7Q Issues

P

Prendi

Well-known member
Just checking back some shots from the 7Q and there are some weird blotches on the image. They are on the RAW DNG files too. Kinda pissed as I converted a lot of the project to ProRes and dumped the raws already (about 50%). The 7Q is amazing... when it works. But it's got way too many bugs right now to be regarded as professional. They need to be fixed immediately.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Here's a screen grab;

CLIP0000729_0000056.jpg

You can see it on the binding on the right side. The binding has 2 cut outs and it's around the left side cut out. I'm going to have to bin these shots if it can't be fixed. And that sucks a lot.

I have a 3G rated SDI before that gets suggested

Thanks for input
 
Sorry to say - already late here.

But I can't see any weird blotches but extreme flares from the direct sunlight coming through the right binding.
Maybe I'm just overlooking something?

These flares come from the lensdesign and not from the 7Q.

If there's anything else - please mark the position in the video.

EDIT: Now I saw them in the video on vimeo - black blotches...
Hmmm can't say what that is, but looks like it's coming from the sensor.
 
Yeah the blotches are around the left cut out of the binding, not the one that the flare comes through. You think it's the sensor? I haven't seen it on the AVCHD footage before. Maybe it was because of the compression.

Surely if it's the sensor, I wouldn't be the only one to experience this?
 
Was it only on 1 shot or all the shots? If it's only one shot, it might not be the 7Q.

Also, did you record internal as well? That's a good way to check to see if it's the recorder.

I haven't had any image issues with mine yet. Fingers crossed.
 
No, I'm noticing it on a few shots. Not a lot. It seems that it's only when there's very high contrast in the shots.
 
What profile were you using and what mode on the 7Q (4K RAW, 2K RAW, 4KtoHD?)

It looks like some artifacting I've seen before... But that type of artifacting is pretty much non-existent in the 4K RAW and 4KtoHD footage I've shot.

What is final output for this? Web? To be totally honest, I don't see why you'd scrap that shot for such a minor thing if that shot works well for your edit and there isn't a suitable replacement. By the time you've got web compression it's pretty much a non-issue. Especially when you described where to peep and it still took some locate it.
 
jshbckr said:
What is final output for this? Web? To be totally honest, I don't see why you'd scrap that shot for such a minor thing if that shot works well for your edit and there isn't a suitable replacement. By the time you've got web compression it's pretty much a non-issue. Especially when you described where to peep and it still took some locate it.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I would never scrap this, but i am working in the lower end of budgets in a rural area without a high end film business.

I really had to look like 7 times even though i knew it was on the binding, before i could find it.
 
c'mon fess up, this is promotion only for your video ;-)

(get a good story and no one will peep your pixels)
 
I know this issue, its because the wavelet-compression that happens in-camera from the 2K/4K RAW image. Its an area around 8x8 pixel and is visible only on very contrast areas (specially also on headlights etc). It also happens with internal recording from the 2k stream (specially in slowmo) but the final image (as we all know) is much less detailed and sharp.
Its because the camera has to compress the full signal to press it through the 3g-sdi connector (2048x1080*12bit = 3.317MB/frame*240fps = 796MB@240fps = 6368MBit/s = compressionfactor = 2.12 minimum to reach 3000MBit/s).
So we end um with only 1.56MB/frame available and it uses this factor also in all other framerates in 2K resolution (thats also the reason why 24fps looks exactly like 240fps with a little increase of noise).
We also have compression in the 4K Raw from the camera (4096x2160*12bit = 13.271MB/frame*60fps = 796MB@60fps = 6368MBit/s = same theoretical compressionfactor 2.12 minimum)
In the 4K RAW its much less visible (but also there!) but you really notice it at 2K. I would recommend not to increase the sharpness in davinci on the specific shots - so if you keep sharpness low or at 0 you get a beautiful 12bit image with not heavy visible compression. Also check it on the monitor during shooting and try to move the view a little bit. I hope this helped so far and dont tell the client about!
 
Yes, I spotted it. In this particular shot of yours the troubled area is very small and I doubt anyone would notice it unless pointed out. A bigger issue would be if it appeared across a larger area of the image, if that ever happens then I agree it's not great. Nice video though, I like it.
 
McReedy, you're the man! I'll try turning down the sharpness like you suggested. Hopefully that fixes it. So this is Sony issue, not CD? Then, in part, I take it back. But CD really needs to fix the bugs that are holding this thing back from being the production beast it could be.

Oh, and I wasn't posting to promote the film. Really didn't want to post the link as it's for internal use. The doco is for Sky. It will be out in September. I'll post it when I'm done. Cheers for the help guys!
 
Mitch, I find your answers quite unhelpful. So you're not looking into it? Thanks

Lucky that we have people like McReedy on the forum to offer help.

Cheers
 
Prendi said:
Mitch, I find your answers quite unhelpful. So you're not looking into it? Thanks
Cheers
Click to expand...

Its important to note that the compression comes directly from the FS700 – you can see it already on the small onboard screen in Slowmo mode.
The R5 and the O7Q only can take what they get "faithfully" from the source but they bypass the bad downscaled 8bit process which is the most important improvement of the camera.

Its important to know that you have some artifacts sometimes visible (because the FS700 not O7Q) but you still can create amazing images with it. The other thing is also the postproduction, it depends on the debayer process or LUT how visible the artifacts are finally – but thats a different topic.
 
Prendi said:
Mitch, I find your answers quite unhelpful. So you're not looking into it? Thanks

Lucky that we have people like McReedy on the forum to offer help.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Sorry, by the time I read this thread the question had already been quite clearly and accurately answered by another forum member. I did in fact view the footage carefully and concluded that the answer was in fact accurate. I made my statement to say that yes, this was correct.

Is it really necessary for me to reiterate the words already posted? The answer was given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top