I'm not sure i'd see a strong enough quality difference between 700+O7 and the F5. Of course it's most theory at the moment, i very much look forward to someone sitting them side by side and seeing. I think there was a comparison between a 700 and F55 with RAW file downloads, i don't recall seeing *that* much difference on a practical level.

I do think we need to work out the post workflow a little better. If you use Sony RAW viewer you can see the potential. The ACES workflow option *just looks right* whereas the LUTS to 709 just aren't hitting it 100% for me personally.

There's the other thread on the F35 which has a lovely look to it and also the venerable F3 (and FS100) has a creaminess that the current 5/55 don't appear to have, most likely due to it's huge pixel sizes as it's *only* HD.

cheers
Paul
Click to expand...

It is hard. I was set on the F5 as a 'clean box' with a obvious upgrade path. That clean box costs about the same as the 700/ody which lacks 4kraw (ie loses the upgrade path) and relies on a recorder that is currently vapour, we dont know how it will perform at all - we have seen some images but will it work as a 'field tool', when dropped, in humidty, cold, etc.

The lens issue (no booster) is a bigger draw toward the 700 and away from the 5

S
 
morgan_moore said:
It is hard. I was set on the F5 as a 'clean box' with a obvious upgrade path. That clean box costs about the same as the 700/ody which lacks 4kraw (ie loses the upgrade path) and relies on a recorder that is currently vapour, we dont know how it will perform at all - we have seen some images but will it work as a 'field tool', when dropped, in humidty, cold, etc.

The lens issue (no booster) is a bigger draw toward the 700 and away from the 5

S
Click to expand...

Only a decision you can make :)

But i don't think Sony 4K RAW at 12 bit linear (R5) compared to 4K Log 10bit (O7) would make the blindest bit of difference in real life.

The F5 is supposed to output 14 bit RAW, but whether it does or not i really don't know. Again you're splitting hairs there because what's the sensor like. How noisy etc,. comes first.

Then what other upgrade paths would be beyond that? AFAIK that's it. Any future differences probably revolve around the improving the sensor range, which means a new camera.

There's always a new camera around the corner, but i feel, for me anyway, a 700 with the O7 working as expected is good enough for 99.99% of what i need. I think it's better to look towards the lens side after that. In fact i feel the next biggest thing would be electronic FF that can remap the poor focus range of modern lenses so they become a little more useful.

cheers
Paul
 
When data load/deadlines are not a problem - Im firmly in the raw camp

I think it is fast for post (to work - not encode) and sublimely flexible - it is also efficient in data load/quality

Maybe Im just rubbish with Resolve/Flat files compared to my 10+ of working raw in C1 with stills

As for cameras round the corner, actually Im not a massive up-grader, I think I would be happy with 120FPS 4k raw for quite a while, in my stills business I use, the best, 2005 (hassy H1) and 2008 (nikon D3) cameras - they are good enough and have provided extreme annual value even though the setup costs hurt
 
That's sort of where I'm coming from regarding the F5. It terms of end result, despite the difference between 12bit (4,096 values) and 16bit (65,536 values), I suspect most of the time you won't be able to tell the difference between the FS700 4K Raw and the F5 Raw.

From a practical standpoint, however, the F5 is clearly a winner: It's a single, simple rig. No separate 3rd party EVF, no external recorder (in the sense the R5 clips on the back), relying on a very fragile BNC cable - all in all substantially more robust. Plus broadcast quality internal recording (and very nice recording I suspect, if XAVC Slog2 - although I'm a bit worried it might be from the line skipped chip) and I suspect the lens adapters will come with time: it looks set to be a very popular camera.and I suspect the lens adapters will come with time: it looks set to be a very popular camera.

The substantial extra cost, of course, is a worry. I did some rough calculations and it looked like you'd need to fork out £16k for the camera, EVF, cards, batteries and charger - nearly twice the £9k it costs to get an FS700 package, O7Q with 2x drives and Sony licence.
 
The price. The XQD cards rip that down, and I dont see the need for the EVF, sony batts etc. Id just swap it right in to where my FS100 sits now, only needing a Dtap XLR instead of a dummy batt :)

S
 
Compressed 4K and decent HD will work fine for me. 2K raw will only be useful for the HFRs as I (and I suspect the viewer) am prepared to suffer some quality loss in the name of slo mo.
 
Colinelves said:
The substantial extra cost, of course, is a worry. I did some rough calculations and it looked like you'd need to fork out £16k for the camera, EVF, cards, batteries and charger - nearly twice the £9k it costs to get an FS700 package, O7Q with 2x drives and Sony licence.
Click to expand...

Even though the Sony RAW is 16 bit i don't believe either the F5 or F55 are actually outputting that. I seem to remember that they're putting out 14 bit (the 700 is 12 bit as you say). So the difference is reduced again.

You can get some very nice coilled BNC cables (with 90 degree connectors), and the sockets are much better than HDMI.

I've spec'd out the kit like you and that's the kind of prices i was looking at too.

Then what lenses are you going to put on it?

I have a set of Contax Zeiss Primes and also the Sony Zeiss ZA zooms (which i'm really liking, took a while to warm to them). In both cases I can speedboost them. I don't have the A to E yet but will get it. I do have the Contax to E and love using it. Especially the 50 (although mostly stills). I love the near full frame DOF...

Ah, all our first world problems to contend with...

Of course the F5 looks so much better in use!

cheers
Paul
 
paulcurtis said:
2K RAW needs a sensor designed for 2K RAW, not a blurred 4K sensor. It's like looking out a window through venetian blinds, you're missing every other line and what's more because it's a bayer sensor the gaps are even bigger. Blurring it isn't going to make that much sense. Just buy a different camera.

Or that 4K sensor needs to be scaled in realtime down to 2K within the camera, which the 700 cannot do. I think it scales the lines horizontally because aliasing is much reduced there.
Click to expand...
There's a third option that, IMO, would deliver much superior results as compared to their current implementation -- just window the central 2K out of the sensor, and read that as raw. The problem with Sony's current 2K raw system is that they're trying to maintain the entire field of view, and that's necessitating that they jump over pixels and rows. If they windowed the central portion, they could read that out at 100% 2K resolution, with no change in OLPF.
 
This is what the S16 mode should do??? (FW V3.0) ?

If they enabled HFR in that mode it would be intelligent.

edit: this if 5/55 but FW could do the same for the 700 which this thread is 'about'

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
This is what the S16 mode should do??? (FW V3.0) ?

If they enabled HFR in that mode it would be intelligent.

edit: this if 5/55 but FW could do the same for the 700 which this thread is 'about'

S
Click to expand...
Presumably a "windowed" 2K mode would provide 100% resolution at 240 fps. You could probably get the aliased quality of the current 240 fps, from a windowed version at 960 fps. Why they haven't implemented this is the question; either they think people wouldn't want the narrower field of view, but I absolutely would.
 
Yep windowed. I mean for sport and the like that lends itself to HFR generally you are on a long lens, or you would need some S16 wide lenses.

But I guess a 70-200 for example would shine for this .. and a bit more DOF would be nice on a fast moving subject..

But windwed looks a bit shonky on Red - I dont know why - maybe their OPLF is too strong!

S
 
It shouldn't be an OLPF issue. The exact same pixel pitch and exact same resolving power are involved in windowed 2K, as are full-sensor 4K. Windowing is the only way to do it that allows the same OLPF to work for both.
 
Barry_Green said:
It shouldn't be an OLPF issue. The exact same pixel pitch and exact same resolving power are involved in windowed 2K, as are full-sensor 4K. Windowing is the only way to do it that allows the same OLPF to work for both.
Click to expand...

V3.0 in F55/F5 will provide that as option for 2k raw.

It's not a perfect solution either, as the field of view will change (might need different lenses) and DOF won't look anything like super 35mm sensor. This will not work for some people.

In any case, F55/F5 will have both the full sensor scan and center scan options.
 
Barry_Green said:
It shouldn't be an OLPF issue. The exact same pixel pitch and exact same resolving power are involved in windowed 2K, as are full-sensor 4K. Windowing is the only way to do it that allows the same OLPF to work for both.
Click to expand...

i get that - just made a side comment that Red was quite soft in that mode
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top