Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I think it would be great if Mitch would answer that question for us and perhaps show some footage that was shot correctly both ways at the same time so we can all see for ourselves.
Last edited:
FS5: Comparison of Internal Recording on FS5 vs. RAW output to Odyssey 7Q+
- Thread starter Doug Jensen
- Start date
I think it would be great if Mitch would answer that question for us and perhaps show some footage that was shot correctly both ways at the same time so we can all see for ourselves.
Ru Cook
Member
yeah i'd def. welcome that...what were your thoughts? Worth the trouble?
Mitch Gross
Veteran
The internal high speed to buffer and the 2K RAW output both utilize a form of line-skipping interpolation. The camera cannot scan the sensor fast enough for those high frame rates -- this is the trade off. So it is going to be lower resolving than a 4K originating signal.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
But RU's question was, if I understood it correctly, aside from the advantages of better exposure measuring tools and continuous recording instead of a limited buffer, is there a noticeable visual difference between internal and external HFR?
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I do feel that it improves the image quality. By how much is a question of your personal taste. If you were to shoot in a Log mode and color correct with anything more than a very standard LUT, then the difference quickly becomes increasingly evident. This is especially true in sky gradients and other places where limited data can break an image.
I do not have a camera available to me at the moment and frankly I'm also quite busy readying the documentation for the next firmware update (coming soon!!). I applaud Doug's dedication in taking the time to shoot all of these tests. People will always question someone else's testing and work, and it's a pretty thankless task in general.
I personally feel that the FS-series cameras should be rated around ISO 800 or so. I consider them to look much better in general when the sensors are more saturated than less. Sony's rating is based on a technical spec for capturing the greatest attitude of signal, but I honestly do't care about that. I want to get the best looking image. I would rather overexpose (based on Sony's rating) with one of the S-Log curves and then darken appropriately in post. This both reduces noise as well as applies more bits of data for the parts of the exposure I will be using. That's how I've pretty much always shot, whether rating the ARRI ALEXA at 400 ISO or rating 500 ISO film at 250 ISO. The reasoning and results are pretty much the same throughout.
For a clear demonstration of the advantages of overexposing and then darkening in post using FSRAW, I refer you to this video Nick Shaw produced for us last year. It's on the FS7 and is chiefly about using the camera's viewfinder settings to match the Exposure Compensation LUTs in the Odyssey. The FS5 does not offer the same viewfinder adjustments but towards the end of the video Nick does demonstrate the advantages of using the method I describe, and that is equally applicable for the FS5. The explanation and demonstrations begin at about the 3:00 mark.
https://vimeo.com/146136328
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I am in absolute agreement about overexposing RAW or S-LOG by at least 1.5 or 2 full stops. Sony's exposure recommendations are way too low. In fact, it is surprising to me when grading in Resolve how infrequently I have to bring the exposure down at all (or just ever so slightly) after applying one of the standard TypeA LUTs. You'd think you'd have to bring the grade down everytime, but that is often not the case, and even when I do need to bring the levels down it is far less than you'd expect based solely on specifications. One thing is clear to me after dealing with RAW and S-LOG for about four years now is that exposing any of the cameras at the sensitivity where Sony says they are will not lead to the best possible results. But the flip side to that advice is that S-LOG is still a just a curve, and anyone who thinks they can push the exposure right up to the brink of clipping and then just back it off a little is also not going to get the best results -- especially when human faces or flesh are put too high on the scale.
Hi Doug. Thank you very much for your tests. Just one question (hoping the issue hasn't been raised in another thread). Wouldn't you need to record DNGs to really call it a raw recording? After all, recording the RAW output as ProRes delegates a lot, if not most image processing to the Odyssey. So the result has a baked in look. Not coming from the FS5, that is true, but still an image that is not a direct representation of the sensor data as one would expect from a RAW file. I'm considering going for the RAW option for my FS5 but I always ruled out the ProRes route because I don't see much difference to recording the HDMI output to ProRes with the exception of a wider range of frame rates. I guess if you really want a gain in picture quality you have to go all the way to recording DNGs. Including dealing with horrendous data rates. Cheers, g
Ru Cook
Member
Mitch, I feel Doug has hit the nail on the head here...if the 7Q 'only' gives me better tools to judge exposure correctly, its great tool but is not *quite* worth the extra £2500 to me at this stage in my game (with the associated extra weight & power issues for run-&-gun-slow-mo). I can live with the buffering for now, but If the 7Q gives me a noticeably better image (either sharper, less noisy or both) at 200+fps, it'll be getting one a.s.a.p. I do fully appreciate its brilliance as a piece of gear, & when i have to shoot decent 4k for a job, it will give me 4.2.2 that the internal codec lacks, but for now i'm working 1080p HFR for my next few projects.
Anyone at all have a 7Q vs internal HFR comparison ??
Doug, not wanted to go off at a tangent here, but I've been letting the FS5 set its own ISO, & have set my three way (L, M, H) switch to (0, +3 & +6) . but have basically been leaving it on L. If I was going to experiment with setting the ISO manually, what would you recommend for natural daylight, SLOG2 . I've noticed when shooting slog, the FS5 does't let you choose your ISO. ? I battled with a GH4 for two years, trying to squeeze every bit of mojo out of it, & in the end just ended up leaving it on a 'natural' baked in look at 800iso, as fiddling around with the settings rarely gave much of an improvement. Does the FS5 in your opinion, reward those that play with the settings a-lot, or do folks just end up going for 'Picture profile 5' (or whatever) & sticking with it ?
Last edited:
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I do understand Doug's point. As I said, I see differences in the image between the internal recording v. ProRes from the RAW. If those differences are enough to you to merit the added expense is a personal decision. Based on Doug's overall statements I would put him in the camp of it's not worth it, and that's his right for himself. Others feel differently.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
When all is said and done, that is probably fair way to sum up my thoughts. But I honestly tried to keep an open mind throughout the testing process and I didn't start out with any preconcieved notions. After all, I do love my 7Q+ for many other uses and I have no regrets owning one. It is a great machine and well worth owning whether you want to shoot RAW with it or not.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I can't disagree with anything you've said here. Yes, CDNG may have yielded image quality differences not seen in the ProRes files, but after doing a few test shots with CDNG and seeing how huge the files were and how much harder it was to deal with them in post, I abandoned any thoughts of going down that path. There may well be a gain in picture quality, but the collateral costs are too huge for me to even want to test it to find out. Anyone who is that concerned about image quality probably should be using a camera more sophisticated than the FS5 anyway.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Doug, not wanted to go off at a tangent here, but I've been letting the FS5 set its own ISO, & have set my three way (L, M, H) switch to (0, +3 & +6) . but have basically been leaving it on L. If I was going to experiment with setting the ISO manually, what would you recommend for natural daylight, SLOG2 . I've noticed when shooting slog, the FS5 does't let you choose your ISO. ? I battled with a GH4 for two years, trying to squeeze every bit of mojo out of it, & in the end just ended up leaving it on a 'natural' baked in look at 800iso, as fiddling around with the settings rarely gave much of an improvement. Does the FS5 in your opinion, reward those that play with the settings a-lot, or do folks just end up going for 'Picture profile 5' (or whatever) & sticking with it ?
The simple answeer is that I pretty much run all my cameras on 0dB 100% of the time because I am shooting RAW or S-LOG 99.0% of the time. In fact, on the FS7 and F55 I have no choice but to shoot at the native ISO in S-LOG whether I want to or not. But on theose rare occassions when I am shooting with a Scene File or Picture Profile and I can't add more light or use a faster lens I might kick in some gain as a last resort. I think the camera does a better job of minimizing noise than I could get merely in post.
Ru Cook
Member
Gotcha...ok..will stick with that for now then...thank you
Mitch Gross
Veteran
The workflow is indeed similar, and we have both written and video tutorials on the proper steps. As noted before, I'm crushingly busy right now, but someone else can surely do this test.