F5 and F55 detailed specifications (thanks to Sony Europe)

Brian, what is your take on Canon/Sony trying to get into 4k market? my feeling is anyone who wants 4k, s35mm and RAW already knows where to go.

These new breed of cameras seem to be "in-between" or "intermediary" stage of something else. Like maybe hybrid camera or something.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Technically, no - a raw file is an undemosaiced image. But by your rationale, there are no raw video cameras on the market. Every raw camera bakes information in.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could argue that even masking stuck pixels qualifies as baking in. But there are cameras which come quite close to providing an unfiltered look at the sensor, and do so at a higher bit depth than the C500. I believe it sands alone as a 10-bit RAW camera.

Cheers.
 
starcentral said:
Brian, what is your take on Canon/Sony trying to get into 4k market? my feeling is anyone who wants 4k, s35mm and RAW already knows where to go.

These new breed of cameras seem to be "in-between" or "intermediary" stage of something else. Like maybe hybrid camera or something.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of with you on that. And in a way, 4K is already established as an intermediary to 8K, and will eventually be like how we think of 720 today). I think the true* 4K/raw market is pretty small, and probably decently well served right now. 4K gives some nice buzz to a product, but the most useful aspects of these new cameras (C500, F5, F55) are it's strong 2K capabilities. I think most people interested in buying these new cameras will likely place a higher value on the high frame rate, bit-rate and bit-depth of it's 2K capabilities over the raw workflow - mostly because the raw workflow with both manufacturers is not well established yet (like it is with RED), so there may be some trepidation to step off that ledge first.

By the time we all have a need for 4K, I think there will be a plethora of well-heeled products on the market to meet varying needs. I can also think of many reasons why a production may never want raw until storage and processing comes up to speed for the masses.

One of the smartest things that Sony is offering with the F55 is a compressed 4K internal recording. That, I believe, is where the market will expand because it's not currently served by RED, who has a firm establishment on raw workflow.

*a lot of productions may shoot raw with RED cams, and don't take advantage of the workflow opportunities due to time, cost, gear, etc. I've worked on many projects that transcoded RED footage straight to prores with no adjustments, then took that through the pipeline to final delivery. You'd be surprised how often that happens.
 
Last edited:
I'm amazed by how much people misunderstand what Canon is doing with their RAW (and kinda curious why it is being discussedin this thread). Canon is doing EXTRA work to deliver a better RAW, and people are jumping down their throat because of it.

First off, there is absolutely no camera on the planet that delivers simply the data off the sensor and that's that. It can and will never work. It needs to be dealt with in some fashion.

Setting a white point for a RAW file is nothing new, Sony does it in the F65 and ARRI did it in the D20 (others did too).

12-bit linear is effectively the same as 10-bit log encoding, it is just a more efficient way of storing the information. What the Phantom cameras move their 12-bit linear files on and off the Phantom CineMag on-camera memory, the CineMag stacks it in 10-bit log. At AbelCine we have done tons of analysis on how this effects these RAW files, and I can tell you it is effectively transparent. What's thrown away is basically useless filler information. Canon's Uncompressed 10-bit Log 4K RAW is currently the largest RAW file format out there, except for the very specialized Phantom 65 Gold 14-bit Linear 4K RAW. It is a bigger file than REDCODE 5K 3:1, Sony F65 with the highest quality and anything else out there. Canon went with the 10-bit Log so that the files wouldn't get too insanely large to deal with in post. They did it to help you, not hurt you.

Lastly there is the question of how gain is applied. It can be an analog gain at the sensor (did y'all know that a CCD or CMOS sensor is actually an analog device?) or a digital gain later on. Each has advantages and disadvantages. With the Alexa, when you change the ISO you are simply dancing the middle grey point up and down inside the dynamic range of the sensor. That camera's sensor has 14.5 stops of range and that is it. Move the sensitivity and you alter how much room you have for over v. under exposure. With Canon, analog gain is applied at the sensor so that the middle grey point is always in the center of a 12-stop range of exposure no matter what the sensitivity. This means less noise when pushing exposure compared to other cameras. This is true for the Canon C100/300/500 in standard HD or RAW output.

So you can choose to look at it as Canon's engineers working hard to give you the best, richest signal to work with and in a manageable way, or you can be dogmatic in your definition of RAW. When it comes to image performance, I vote with my eyes.
 
Mitch Gross said:
So you can choose to look at it as Canon's engineers working hard to give you the best, richest signal to work with and in a manageable way, or you can be dogmatic in your definition of RAW. When it comes to image performance, I vote with my eyes.
Click to expand...

First, I offer my counter opinion with respect, Mitch. I know without a doubt your view has merit.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's been my experience that camera manufacturer engineers don't necessarily value the same aesthetics I do, so whenever I hear they've been making the image better on my behalf, I'm skeptical.

I would also argue that if you're outputting 10bit, then doing your WB and possibly gain before output is indeed the best way to go. I understand the 12bit linear/10bit log perceptual equality.

My philosophical ideal of raw is to defer decisions to later point, and record sensor output with the finest fidelity possible. There is comfort as a DP knowing that you can defer some decisions until later with no penalties in image quality. I've put that to use with Red, and worked out quite well. The Green Day concert I did with 11 Reds is a great example in my mind. Some songs needed to be 400ISO. Others needed to be closer to 1000. And the LD was not about to change his show for picture, even if it was possible. I also understand your point of doing ISO in metadata has it's dynamic range flaws. Still, it worked well. Not something I could have done with the Canon without having dark images in video village. (or a huge pile of LUT boxes)

Put another way, my view on raw is not defined by internet messageboard purism or "dogmatic", but by what I've worked with (many times) and prefer so far. Conversely, maybe Canon has something nice they can show me eventually. My experience with the clip Abel posted in my own Resolve setup proved it's just as slow or slower than Red/F65/BMC, but without the perks of easy WB or exposure adjustment.

Again, this is all academic when the C500 makes nice images. At the same time, I've shot plenty of Red and enjoy that definition of raw, it worked well for me, both creatively and objectively.

I don't mean to pick on Canon, I'm glad somebody is thinking outside the box and delivering that. But if you put Sony and Canon on opposite ends of a raw philosophical continuum, I like prefer Sony's F55 approach. Add ergos, recorder integration and price, and it gets even more lopsided for me. Personally, I'm done with (let me qualify this: low cost) external recorders. My personal 3 issues in 16 months is too many for me.

The reason I felt the need to discuss it in a F5 thread is because there seems to be some very creative solutions out there to get raw 4K to the masses, and the Canon is a good example of what some of us are not interested in. Defining what we prefer by discussing, at least for me, what I (we?) don't prefer.

(p.s. Charles Papert, I'm counting your problems with my gear as 1 of those 'issues' :-) )
 
Last edited:
Mitch Gross said:
With the Alexa, when you change the ISO you are simply dancing the middle grey point up and down inside the dynamic range of the sensor. That camera's sensor has 14.5 stops of range and that is it. Move the sensitivity and you alter how much room you have for over v. under exposure. With Canon, analog gain is applied at the sensor so that the middle grey point is always in the center of a 12-stop range of exposure no matter what the sensitivity. This means less noise when pushing exposure compared to other cameras. This is true for the Canon C100/300/500 in standard HD or RAW output.
Click to expand...
I understand the clam by several well known camera manufacturers that you can change ISO (with gain) on their cameras without changing dynamic range. I just don't think it holds water.

Imagine that you begin with a full dynamic range scene and expose so that the sensor is just full (Full Well Capacity). Next, you stop down one stop. At that point, the sensor becomes half full, and the lowest previously readable signal drops one stop into the noise. At this point, the total dynamic range the sensor measures is reduced by one stop. Finally, you bump the ISO one stop (not the actual sensor count which you cannot change) and accurately move the top end back up one stop, but at the bottom end you are just applying one stop of gain to noise.

If you truly could have recovered the stop at the bottom (with e.g., magical noise reduction), you could have done that in the first instance in which case the dynamic range would have been one more stop than originally measured.

I suppose you could insure dynamic range does not change with ISO by deliberately reducing dynamic range, or artificially increasing noise as ISO is lowered. More likely, you could just ignore noise as one of the two measurement components when specifying dynamic range.

Every sensor has a dynamic range sweet spot.

Cheers.
 
Nate Weaver said:
Not something I could have done with the Canon without having dark images in video village. (or a huge pile of LUT boxes)
Click to expand...

C500 can send out LUT via SDI, so you don't need LUT boxes. Just an FYI, but it is a difference from the C300 I learned about last night at Createasphere.

Nate Weaver said:
The reason I felt the need to discuss it in a F5 thread is because there seems to be some very creative solutions out there to get raw 4K to the masses, and the Canon is a good example of what some of us are not interested in. Defining what we prefer by discussing, at least for me, what I (we?) don't prefer.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the fine line more often descends into bagging on Canon and spreading FUD. It's an odd characteristic of the Sony forum, I've noticed.
 
Admit One said:
I understand the clam by several well known camera manufacturers that you can change ISO (with gain) on their cameras without changing dynamic range. I just don't think it holds water.
Click to expand...

The funny part about science is that it works whether you believe in it or not. Speaking from experience on Canon C series cameras, you will undoubtedly find more grain in higher ISO images, but the over and under range remains constant from 850 to 20,000 ISO.
 
cowpunk52 said:
C500 can send out LUT via SDI, so you don't need LUT boxes. Just an FYI, but it is a difference from the C300 I learned about last night at Createasphere.

That's cool, and important. I appreciate good info like that, I really do.


cowpunk52 said:
Maybe, but the fine line more often descends into bagging on Canon and spreading FUD.
Click to expand...

I personally like Canon in general. I find their choices of late odd, though. I will say that Canon has an "eye" for what makes a pleasing image, and you can't say that about many (video?) camera manufacturers. IMO, of course.

Me myself, I hate FUD, so if I've helped spread some I'll try to pipe down.

cowpunk52 said:
It's an odd characteristic of the Sony forum, I've noticed.
Click to expand...

Let me tell you about a little forum called Reduser :-)

Point taken, though. Emotional camera discussions drive me bonkers, I try to do my part to keep it smart.
Click to expand...
 
cowpunk52 said:
I think the true* 4K/raw market is pretty small, and probably decently well served right now. 4K gives some nice buzz to a product, but the most useful aspects of these new cameras (C500, F5, F55) are it's strong 2K capabilities. I think most people interested in buying these new cameras will likely place a higher value on the high frame rate, bit-rate and bit-depth of it's 2K capabilities over the raw workflow - mostly because the raw workflow with both manufacturers is not well established yet (like it is with RED), so there may be some trepidation to step off that ledge first.
*a lot of productions may shoot raw with RED cams, and don't take advantage of the workflow opportunities due to time, cost, gear, etc. I've worked on many projects that transcoded RED footage straight to prores with no adjustments, then took that through the pipeline to final delivery. You'd be surprised how often that happens.
Click to expand...

I must confirm this, 2K is prefered, 4K eats a lot of space.
But a word "true" I have reserved for camcorders with true colors (444 or 422). F5 has about 8,9Mpx so it is a true 2K camera (3x 2048 x 1080). For true 4K colors you need at last 2x (or 3x) 4096 x 2160 = about 18 (27)Mpx. With interpolated colors from 8,9Mpx (during debayering) it is not a true 4K for me (and there is no 8K near future for me .-) ). But I like a big DR of these cameras and hope for better gamut for right digital cinema colors.
 
Last edited:
OK cheers all for not letting emotion get the better of this thread, thanks for dropping in Mitch.
 
We have some mirrored petabytes and even with this storage we are often out of space :-) .

...so for the 4K revolution we need a break in the capacity of hard drives, that would be the best news.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
There's must be an error with the measurement of these cameras. They are exactly the same size as the F3 - 151 x 189 x 210 mm in the specification-link.
 
oh,
just realised that S/N is 57dB on these 2...
The F3 has 63dB according to their site...
My Ex-1 is 54dB...
hmmm, 4k comes at a (small) price...
 
for PMW-F3 s/n ratio look at here - http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD68_Sony_PMW-F3.pdf

Page 12
... Clearly, the noise levels do not change linearly in accord with the slope of the gamma curve, there being only
about 2dB change over the signal range. This probably indicates that there is significant noise reduction
being applied in the camera. Since the slope of the gamma curve is unity when the signal level is about 50%,
it is also clear that the noise level is only about -48.5dB rather than the claimed -63dB in the specification.

Sensitivity was not measured directly. The specification claims it to be T/11 at ISO800, and since ISO800
corresponds to 0dB gain, this means that the sensitivity is very similar to that of a 3-sensor ” sensor, which
in turn implies that the pixels are about 5μm square. Given that the sensor is ‘super 35mm’ size, it must be
24x13.5mm. For the pixels to be 5μm spaced, the sensor width must be about 4800 pixels, making the
sensor approximately 4,800x2,700. This fits reasonably well with the estimations in section 1.2.1, and
means that the sensor has approximately 12.9 Megapixels, typical of a digital stills camera. It also explains
why there is little or no coloured aliasing, and why the red, green and blue signals all have the same
resolution and aliasing.

- for me it is means that every four pixels are the one efective pixel (like a C300).
 
The true nature of the F3 sensor has never been disclosed by Sony as far as I know. But it is the best S35 sensor together with the one in Canons C300 when it comes to noise. Sony themselves said that there are more pixels on the new F5/55 sensors than on the F3 and it must be to get 4K out of these newer cameras.
 
Pave1 said:
I must confirm this, 2K is prefered, 4K eats a lot of space.
But a word "true" I have reserved for camcorders with true colors (444 or 422). F5 has about 8,9Mpx so it is a true 2K camera (3x 2048 x 1080). For true 4K colors you need at last 2x (or 3x) 4096 x 2160 = about 18 (27)Mpx. With interpolated colors from 8,9Mpx (during debayering) it is not a true 4K for me (and there is no 8K near future for me .-) ). But I like a big DR of these cameras and hope for better gamut for right digital cinema colors.
Click to expand...

So this is not a true 4k camera then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top