F5: F5/F55 1080p

GaryinCalifornia

GaryinCalifornia

Veteran
I still like the F55 over the F5 because of global shutter, F65 color space....

But thinking for a smaller film project... it'd be much easier for me to shoot 1080p and save money using the F5... then down the road getting the recorder... hard drive storage etc. when I have more $...

So just wondering if others had this idea as well...
 
My opinion is that for film-like cinematic quality high-end work and grading in mind.... the 16-bit RAW in linear gamma is going to be great from the FS700, F5 or F55.

Once you go to raw sensor data it is a whole other animal. It can't even be described like we often talk here about going from 8-bit to 10-bit, or 420 to 422 or 444, or LOG vs non-LOG, or YCbCr vs RGB.... RAW trumps all of that times 10 !!!

So is there a difference between F5 and F55 color space? YES of course, but so far there is no way to even display the "extended color gamut" but only use some of the information in grading. How much of that comes out really in the end, who knows. I don't.

I been saying it in other threads, the 10-bit XAVC internal codec of the F5/F55 is not enough of anything powerful to be crazy over if you want to lose that video look. 12-bit RGB and up is where that starts to happen... so if you're thinking of 1080p delivery (as am I) then really the F5 shooting 2k RAW 16-bit will be perfect. I just wish the F's had 12-bit option but Sony saved that for the F65. Why do you think that is. :D
 
Last edited:
I'm seriously considering the F5 but only really for HD. If I need 4K in the future, I'll probably rent the recorder. At present, 1080p/2K is the highest delivery format that I need.

It's nice to have the 4K option there for the future and unlike with the FS700, it's good that we've been able to see the design from the outset.

Although I have rented F3s and C300s, the designs always felt compromised and flawed. The F5 is the first compact S35 camera that meets my ergonomic requirements. I also have no time for external recorders and ridiculous Meccano rigs.
 
I think it is very simply a cost thing. 12-bit processing would require more horsepower and therefore increase the cost of the F5/55.

Having shot just a few clips in 16bit Linear Raw on the F55, the image is amazing and the grading latitude lets you create virtually any look you desire. Raw does rule!

Ned
 
There is a link to a RED thread where a frame from RAW is graded 100 different ways. Some of them extreme and reminiscent of Andy Warhol artwork...but the point is in not one of them has the image fallen apart or degraded significantly in a way that would be obvious.

The problem with raw (as many BMC and soon D16 low-budget indies are finding out) is that it takes incredible patience and skill to work with raw linear gamma images, let's hope whatever camera you buy that shoots raw has equally good software to go along with it. :happy:
 
starcentral said:
...10-bit XAVC internal codec of the F5/F55 is not enough of anything powerful to be crazy over if you want to lose that video look.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't personally relate "film look" to bit depth. Greater bit depth recording is obviously an advantage and allows for increased image manipulation in post but is not essential to achieving a filmic look. There are many projects shot 10 bit Prores HQ on the Alexa that look very filmic indeed. In other words, if the 10 bit XAVC on the F5/F55 looks like video, it will more likely be a result of the processing than the recording bit depth.

I have seen 8 bit fall apart quite quickly in the grade but it can still produce stunning images. 10 bit is a significant improvement over that.

I'm not disagreeing, just offering a different opinion. For most of my work, 10 bit is a good compromise. Higher end work can afford the additional time and money to improve on that.
 
It's not directly related to bit-depth, but often people are comparing log to linear and confuse the two when talking about it (including me sometimes). In linear gamma you need more bit-depth to get about the same "image" as you would with a lower bit-depth in log - but RAW will still have more information in the highlights over LOG anytime.

When you have really high bit-depth combined with raw linear gamma you can pull so much information down from the highlights and increase the roll-off that is typically associated with the look of shooting on film. With log gamma you need to expose a lot more carefully, which doesn't always happen and could result in clippy highlights and more video-like feeling.

Sure if your careful you can do "anything" but for me I would take lower bit-depth in raw linear gamma over low bit-depth log gamma any day for a "film look".
 
Last edited:
I wish the 2k was here... that would be perfect for now... and then 240 fps on the F55 yeah... also wish there was a way to ramp the camera like the old Varicam...
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
I wish the 2k was here... that would be perfect for now... and then 240 fps on the F55 yeah... also wish there was a way to ramp the camera like the old Varicam...
Click to expand...


What do you mean by ramp the camera? Variable frame rates or are you actually talking about in camera speed ramping? Because I don't remember the old Varicam doing the later.
 
Adamsenoj said:
Maybe because they gave you 16 bit instead?
Click to expand...

Yes in 16-bit RAW but I'm talking about 12-bit in a codec like XAVC or SR Codec (MPEG SStP).

The F5/F55 gives you 10-bit XAVC or 16-bit RAW... but nothing in-between. :crybaby:
 
Last edited:
I believe you could go from 24 to 60fps then you have to use some frame rate converter that Panasonic had... gee I'm trying to remember... did some thing with varicam footage at Birns & Sawyer... used their frame converter at the same time as we outputted to 24pfs or something like that... its been about 7 years... can't remember if it was just slo mo or some ramping.. but I believe it was like a remote you plugged into the camera...

but I did find this...

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2011/9/20/a-varicam-for-the-21st-century.html
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
I believe you could go from 24 to 60fps then you have to use some frame rate converter that Panasonic had... gee I'm trying to remember... did some thing with varicam footage at Birns & Sawyer... used their frame converter at the same time as we outputted to 24pfs or something like that... its been about 7 years... can't remember if it was just slo mo or some ramping.. but I believe it was like a remote you plugged into the camera...

but I did find this...

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2011/9/20/a-varicam-for-the-21st-century.html
Click to expand...

When they talk speed ramping I think they are just using the wrong term for variable frame rates. At least to me, what I know as speed ramping is to be able to change the frame rate the camera is recording, in real time as it's recording. So the speed changes in real time from for example normal 24fps to 120fps and back to 24fps. A lot of examples of that in the movie 300. But I'm sure you already knew that. So I don't think the old Varicam did that at all. Specially 10 years ago when even more modern and expensive cameras such as the F35, Genesis etc don't. Does the Alexa actually? I never heard.
 
Gary, getting back to your initial post another thing quite scary is that the F5/F55 will not be fully functional with its features until the end of 2013. We might as well say the beginning of 2014.

By then as usual we can all expect some crazy turn of events by RED and even other manufactures who have been sitting quietly on the sidelines (cough: Panasonic). This will only accelerate the devaluing of the new F5/F55 so really unless you can make 50% of the camera cost back in the balance of 2013 with the features you will have I'd be hard pressed to drop all that cash on an F55. The F5 seems a bit more doable but it really all depends on your clients and how much business you have. If you decide to rent out your camera you can definitely beat the deflation.
 
Dennis,

Could be not getting enough sleep last night... yes for price leaning towards an F5 just 1080p for now... so that in the future I could upgrade... got off the phone with Pro Max... 20k for a 4k editing system... real time... right now I can do 1080p with only a few grand for hard drives...

As I said when the Sony's where announced... its like the old days when an Avid could go for a 100k... you had to be able to pay it off in a year... always something new with digital...
 
Grug said:
Do we know what the bitrate is for 2K raw from the F5(5) @ 24fps? Has that been posted anywhere?
Click to expand...

VERY rough calculations:

512GB AXS card holds 68 minutes of 4K @23.98 (this from Ned's video)

=7.35GB per minute (plus some for formatting overhead on card)

=122 megabytes per second (again 4K @23.98), not unlike Redcode 3:1

Divide by 4 to get 2K

=30.6 megaBYTES per second, 244 megabits per second

Take these only as ballpark figures, but you're probably going to get 4.5 hours of 2K raw on a 512GB AXS card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top