F5: Confused on Capabilities.

Hi Again, Morgan

Basically, for what you are doing either the MPEG2 or XAVC codecs will be very adequate and if you should need 4K, you could always rent the AXS-5 and figure those costs into your quote.

Even in this age of 10 bit (and above) the simple fact is that XDCAM HD 50 mbps does conform to BBC broadcast specs and you do have some leeway for correction before it falls apart. Panasonic has been doing quite nicely with its AVC-I codec and is expanding it right now even to a long-gop version for lower bit rate applications. Sony will be doing similar things. It is just that the codec of the immediate future lies more in the AVC realm that it does the MPEG2 realm. But MPEG2 workflows are very well established so the F5 will give you that flexibility if client demands MPEG2 footage. SR is a nice bonus but certainly the full 444 is overkill. But when it is implemented, you should take the SR Lite 220 Mbps for a test ride.

But it sounds to me like the F5 will give you all the flexibility you need.

Ned
 
morgan_moore said:
.. 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.
Click to expand...

As myself being long time professional camerman for national and other commercial TVs, seminars, theatre plays, concerts, ads and music-videos..I should know at least a bit of it..

In the movie you put as an example ( 3 min lenght ) there is nothing it can't be done with GH3..

Theatre plays, concerts and seminars are the only thing you wouldn't get away with GH3.. At this moment, it is my only option for shutting weddings.. Best picture - low price.. slow-mo 1080p50 when you needed..

Of course F5 would be better.. but.. can you charge that much for your project that you can get away with it??

I don't.. so, I can not afford it, even I would like to.. and I am making music videos for artists that have several milions views on youtube.. but they are not wlling to pay more for better camera, so I am not interested intu buying some more..

me and my other friend have both GH3 and we are amazed every day what this little dslr can do...
 
Threads like this crack me up.

I don't want to sound too harsh, but instead of worrying about bendy codecs and shooting raw (roll eyes) for low budget run and gun, an easier fix is in front of the lens.
I do run and gun shoots like this all the time. What works well is to bring a couple of 1X1 battery-powered LED panels on lightweight stands, a little attached diffusion, a bounce card/flexfill and hiring a grip (or even the village idiot) to carry and set them at your direction while you're miking the subject.
Taking the extra 60 seconds needed on each interview setup to add a subtle fill/key and a slight edge would have made all the difference. That pair of LED's would have helped in those interior group shots as well. A few white balance menu tweaks, careful framing and thoughtful camera positioning will get you the rest of the way.

Sorry to say this, but it's not a camera, codec or software issue, it's a problem with your technique. Want your shots to pop? It's all about doing the OTHER half of your job properly instead of blaming the equipment.
 
morgan_moore said:
https://vimeo.com/69884277 AT 18:17 - the FS700 2k RAW looks awful.

Does anyone have a concept of how Sony will generate the 2kRaw for the F5, and any sources to back up that info?

S
Click to expand...

I am concerned about the implementation of 2K on the F5. There is another discussion of this here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-in-sonys-raw-recorder&highlight=2K+windowing

with some well considered ideas about how they may be doing it. It's specualation but if it is binning and has the aliasing shown in this video for the FS700 then it is less useful than the cooked codecs and not a feature worth considering buying the camera for. If you need Raw then it doesn't make sense not to go 4K but alas there are all those costs. I was hoping for a good 2K implementation. I wondered how they got away without windowing as does Red.
 
JCummings said:
Threads like this crack me up.

I don't want to sound too harsh, but instead of worrying about bendy codecs and shooting raw (roll eyes) for low budget run and gun, an easier fix is in front of the lens.
I do run and gun shoots like this all the time. What works well is to bring a couple of 1X1 battery-powered LED panels on lightweight stands, a little attached diffusion, a bounce card/flexfill and hiring a grip (or even the village idiot) to carry and set them at your direction while you're miking the subject.
Taking the extra 60 seconds needed on each interview setup to add a subtle fill/key and a slight edge would have made all the difference. That pair of LED's would have helped in those interior group shots as well. A few white balance menu tweaks, careful framing and thoughtful camera positioning will get you the rest of the way.

Sorry to say this, but it's not a camera, codec or software issue, it's a problem with your technique. Want your shots to pop? It's all about doing the OTHER half of your job properly instead of blaming the equipment.
Click to expand...

I love all my bit-depth, codec, etc.. but I agree with Cummings that an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure and in my eyes lighting seems to always be 90% of the solution to a problem. I respect lighting and always looking to learn more about how to manipulate it and have it work for me.

Working as a DP, I can spend quite a bit of time convincing Directors why things need to a certain way or why I have to do them differently. When scouting locations and discussing lighting and costs with producers I can get asked several times per day, "do we really have to do that?". I don't know if these people are kidding or keeping me on my toes but I'm always offering explanations on what is or what is not possible, the rationale, and of course the variety of solutions and options.

With good lighting you can shoot on a 7D and get great results. You can own the F55 as I do and still get crap results. :huh:


hscully said:
I am concerned about the implementation of 2K on the F5. There is another discussion of this here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-in-sonys-raw-recorder&highlight=2K+windowing

with some well considered ideas about how they may be doing it. It's specualation but if it is binning and has the aliasing shown in this video for the FS700 then it is less useful than the cooked codecs and not a feature worth considering buying the camera for. If you need Raw then it doesn't make sense not to go 4K but alas there are all those costs. I was hoping for a good 2K implementation. I wondered how they got away without windowing as does Red.
Click to expand...

It is no surprise to me. Any time processing is done "in-camera" corners have to be cut in order to cut down on heat, cost or chips & boards, not to mention the requirement of real-time processing.

Currently I am shooting everything in 4k on the F55 and leaving the higher quality down-rezzing to software on the computer where you can select any variety of filters you wish. ie. bilinear, bicubic, etc.. etc..

Its been noted in previous posts that the 4k down-rezzed on the F55 looks better somehow then when shooting in HD or 2k.
 
JCummings said:
Threads like crack me up... half of your job properly instead of blaming the equipment.
Click to expand...

its a fair comment. But I also ask a fair question - how far can a better camera go

im on a job now and yes I have a panel with me
Because it's a static interview it's a lot simpler

as for kit versus crew costs - in the uk crew does cost especially as I never use underpaid interns on a corporate out of principal

s
 
morgan_moore said:
its a fair comment. But I also ask a fair question - how far can a better camera go

im on a job now and yes I have a panel with me
Because it's a static interview it's a lot simpler

as for kit versus crew costs - in the uk crew does cost especially as I never use underpaid interns on a corporate out of principal

s
Click to expand...

I think when it comes to flexibility, and the ability to tweek a compromised image (green spikes from CFLs etc.) the most important thing (beyond controlling your lighting on location as much as possible) is to start with a decent digital negative. To my mind, the measure of that is 10-bit 4:2:2 (and correct exposure obviously).

Everything above that (12-bit, raw, 4:4:4) is gravy, but from my tests thus far 10-bit 4:2:2 seems to be the point of diminishing returns image quality wise.

8-bit 4:2:2 is okay, if you don't have to do much grading or correction it certainly gets the job done, but the extra information you get in 10-bit files really does open up a lot more options. And for the work you're doing Sam, I think it's the most sensible compromise in terms of file-size/quality to pricing that you're going to get.

So an F5 will certainly do the job, an F3 with an external recorder will do the job, just about anything you can get with 10-bit 4:2:2 output will do the job (though more DR is ALWAYS better, especially when you're compromised on your setups).

You'll always be limited by the light and subjects in front of the camera, that's simply a fact of capturing reflected light to a light sensitive medium. But at a certain level, quality is about as good as it's going to get for your style of shooting (and about as good as it's going to look with the sorts of internet/DVD deliverables you probably have).

For the style of work you're doing I think an F5 shooting XAVC would be a really nice, simple and efficient setup. For a lower priced option, the F3 with an external recorder (which can be picked up for a song at the moment) will also do everything you need (and if you can pick up the Element Technica Body Armour for it (at their 70% off clearance pricing) you'll overcome most of the gripes the F3 actually presents.
 
morgan_moore said:
I also ask a fair question - how far can a better camera go
Click to expand...

To contradict myself a bit however about "good lighting" life is also not always perfect either so also believe there can be a lot of value in having a "better" camera with higher bit depth, a good codec, or RAW shooting capability for more flexibility in post. (Part of the reason I sold my F3 and went for F5/F55)

On DVX I usually avoid the discussion of what I do in "post" because many a times I notice it leads to the someone arguing that things should be shot right in the first place and not "fixed" in post. (and many times people claiming they shoot everything perfectly whenver they shoot something.) While I do agree with "doing things right" in principle, there are times where for one reason or another (cost, time, money, scheduling, ease, etc..) it just does make sense to leave certain things in post. Call it "fixing" or "creative decision making" but it is what it is.

Anyway as far as how far a good camera can go, once you start mixing color temperatures I find this in itself will lead to a ton of problems so if you really want to start selectively adjusting scene color balances well this is just asking for a lot of secondary cc in post which can be time consuming and a serious waste of time unless you like playing with software for hours. I also try to use the same source of light as my fill as the broad source if I'm mixing lighting. So for example if you have puke green overhead flo's and its not feasible to replace them with higher quality lights then you might want to also use something similar as your overheads as your fill and this way at least later on correct everything in the scene together. Or you turn off the overheads and figure out another way, etc.. I would do the same with daylight sources like the sun, even if indoors. I would opt for some daylight balanced lighting and sometimes use gels to try to get it closer to the sun color temperature. Other issues can arrise just from using cheap made LED ligthing for example and mixing it with other light fixutres.. even if supposedly the same color temperature.

I agree with Grug that an F3 might just be something that would interest you. Especially now with the Odyssey coming out featuring an amazing screen along with recording abilities. An F5 is better from a footprint point of view, but it is an expensive proposition over an F3 if you mostly only want to shoot in HD. For you though I think you like RAW too so having the option of XDCAM, XAVC, SR Codec, and 16-bit linear RAW might be something to get excited about.

I know I sure did.
 
Hi Sam,

I'm following the thread with interest. I decided to stick with the fs700 and go down the odyssey route. I think the cost to fully kit out an F5 (lens mounts, monitoring and 4K capability) is beyond my budget. For me, the 700 and O7 offers 1080p444 12bit (downsampled from 4K) and also 4K up to 30fps when needed (or the burst rates). The 2K RAW seems unnecessary and i'd imagine the 2K RAW on the F5/F55 would be pretty much the same as they're also downsampling a 4K sensor. Getting a 1080p (or 2K) image downsampled properly from a 4K 12bit source would be ideal for me.

I'm interested to see which path you go down! Personally i'll stick with the 700 until i can afford a 55.

I'd have thought 4K would be of use to you, with the ability to punch in and reframe (useful for that run and gun stuff)

cheers
Paul
 
I'm Sure shooting such jobs in 4k would be too data heavy - I'd love a punch in though - a doubler - then a 17-55 would cover me well.
 
Dennis
I'd make one comment which is about the speed of correcting raw - this is what I do all the time in stills - and it is really fast (excluding any transcodes) - often you just copy the settings from the clip before and maybe a tink on the exposure slider
 
Yep I work with Lightroom for stills and couldn't agree more about copying settings from previous clips and then only introducing minor variations.

This is what I love about Resolve and find makes color correcting (and grading) fast whether its raw or not. You can use your cc that worked on a previous clip, then if you need to just add a previous node that can be used to adjust your exposure incase for whatever reason that clip was too bright or dark.

For example below in the first node on the left (node #8) it controls my base exposure then the rest of the nodes and their settings can be applied to "most" of the other clips. In some cases nodes are turned off or not needed, or secondary color correction on skin (seen in some of the grey looking boxes) need to be adjusted or re-tracked over moving subjects, etc..

UE_seriousGrade_nodes_zps855bbd60.jpg


Morgan, I know you were pretty keen on the BMC earlier this year or maybe it was last year. But anyway now that it won't be limited to 4/3'rds are you considering the new BMC ?
 
Ill absolutely buy a 4kbmc if I don't buy an f5

basically I kind of trust Sony for things like (lack of) fan noise, dropped frames and the like.

my ex1 and fs100 are stellar rereliable

so add in slo mo, not buying an xlr box or sdi box and other things to make the bmc work the f5 actually starts to look good value!
 
.. To me the omplemtation of 2 k raw on both cams is probably the deciding factor - and it is I guess an unknown from both at the moment?
 
Keep in mind different flos, their age, etc.. will all contribute to different spikes, hue shifts, etc. all which a manual white balance can "help" but more often than not the image is further adjusted in post.

There is no reason the tweak needed in post can't be done with 8-bit footage in nearly any modern codec.

*Edit* I guess my point was even though the coloring in the vimeo video look great, I'd say more than half the reason is the quality of the flos, perhaps they are newer or more modern, and the rest is attributed to good cc and grade.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Shot on BMC 2.5 raw I thought this was quite interesting considering the puke environment.

Holy s8*t! That looks freakin' great. What lens is on there? The detail, the skin tones.. no deliberate light? I'm kind of shocked at how good that looks.
Click to expand...
 
I've written to Ryan the poster of that video to ask more details about the lighting sources, etc..

Let's see what he has to say.
 
starcentral said:
There is no reason the tweak needed in post can't be done with 8-bit footage in nearly any modern codec.
Click to expand...

Im not so sure. It is interesting to look around the boards other threads.. "how to WB the FS700" , "getting correct exposure on the Gh3" and more

Not only do these cameras have very sensitive codecs - they also dont really have the tools to hit the spot, mainly no RBG histos and also no tint control or measurement.

With the 5d I used to point the cam at a white board, pull up the RGB histo and plink about until the histo looked as I desired.

Not to mention that using a greycard is not always easy, shooting rungun your hands are pretty occupied and certainly for longer lens work getting a card near the subject may be complex..

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top