FS7: From fs5 to fs7

[quijotesco24]

Hello,

I’m looking to upgrade my FS5 after 2 years of good use.
I’ve been shooting docs, news and commercial gigs with it but I’ve never been happy at all about the image I can get, slog or standard profile. I’m quite new with video, but my background as a photographer is 15 years plus so I understand the basic concepts quite well.

My main concern with the FS5 is the noise and the poor quality files I get. I tried everything, ETTR, expose correctly, underexpose, watch and read trillions of people. No matter what I do, the image sucks every time for one reason or another. There is noise on the shadow areas even at base ISO, skies or big parts of solid color don’t have smooth shades, inconsistent color reproduction. It’s weird but I feel the camera is not solid and do random things every time, like suddenly on a scene with strong highlights it blooms like crazy, 2 minutes after it doesn’t. But I always said that every problem was user error and so far no client has never complained. Maybe I’m too picky?

After few clients demanding a FS7 I’m willing to step up and buy one but problem is that after playing with some files from a friend and downloading some footage from internet (specially the Abelcine shot test), I’m seeing the same noise at base ISO, same s*%ty shades on solid colors and same hard work to get a nice pleasant image.

I know how much better a FS7 is than a FS5, and that’s what everyone is using. But before I turn mad or jump ship. Should I take for granted this is normal on Sony cameras or It’s just me I’m seeing ghosts everywhere?

 

[cyvideo]

After few clients demanding a FS7 I’m willing to step up and buy one but problem is that after playing with some files from a friend and downloading some footage from internet (specially the Abelcine shot test), I’m seeing the same noise at base ISO, same s*%ty shades on solid colors and same hard work to get a nice pleasant image.

I know how much better a FS7 is than a FS5, and that’s what everyone is using. But before I turn mad or jump ship. Should I take for granted this is normal on Sony cameras or It’s just me I’m seeing ghosts everywhere?

I've heard these observations before on both the FS5 and the FS7 and will go as far as to say I experienced similar problems when I first started working with XAVC. Firstly with S-LOG3 which is the mode where most 'noise' comments seem to arise. After some years of working with these cameras I find it's best in S-LOG3 to work at EI 800. Sure you trade of some hi-end dynamic range but generally I don't find that to be a major sacrifice in the real world especially if I'm lighting for the job. EI 800 is quieter than the stock 2000 ISO of S-LOG3. With the later firmware on the FS7 Sony enabled 'noise reduction' in Cine EI mode so if you end up with an earlier model FS7 make sure your the firmware is up to date. This is by default set to mid level and I find that is the best setting quality vs noise. Overall I find the noise levels on the FS7 to be better than the FS5. I think that is down to the more sophisticated post sensor processing that the FS7 inherited from the F5. The biggest issue I find regarding banding and non smooth gradients comes down to how you process your XAVC files. Below are two 'sky shots' shot in S-LOG3 at EI800 and intentionally pushed pretty hard using just curves and chroma levels to prove the difference. Severe curves/chroma levels I would never use in a real world situation but they do show me how the results of working between 8-bit or even 10-bit software can vary quite dramatically with regards to your final output quality. Even working with 10-bit NLE software with grading tools and plugins that are written in the 8-bit domain can have a major impact on that end result. There is one very popular NLE out there, won't mention its name, that has a real mixture of native 8-bit and 10-bit grading tools some of which are can impact your output quality quite significantly. Below are the two screen exported stills of 'pushed sky.' You tell me which shot was processed in either 8-bit or 10-bit. Bare in mind these shots are both 8-bit JPGs so there is the problem of representing a 10-bit output image as cleanly as possible in an 8-bit format still. How well they stand up to uploading we will see. Finally I had editors say to me there is banding in your shots and I'm working in Resolve or XYZ NLE in 10-bit depth. In 99% of those cases I have found that sure they are working in 10-bit (32-bit floating point) but their entire graphics output path is working in 8-bit color depth. So many editors working in Resolve not having a 10-bit output to judge their output quality. If working with Resolve you need a BM output card to see the full 10-bit quality via SDI as none of it's GUI interfaces are 10-bit output, they are only 8-bit. Other software that can output a GUI 10-bit signal in 99% of cases needs to be connected to a graphics card that CAN display a full 10-bit color depth and that can connect to a guaranteed 10-bit display via a Display Port as with the later Nvidea cards as that's the only way to access their 10-bit output. Once I went down this full 10-bit path in the post production pipeline I would say 99% of my banding/gradient issues evaporated. I've also added a image of the 10-bit display output settings that will give you a true look at your image quality if you have the requisite hardware to access the 10-bit path on an Nvidea based system.

Chris Young