F5: Confused on Capabilities.

M

morgan_moore

Major Contributor
My background is I own an FS100 which I bought as a 'holding camera' thinking the F3 to be poor value, now Im after the cam that will last me a good while. To me the FS700 seems to have a weak onboard codec and once pimped up will have a similar cost to a naked F5 in a spaghetti non modular package with no space for further upgrading. The naked F5 would have a solid ownership upgrade path in terms of the recorder. And also a rental path in terms of getting a 55 or a recorder for better funded jobs and keeping me within a farmework of a camera I know inside out.

That has put the F5 onto my radar as a potential purchase.

Im pretty confused about the specs of this camera.

Im interested in..

How good (flexible) is the XAvchd codec
What are the data rates of the XAvchd

For example I beleive a 128gb card holds 'an hour' - which makes media cost high - in fact it would be cheaper to buy the sony recorder and a AXSM card in media per hour (?)

Can you record non raw onto the external recorder.

The SRcodec.. seem very data heavy.. but is this at a positive cost in terms of file maleability over the XAvchd codec?

And 'slo mo' im confused as what is available where, sometime, and rumoured.

In summary can people point me to any in depth resources!

S
 
I know the specs. Im kind of looking for some feedback or 'this is how I use it and what I can do'

For example the SR codec seems to be a virtual non starter considering card costs.

S
 
Morgan,

Like with anything else, it depends upon what you want to do. If you are working, say, in an episodic TV environment where they may have started with HDCAM SR tape and then are moving digital, the SR workflow would be suitable. It is data intensive but is virtually lossless.

XAVC is a good all-around codec. 10 bit 4:2:2. Will hold up nicely to grading. It is not exactly the same but is in the same family as the Panasonic AVC-Intra, which has been around for a few years. The move away from MPEG2 codecs allows for higher frame rates as well as 2K/4K (on supported cameras, of course).

the AXS-5 recorder only records Raw. Raw for feature work or other high production value applications. Lots of data to manage and once you get into 4K, it is probably best to use a proxy workflow.

In haste...

Ned Soltz
 
I suggest you rent one for a day and put it through it's paces yourself. That is really the only way to know if it will perform as you want it to.
I've done quite a bit of of formal testing with my own F55 of different codecs, gamma settings, color space options, etc., as well as best practices for exposure and white balance. About 200 clips with all the settings in a spreadsheet for reference. Those tests revealed good and bad things about the camera that I could never have gotten from any other source except my own testing.
 
morgan_moore said:
My background is I own an FS100 which I bought as a 'holding camera' thinking the F3 to be poor value, now Im after the cam that will last me a good while. To me the FS700 seems to have a weak onboard codec and once pimped up will have a similar cost to a naked F5 in a spaghetti non modular package with no space for further upgrading. The naked F5 would have a solid ownership upgrade path in terms of the recorder. And also a rental path in terms of getting a 55 or a recorder for better funded jobs and keeping me within a farmework of a camera I know inside out.

That has put the F5 onto my radar as a potential purchase.

Im pretty confused about the specs of this camera.

Im interested in..

How good (flexible) is the XAvchd codec
What are the data rates of the XAvchd

For example I beleive a 128gb card holds 'an hour' - which makes media cost high - in fact it would be cheaper to buy the sony recorder and a AXSM card in media per hour (?)

Can you record non raw onto the external recorder.

The SRcodec.. seem very data heavy.. but is this at a positive cost in terms of file maleability over the XAvchd codec?

And 'slo mo' im confused as what is available where, sometime, and rumoured.

In summary can people point me to any in depth resources!

S
Click to expand...

I considered the F5 but somehow convinced myself the F55 is better, more long-term (whatever that means in today's ever changing world of cameras).

Biggest difference is the global shutter, 4k internal recording and extended color space of the F55 over the F5.

As for XAVC, SR Codec and RAW, well if you've seen decent footage from the F3 with an external recorder than you know that the F5/F55 is at least that. It's hard to say how great XAVC is because I think in this case more bits will prove itself useful in post for grading and color correction.

I applied some basic LUTs to 4k XAVC footage and posted them here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?308959-various-slog2-to-Rec709-LUT-samples and here's some rough grades I did on a film I recently DP'd shooting it at 3200ISO and using a couple 575w HMI's and single kino bulb for fill where needed: http://www.flickr.com/photos/starcentralfilms/sets/72157634450452631/

There is a footage thread here with some clips from the F5/F55 and watch the one of Nate shooting into the sun off an over pass bridge. It was that clip that did it for me when I saw how highlights and the high tones were being handled with the camera in plain old XAVC: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303085-F5-55-Footage-Thread-(After-Release) (thank you nate)

This month (July) the SR Codec comes out via firmware. I will definitely shift over to it from XAVC and see how it performs and can be pushed in post. Shooting RAW is not something for every occassion, and if I can get 90% of what I can get shooting RAW honestly I will be happy not to have to deal with a RAW workflow but of course I feel safe knowing that should the occassion arrise I can always shoot RAW if I need to by getting the external AXS recorder.

Finally, this recently revised timeline chart posted on the Sony F5/F55 community forums should help give you a better idea of what's coming, when, and how.

http://community.sony.com/t5/F5-F55/NEW-Firmware-Timeline-Charts-July-2013/m-p/147725#U147725

:happy:
 
Thanks for the interesting comments.

Ned.
Im doing corporate/reportage not episodic.

As for raw being for more 'serious' jobs - I find that backward - the more serious job I do (more lit/considered) the more I can get by on a thin codec.

Its the RnG stuff in corporate environments from midday outside to green tinted office windows and horrid factory lighting that cry out for raw!

Doug.
You are right - a test is the only way.
As for trying 200 options.. (which I did with my FS100 and EX1) well thats not a good sign - a flexible codec should be more robust than that. the max i might have time on location to use might be sunny/cloudy/indoors profiles
I assume you can actually name them on the camera?

As for best practice with white balance - how does one do that? Hmm - no WFM, Nor RGB histo, no AWB out off the menu (for now), no tint control (out of the menu) - Im not sure how one can get good accurate WB - again I think its a question of popping in a greycard when you can and relying on flexible codecs to go the rest of the journey.


Dennis.
The 55 is financially beyond me. Full stop! Im in the for a BMC4k or push it to an F5.

The footy thread - well it brings up some issues rings around traffic lights and hotspots - I really hate that s*%t - but I would say that Nates sunset on the bridge is exactly what I want to see - no Sony sky.
So a useful watch but not a total seller

Also im not interested in any art grades - im after clear colourful accurate footy - that I can choose to mungle up with a teal wash later if I want.
Magic bullet is the cloak to hide crap cameras behind :)

And Dennis the SR codec - you might clarify this.. You will get 15/30mins (444/422) on a $1500 128gb SxS card of HD, 2k raw should be about the same data rate onto 528gb $2000 cards, which may be far more cost effective and flexible if you want to keep DIT work and media investment down not to mention I guess far better!



S
 
Here is some of my 'work' I think it repesents a good example of the light challenges of corporate - sorry the content is a bit painful.

Ill list the challenges and how the FS100 cannot really handle it due IMO not a bendy enough codec.

Big location one: nat light windows (200ft long - not gellable) mixed with indoor 'ecobulbs' what is the WB?
Lunch - puke green/yellow lighting
Some outdoors is under a slightly green rain protected walkway
Out doors midday - im so stacked with ND that the image is soft and im forced to F16
On the beach - gave up with the FS100 and used the EX1
Blue interview - it was nearly dark!
Little rooms - tungsten/puke/daylight mix

Another way of putting my question - could the F5 handle this and make it look sparkling, and if so running what codec?

Incidentally the opening shot is pickup from a student with T2i - looks nice :)

 
morgan_moore said:
As for trying 200 options.. (which I did with my FS100 and EX1) well thats not a good sign - a flexible codec should be more robust than that.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand why it might be necessary to shoot and analyze a couple hundred clips, to test dozens of different combinations of settings, in several types of shooting situations, then it is clear that you really don't understand how much more complex the F55 is compared to your entry-level FS100 and EX1. The F55 and F5 offer MPEG HD, XAVC HD, XAVC 4K, 4K RAW, several Hypergamma options, several standard gamma options, S-LOG2, S-gamut, normal color space, master black levels, matrix options, preset WB, custom WB, shutter speed variations, plus several different workflows to see what can be done in post with various codecs. What settings and exposure are best if the footage will be graded? What if the client wants a "finished" look right out of the camera with no grading? Is that even possible, and if so, what settings should be used and how does that affect exposure? These are all questions I need answered and information I need in my knowledge base to do my job properly. Nobody is going to hand me that information on a silver platter so it is necessary to do it myself.

I can tell you that if I just blindly followed the advice I've been reading here and at other forums regarding best practices for exposure and other settings, I'd be dead wrong. Keep in mind that a lot of people offering advice have never actually taken the time to do their own testing, they are just repeating what they have heard or are assuming based on specifications.

So do the math, there are hundreds of combinations and thousands of variations, and if you can't even see the value of taking a day or two to learn the camera inside and out, then there's nothing more I can say.
 
Last edited:
Dont worry Ive been though Sony Parameter Hell with my FS100, just six or 8 parameters at a few (1/4) Fstops brackets turns into Billions of options fast - I know the score there - and I promise the FS100 is the hardest of them all because its got the thinnest codec - where did I get to..? here best skintones out of that camera possible IMO.

Ive also shot 5k 16bit raw still images for more than a decade: Switch the camera on. Chimp the Histo. Shoot. Perfect every time. Grown up stills cameras dont even have onboard WB or any settings to adjust.

A flexible file makes all that settings stuff redundant.

BUT. and this is where I agree with you;

If you aint shooting raw - you gotta bite that bullet to cram the info you need into a smaller space which does indeed mean getting down with those parameters. And to some extent this is why I am as the thread title suggests 'confused about the ability of the camera'. I need (or would like) examples of people describing the settings they have chosen and why it works for them. The footage thread there is very little finished footage. Ideally rich realistic footage not faux log mist or magic bullet teal.

As for shooting grade free? I guess you need lights or a bit of knee if you dont find knee putrid, which I do. Maybe desaturated knee will come to play there.

My guess is that in the thinner space 400 gamma or a desat knee profile will provide a file which has some wiggle room, no mental orange traffic lights or steppy doughnuts round the sun or other specular highlights, and is not too grade dependant.

So I am prepared to do some miles - just id like to be in the right ballpark before I start :)

S
 
Last edited:
That spot you posted looks pretty good, and the edit is really good. I am interested in the F5 too and with the 0% financing extended till September I am interested in exactly what the OP suggests and that is, under what circumstances you found the camera features useful or not and how did you deploy them. I saw a thread about 2K and how that might be realized on the F5 to maintain full field of view, that caused a little concern. I'm coming from the AF100 and I've learned to work with it pretty well as the OP has with the FS100.

It seems like it could be just the right camera at the right price but I'm not sold yet. There are gaps in my understanding of the F5 too and would love to hear more from folks who own it.
 
What do you hope you will gain by shooting your sample video above with an F5?
I can understand the want to stick to a brand you know, but projects like this made me choose the C100.
Great low light, DR and bulid in ND are essential for any documentary style work.
Against badly lit locations as you mentioned, you can only light them yourself or change the existing bulbs and tubes.
Not doable 99% of the time.
("Hi, we really want to shoot your assembly lane next monday, but first we need you to change the 50 tubes hanging from the cieling at around 4 meters for daylight balanced versions and while your at it, please paint the walls neutral grey, couse this greenish beige is affecting skin tones - thank you!")
Any camera will struggle with just capturing a badly lit location as it is. A more forgiving codec will of course offer more room for grading, but I seriously question the trend to grade everything these days, as if documentary budgets would become bigger...
Also: similar to your "buy F5, rent F55 when needed" argument you could always rent a C300 for a better codec or a C500 for 4K.
But hey, just thinking out loud here, since I think the C series could fit you style of shooting, not trying to start a Sony vs. Canon debate;)
Best, Chris
 
Personally - and it is just me - Im anti Canon :)

The C300 has the "Raw Out sockets" blocked up with a plastic cover. At the same pricepoint The F5 does not. Really there is no argument (to me). The C300 has no upgrade path and is a dead duck, the C100 is a strangled dead duck and the C500 is a really nice camera I cant afford. Also Canons form factor excels at filming nasal hair and belly buttons - not eyes - and having the XLRs on the handle.. well its like Canon were inspired by a T2i with a zoom recorder Velcroed to the hot shoe as 'good design'. And framerate. And (my) nikon glass is much better carried by the FZ mount.

But I guess Canon is a good choice for someone.

==

What would I hope to gain?
- a fat enough (non raw) codec to correct out the sickly colour pallette of the modern office/conference/school/hotel environment.
-A wide enough (non raw) DR codec to be able to shoot outdoors at midday (even in portugal)
-enough onboard ND to not be double stacking offboard NDs at F16 - its cheaper to use a sock and no less degrading to ones footage.

Also the ability to plug in and shoot big bad fat Raw for the right projects, be they higher paying jobs or my own shorts
 
Last edited:
SR Codec is 220mbps YCbCr*10-bit, *and 440mbps RGB 10-bit. 4k raw (on the F5/F55) is 960mbps, and 240mbps for 2k raw. But RAW no matter what or which camera will require some effort on grading in post and is not for every project or everyone.

As for some of the concerns you had mentioned regarding lighting, I don't think any particular camera or codec would address some of them. I think the biggest improvement you might get is to match color temperature better, sometimes you have to turn off flos if you can't replace the bulbs with better ones and relight with your own sources just to get more consistent and uniform color temperature. That is just my opinion of course.
 
Thanks - very helpful numbers.

As I said IMO - 240mbs 2k raw onto $2000 528gb cards is to me far more attractive than 220mbs 1080 baked onto 128GB $1200 cards - even if that baked is stunning.

Processing RAW . As for grading the in camera LUT should be in the metadata so you should not need to grade raw at all if you are not so inclined - just if you happen to be a 2 stops or 2000k off you can get it back.. and if you want to go down the secondaries and looks routes the world is non destructively your oyster.

====

Shooting on the hoof - in my stills job I do the same jobs, sometimes at the same venues, and dont struggle with colour like I struggle with 8bit video (I shoot 100% raw of course with stills) - Im well aware that high CRI lighting and non mixed is ultimately better where possible. In the UK we are even seeing offices where you cant turn the lights off any more as they are run from a central point.

S
 
Last edited:
I would say.. for that type of production.. go for GH3, buy some shoulder rig, with mattebox/sunshade..external audio recorder.. take assistant with bouncer with you ( and that he will help you with tripod ).. buy 14 - 140 mm and 7 - 14mm lens.. and you are set..


Adjust colors / contrast internally...and forgot about CC..

You will pay for all that 5.000 $ .. and after one year, it will be possible to sell back for at least 2.500$ if not more..

My 00.2$ ..
 
.. then I would say you have no idea how fast such a thing occurs or the pressure it puts on operator or kit.

Also you know nothing of the bigger picture, the hour long speeches recorded, the brief for handheld to make it feel 'less corporate' the desire to issue soundbites for broadcast and more.

But you are right, its worth considering.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top