FS7: 7Q owner with Extention unit to buy or not to buy

On my 7Q, RAW is definitely better than Pro-Res in many respects. However, on the 7Q it's uncompressed so it's almost useless for anything besides camera tests or really short projects. The file sizes are massive.

Mitch has said that it's impossible for the 7Q to record compressed RAW due to hardware limitations. If the 7Q+ could, I would seriously considering upgrading.

Is that possible Mitch for the 7Q+ to record compressed RAW?
There are two reasons the Odyssey7Q does not record compressed RAW.

One is horsepower. Sony FS RAW actually requires a great deal of processor power to handle. To be able to ingest FS RAW, decode it and then recompress it would take so much number crunching that we would need to nearly double the power of the Odyssey, or we would need to remove much of the monitoring and image analysis functionality. Because all computing work in the Odyssey7Q must be done in real time we need to utilize advanced processors running intensive firmware compared to what is done in the average home computer.

The second is signal purity. FS RAW is already a compressed format. We need to decompress it to utilize it. To then recompress the files would likely be detrimental to the data.

Simplified example:
Data points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Let's say compression gives you 1, -, 3, -, 5. It's pretty easy for the computer to figure out what to do to decompress this data and turn it back into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and the results will be lossless. But now let's imagine the data as 1.1, 2.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.2 and it is compressed to 1.1, -, 3.2, -, 5.2. Decompression might give you 1.1, 2.2, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2. That's close, but not perfect. You likely will never know the difference, so okay, this is acceptable compression. But now you decide to recompress the data (which is what you're asking if we could do). So we compress this new data again UNDER A DIFFERENT COMPRESSION FORMAT, and we get -, 2.2, -, 4.2, 5.2. When that's decompressed it might be 1.2, 2.2, 3.1, 4.2, 5.2. In this incredibly simplified example, what we have done by compressing/decompressing then recompressing/decompressing is to have altered 4 out of five data points. This can lead to artifacting in the image. This interaction of the repeated compression stages and the resulting degradation of the data is known as CONCATENATION.

Concatenation can be highly destructive and we don't want to risk your images. Sony's solution is to build a dedicated device that does nothing but turns FS RAW into the same Sony RAW format the F5/F55 uses while introducing as little alteration to the signal as possible. That is why it is so big, heavy, power-hungry and expensive. That's also why it does nothing but that one transformation, and does not offer ProRes recording or even allows anything but the most basic HD downconverter monitor output, which is really just for reference only.

So that is the rather long answer to the question of will the Odyssey7Q ever record compressed RAW from the FS7 or FS700. The short answer is "no."
 
One of the marketing lines that Sony uses for the AXS recorder is that their MXF Raw files are compressed at about 3:1 and as a result have smaller files sizes. CD could just as fairly respond that the price of the 7Q vs cost of AXS-R5 + media (and in the case of the FS7 and FS700, the cost of the IFR interface) still makes Odyssey the lowest cost option. For the difference between Odyssey and Sony solutions, you can buy a lot of SSD cards and data storage. BMD Ursa now offers a 3:1 compressed Cinema DNG. I have tested it and I see no noticeable compression artifacting.

Ned Soltz
Last i checked the Sony solution was about three times more expensive than the Odyssey7Q solution. For similar capacity recording kits Sony cost about $12,000 compared to the Odyssey7Q at about $4,000. That does not factor in the need for a separate V-lock battery for the Sony system as well as a baseplate solution for physically supporting the Sony device along with the camera. Depending on how one addressed these issues they could easily add $1000-$2000 to the system cost, not to mention the physical encumbrance.
 
And here's where I'd like to point out that this camera design is excellent for rentals. Buy the base package, or the ProRes Extension package, and rent the raw recorder when your clients actually ask for it. And the Sony package may be much more expensive than O7Q to buy, but at rental they may be closer.
I think this is a significant point. Rental rates for the Odyssey7Q are on par with those of the Sony RAW recorder (That is, when you can find someone with the Sony RAW recorder. There's not many of them out there.). So the return on investment of the Sony recorder is three times worse than that of the Odyssey7Q because the cost is three times higher. And the market for the Sony solution is vastly smaller which will also weaken return on investment, because while post may like the smaller files, pretty much no one else wants to deal on set with using the Sony solution over the Convergent Design solution.
 
And the market for the Sony solution is vastly smaller which will also weaken return on investment, because while post may like the smaller files, pretty much no one else wants to deal on set with using the Sony solution over the Convergent Design solution.

I think the latter half of this statement stretches into opinion, rather than absolute fact. Of course, as a representative of a company providing a solution, you're entitled to such an opinion, but I do think it's opinion.

Again - if you're on an absolute run'n'gun set, than any external recorder is a pain in the butt - althouth the O7Q is likely less of one than the Sony raw recorder. If you're on a set that has assistants and dollies and video village, that external recorder from Sony is nothing. Anybody remember when ACs wore tapedecks like backpacks for moving shots?

And if anyone does want to rent the Sony solution, it's definitely outthere. I already name dropped one rental house earlier in the thread.

Personally I like making post happy.
 
There is absolutely no question that the Odyssey7Q offers far greater performance out of the FS7 then the camera does alone, and does so in all areas.

Except high frame rates of course...

Incidentally, what frame rates will the 7Q record when harnessed to the Sony extension back?
 
What FPS can the O7Q+ capture from the FS7 with extension currently?

I've cancelled my Shogun order based on a couple of dealbreaking issues for me, and those remaining funds are either going towards a Ronin or an O7Q+
 
What FPS can the O7Q+ capture from the FS7 with extension currently?

I've cancelled my Shogun order based on a couple of dealbreaking issues for me, and those remaining funds are either going towards a Ronin or an O7Q+

Without the extension unit it will capture the same as your monitor/VF output. Anything higher would require a data connection. Unless I'm missing something...

Mitch did say on Twitter it maxes out at 30fps in UHD. He also said that should improve in the near future. He also said it currently records 4K, which can't be true as the camera won't do that until the next firmware update.
 
Last edited:
I thought it could do the same as the FS700 - 180/240fps in 1080p, no?

Sorry Ben, I misread your earlier post. Twice in fact! You're actually asking the same question I am. Though, I do know it won't do 240fps as this higher frame rate is a feature of RAW recording and is not enabled on the camera yet.
 
Keep in mind whether you're talking about HDMI output from the body vs SDO from the XDCA-FS7 unit. The 4K HDMI will only work with the new 7Q+, ProRes 10bit 4:2:2 at max 30p I believe. With the XDCA through SDI, it will capture uncompressed 12bit CDNG raw, and can also convert that signal to 4K compressed, 2K, HD, etc, and it allows recording up to 240p 2K raw continuously if I am not mistaken

anyway if I only need ProRes codec for my clients requirement, I would use a 7Q+ or Shogun through the HDMI, instead of the XDCA unit which will only do 1080p, the former will do 4K 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes, a much better solution considering it's the same price and gibes you an extra monitor.

If you need Raw and requested by your clients, or 240p, your only route is the XDCA-FS7, coupled with either the Q7/Q7+, Shogun, or Sony R5 recorder. I would go with the Q7 option simply because it's much cheaper and records a higher quality uncompressed feed AND works as a great field monitor. The only reason you might go for the R5 is that 3:1 raw compression in realtime to save data, which really I believe not much of an issue for someone shooting raw for the extreme highest quality possible, plus compressing the uncompressed raw to Sony-like 3:1 codec can be performed in a simple one step in post production, with much greater control over the options and compression algorithm, Cineform or ProRes XQ would be great options to try out.
 
Last edited:
I have the extension unit but RAW will be something I use for my own projects. Most clients I work with wouldn't have a clue what to do with it if I gave them a few terrabytes of Adobe CineDNGs.

I had the Shogun on order but there are absolutely no guarantees it will ever be able to do FS Raw 240fps. All we have on that is that Atomos are 'committed to it' down the line. Having been burned several times by those sorts of promises from lots of different manufacturers, I am interested in what a recorder can do now, or within a tabled timeframe.
 
I have the extension unit but RAW will be something I use for my own projects. Most clients I work with wouldn't have a clue what to do with it if I gave them a few terrabytes of Adobe CineDNGs.

I had the Shogun on order but there are absolutely no guarantees it will ever be able to do FS Raw 240fps. All we have on that is that Atomos are 'committed to it' down the line. Having been burned several times by those sorts of promises from lots of different manufacturers, I am interested in what a recorder can do now, or within a tabled timeframe.

Get the Odyssey7Q (or 7Q+). The 7Q is about the same price as the Shogun, the SSDs are a more expensive but they are guaranteed to work. You have 4K RAW up to 60fps, 2K RAW up to 240fps, and the outstanding RAW-to-ProRes mode that does up to 4K30 and 2K60. All of that is available right this second, not "future hopeful features". Months ago, we were still waiting for those features, but Convergent Design has now delivered on them.

Shogun may never do 4K ProRes and it may never do 240fps RAW. Does it even do 4K RAW at 60fps? Personally, I think it provides too little functionality compared to the 7Q if your primary usage is the FS7/700.
 
O7Q+ definitely looks like it's becoming the winner in this battle. How much is the license for to do the RAW conversion?
 
I have the extension unit but RAW will be something I use for my own projects. Most clients I work with wouldn't have a clue what to do with it if I gave them a few terrabytes of Adobe CineDNGs.

I had the Shogun on order but there are absolutely no guarantees it will ever be able to do FS Raw 240fps. All we have on that is that Atomos are 'committed to it' down the line. Having been burned several times by those sorts of promises from lots of different manufacturers, I am interested in what a recorder can do now, or within a tabled timeframe.

I will say this about the 7Q: Now that it's finally a mature product, it's very impressive (at least on the FS700, but should be the same on the FS7). Lots of codecs, frame rates, etc... and CD did an amazing job on the debayering. The HD and UHD image are super clean and crazy detailed. Amazing actually.

I did talk to someone who has both the Atomos and the 7Q and his feeling is that the 7Q is more of a professional solution while the Atomos is more geared towards the A7s and GH4 crowd. He remarked the Atomos feels plasticky compared to the 7Q.
 
Thanks guys. A lot of what you mentioned is why I cancelled my order. I have an A7s as well and so the Shogun was originally for that, but the 7Q+ can cover both those bases. Cheers :)

Now Mitch, get the LUT implementation sorted and you have yourself a customer :)
 
7Q+ is definitely the way to go for the FS700/FS7. Shogun still doesn't support them at all and when it does, it maxes out at 30p in 3840x2160 (no 4k at all) and 120p at 1920x1080 (again no 2k), while 7Q supports them NOW, records raw DNG 4k, 4K/2k Prores derived from raw, 2k at 240p and even 120p at 4k with the fs700, just a whole different beast vs. the shogun when using these specific cameras. The Shogun would be good with an a7s due to weight/size and overal noob-friendly UI and screen, it's a great little device on top of an a7s hotshoe and has all the capability the camera needs, has a very neat modern, user/noob-friendly fast UI like a modern tablet (much better than the 7Q for me) and records to cheap HDDs too. In general I'd recommend the 7Q for more advanced users requiring high build quality and C500/FS7/00 compatability while I'd recommend the Shogun for begginers type of users with a small cheap a7s/gh4/nx1 kit...
 
Having triggered some of this discussion with my comparison of the CD vs Sony solution, my preference is definitely for the 7Q+. Having shot and reviewed the Odyssey 7Q with the FS700, the images are stunning, the workflow is straightforward and CD is one of the best in the industry for support and on-going development. I go all the way back to the Nanoflash. And I would concur that the build quality of the Shogun seems inferior to the Odyssey. And finally, we have no idea when the Shogun will offer FS raw recording.

Ned Soltz
 
Sorry, slight deviation from the RAW/7Q discussion - but possibly relevant to others who are eyeing up the extension unit.

My opinion is that ProRes is going to be better for grading than XAVC period.

Can I just check if this is a gut feeling or one based on tests or evidence you're seen/read elsewhere?

The reason I ask is that I will be getting a new FS7 in a couple of weeks and would like to use my Hawk Woods V Lock batts on the back.

I run my own production company - so I'm not shooting directly for a client as such and I can factor in overnight transcodes. My proposed workflow is to do a single transcode from source 1080P XAVC to ProRes HQ and to then run a native ProRes workflow right through post.

Currently we run a C100 straight into a Atomos Ninja, running ProResHQ - so we have a robust intra frame codec from source. But one of the reasons for getting an FS7 is to avoid external recorders.

Can anyone please point me towards a link that discusses pros and cons of a high bitrate 422 XAVC transcoded to ProRes vs a ProRes original natively recorded via the extension unit?

Ben.
 
Back
Top