F5: F55 or F5 RAW vs XAVC comparison, Where?

Finally, I made a extreme stress test.
All footages were shot at 5500K setting with a halogen light.

Raw looks simply beautiful while XAVC turns the colors in a psychedelic way! The differeces are more obvious with original images.
I tried to pull out skin tones from them but cannot as well as raw footage. They lost tone and texture in some way.
BTW, I didn't notice a particular difference between XAVC footages from in-camera recorder and from the raw viewer conversion.

Fig.H Graded Raw Image
Raw_1.174.1.jpg

Fig.I Graded XAVC (S-gamut/S-Log2 rawviewer convesion) Image
XAVCSlog2fromRaw_1.175.1.jpg

Fig.J Graded XAVC (S-gamut/S-Log2 in-camera recording) Image
XAVCSlog2_1.176.1.jpg
 
Last edited:
In figure I. it's quite odd how the lens flare (bottom part of frame where is the hand) has turned into a big black spot.,

If you do any playing with XAVC in-camera, Mark (Grug) discovered that turning the MATRIX off is more pleasing when taking the image through the post workflow.

I need to test this on my f55 soon and see what kinds of differences I get.
 
Thanks for the example achy, I honestly don't see a big difference on the final images. I think the flexibility to pick white balance after shooting is great for some gun and run situations but with those huge files sizes make it really unpractical for that.

I think having the Whitebalance right is paramount, from experience is possible to recover 90% of shoots from over and underexpose problems ( in case there is any) with the internal XAVC 4.2.2.

I'm glad I don't have to expend $9000 on the RAW recorder and extras. I think for someone owning an F5 make a bit more sense to own an AXS-R5.



starcentral said:
In figure I. it's quite odd how the lens flare (bottom part of frame where is the hand) has turned into a big black spot.,

If you do any playing with XAVC in-camera, Mark (Grug) discovered that turning the MATRIX off is more pleasing when taking the image through the post workflow.

I need to test this on my f55 soon and see what kinds of differences I get.
Click to expand...
 
^ I agree. It shows how XAVC internally can actually hold up quite well.

RAW originating image offers more subtleties in skin gradations and less chance of blocky artifacts in harder to compress areas, but overall I was expecting and almost hoping for much improved highlight handling from the RAW recording. In this test at least, it is not as night and day as I would have thought.

Still guessing at whether blowing $10k is worth it or not.
 
acky I hate to ask you to do more "work" but it might be more suitable to test RAW to ProRes conversion in RawViewer against XAVC RAW conversion, and to XAVC in-camera.

I would speculate the ProRes 422 HQ would hold much better than XAVC when coming from RAW.
 
I like to talk about more detailed experience in the grading.
In the last test above, I applied second grading to moderate the flare and pull the skin tone.
In that process I used the qualifier of davinci to pick the skin tone area.
At first, I graded raw footage and I could finished in a straight way.
Then I copied the grading to the XAVC footages and add delog LUT. But the result was rather different.
There was a certain color shift, of which I don't know the exact cause, it's very common thing in real grading anyway.
That wasn't good comparison, so I made least color compensation then readjusted the qualifier to make XAVC looks better.
In that process I feel more difficulty than raw, I think it was partly because loss of tone/color information and partly because compression noise especially as moving pattern.
It's good news for XAVC that final derived images get good recognition. It's also better than expected for me.

As a motion picture, my total impression is something like this.
When 4K raw is assumed as S35, XAVC looks like S24 in a halfway of S35 and S16.
Or when 4K XAVC is assumed as S35, raw looks like S50mm.
It's not scientific at all but I think the noise patterns make me feel so.

acky I hate to ask you to do more "work" but it might be more suitable to test RAW to ProRes conversion in RawViewer against XAVC RAW conversion, and to XAVC in-camera.
Click to expand...
I don't know prores conversion is possible in the Mac version... I'm PC guy 'cause not fan of one button mouse:happy:
My another reason to hesitate using prores is this.
http://www.stopp.se/lab-testing-the-pro-in-apple-prores/
Is this really true?

BTW, I'm thinking of uploading some moving version sample somewhere though not ready.
 
Any skin tones samples? Preferably shot in XAVC by origin, and then also shot in RAW converted to ProRes.

Would really appreciate it, contemplating very very hard on pulling the trigger on the R5. It's this or F55 goes for sale and used Alexa on the way.
 
starcentral said:
Any skin tones samples? Preferably shot in XAVC by origin, and then also shot in RAW converted to ProRes.

Would really appreciate it, contemplating very very hard on pulling the trigger on the R5. It's this or F55 goes for sale and used Alexa on the way.
Click to expand...

Honestly Dennis, if that's at all an option - go for a used Alexa (or if you don't need raw, a new Amira) just go for it. Just think of the hours of your life you'll get back NOT having to run endless tests and exercises to try and make your Alexa look like Alexa.
 
I hate to say this in many ways but I'd prefer my F3 on just about any shoot compared to the F5 or F55. I have given up on these cameras as a usable option for myself. The images are just too electronic to my eyes no matter what you do. The TV shows that use them look horrible despite talented people shooting them. The F35 is still not matched by anything digital for under $40K; I wish it were more practical for general work. If I get a new camera for personal ownership (which Im not sure is a good idea anymore) I'd absolutely get a Alexa/Amira or nothing.
 
VinceinLA said:
I hate to say this in many ways but I'd prefer my F3 on just about any shoot compared to the F5 or F55. I have given up on these cameras as a usable option for myself. The images are just too electronic to my eyes no matter what you do.

I'd absolutely get a Alexa/Amira or nothing.
Click to expand...

The 55 matches an Alexa perfectly when done right:

 
VinceinLA said:
I hate to say this in many ways but I'd prefer my F3 on just about any shoot compared to the F5 or F55. I have given up on these cameras as a usable option for myself. The images are just too electronic to my eyes no matter what you do.
Click to expand...

I was particularly worried about that myself upgrading from the F3 to an F5. But the results so far (pushing compressed 10-bit F5 footage through the same post workflow that yielded me great results from the F3) puts the image as near-identical to the F3 to my eye. So I don't think that should be a concern - the cameras can look just as good as the F3 (and they hold a fraction more dynamic range).

But, looking identical to the F3 does still seem to put them (like the F3) in 'baby' Alexa status. Which is to say - the image comes pretty damned close, but not all the way. But with Nate and Art Adams and Al Chapman and other bright minds pushing things further and further with the new Fs, who knows - maybe we'll get there in the end. If they can wrangle 12-bit 4:4:4 2K with the ProRes upgrade, that'll certainly help getting there without raw.
 
Opinions certainly vary. I'd say they don't match, but that's me. Also, if it takes an extra $2000 worth of my or someone's time to make an F55 look good, it's not worth it. Why have I still not seen a great looking F55 scene? Please point me to one; they are old enough to have proven themselves by now.

Doesn't that Blacklist show have the post budget to make something impressive happen? I actually wondered if it was C100 material when I first saw it. Also the trailer that I saw in a huge 4K theater for a Million Ways last week stood out as having really odd skin and texture in general and I paused wondering what it was shot on. An F55? Why they wouldn't use F35's or Alexa's is beyond me. 14 stops on an F55 and they still don't handle highlights or mildly hot skin like an F35 does.

How is 12bit 444 is going to help when its raw mode can't get there either? I know guys who will literally spend 24 hours on their mac's trying to make one scene shot with an Epic look just like film. In these cases I think I'd shoot film if that's what you want, it'd be cheaper and much faster. Same with this whole thing. Pay $45K for an Amira or used Alexa and you are done for good messing with all of these insane workarounds.

I paid way under $10K for the F3.....
 
I agree that proRes won't really benefit the F5/55 because it will still be gamma encoded ie. slog2 or slog3 (cineon based) and you will still be stuck unravelling it in post and it will still only be 10-bit. (There has been no confirmation that 12-bit 4444 will be available, but of course we'll know more by the end of the year.)

It's true that the only magic possible for the F3/F5/F55 will come in form of post voodoo, but even though its been a year for the F5/F55 that's really not a lot of time especially considering the camera has been updated every 2-3 months with newer firmware changing it up quite a bit. It might be 5 years before we see anything decent from it in terms of a cinematic looking Hollywood film, but by then we'll be bitching about the F7/F77 models.

We have to remember the F5/55 cost 5-10 times less than Alexa/F35 new, and likely for good reason.
 
Last edited:
When I look at this frame from the F55 shot in slog2 XAVC 10-bit processed mainly in photoshop, it doesn't really look that "videoy" to me. It looks like something I'd get from shooting a still from a DSLR.

What do you guys think?

4k_book_1.1.1.jpg

4k_book_slog2_1.1.1.jpg

Here is original DPX if anyone wants to play; it was shot under fluorescents and not sure what the white balance was set to. Probably my favourite 4400k. http://www.starcentral.ca/forums/UF/4k_book_1.1.1.dpx
 
Last edited:
Hey Vince,

You have a point. I will not argue that the 55 is a better camera than the Alexa...because it's not. There's the usability/maturity issues; those are the bigger issues for me right now.

But, I've shot with both a lot lately though, including side-by-side on the same shoots, so my exaltation of the Alexa being the be-all end-all has been met with reality. The 55 is really, really close. Here's what I'd say about it technically:

1-The Alexa has the upper hand in how good the highlights are rolled off in-camera. But this is largely masked in post by the roll-off of highlights in a proper LUT, or ACES RRT. Or, by hand with curves, if you are that ninja.

2-Alexa with 709 LUT and F55 with LC709A LUT match perfectly, both on-set and in post. They also match perfectly if you flip ACES on in Resolve, but most people consider that esoteric. I don't know why, it's about 3 switches or pulldowns in Resolve to turn on. I'd encourage you to do some tests if you have the means.

3-The noise on the F55 has a pattern. The noise on the Alexa does not. In my experience, this means you can push the Alexa a bit farther before noise becomes distracting. Overall, noise level is very comparable.

Frankly, the reason I myself would say you've never seen what you consider outstanding F55 footage is because very few people are using the F55 as a poor-mans Alexa. Most I've seen come from broadcast backgrounds and are using the standard and hypergammas, leaving detail and aperture on, etc etc. In some ways, the Alexa "look" is an acquired taste.

Overall, I am kind of with you on the "if I have to do this and this, it's just too much". I could sell my 55 and get an Alexa. But I've run&gun with an Alexa before, and the 55, OVERALL, fits my needs better. Until every last job I do comes with an AC, and I start turning down doc work...

IF the Amira was $40K, and IF I knew I could amortize it in 18 months...I'd get THAT.

BTW, I just heard the other day that the movie "A Million Ways to Die in the West" was shot on F55s. Also, somewhat older news, Claudio Miranda used 55s as pickup cams on "Tomorrowland". I think we'll get an eyeful soon of what the camera is really capable of with A-list DPs and colorists. I don't throw that out as bandwagon propaganda, maybe "A Million Ways" will look like crap. But we'll have something to look at soon!

[edit: just looked at the trailer for "A Million...". Looks pretty dang good. Reminds me of some the crazy detail and color rendering seen in Oblivion]
 
Last edited:
Nate thanks for posting the PSA, was that RAW, Xavc, or SR Codec?

Regarding the "poor man's Alexa" that's the exact reason to get the F55. With all the features it does offer, including capability to soon shoot in 5 different recording formats, gamma modes, tons more, it really is no wonder it's been a tough nut to crack and decoding the 'matrix' only gets more difficult and possibilities endless. As Nate pointed out correctly it doesn't seem the shooters who use them even care if it looks like an Alexa. Again many folks coming from broadcast backgrounds or what not. It says Sony on the side, they are happy.

Granted I sure want it to look it's best (like an Alexa) and with a lot of the info Nate has been sharing, it has been helping tremendously.
 
Last edited:
starcentral said:
Nate thanks for posting the PSA, was that RAW, Xavc, or SR Codec?
Click to expand...

55 was XAVC, Slog3/SGamut.cine. Alexa was ProRes 444, Log C

I kept XAVC for running times so the interview could go un-interrupted. The Alexa had 512GB Codex cards, so we could go for a long stretch and I thought that would help the director.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top