FS5: FS5 4K color and bit depth

Nirv said:
I would suggest you think about the lightweight FS5 with a decent bit of heavy glass hanging off the front and consider whether that is in any way an advantage? If you're only going to put Sony's flimsy E Mount lenses on an FS5 it'll be fine but put a 24-70 F2.8 on it and it'll be so front heavy hand held shooting will be uncomfortable to say the least.

I think you'll more than get €900 extra value out of the additional features of the FS7 and you can shoulder mount it without any rigging if you rig the VF much further forward which you can't do with the FS5 which is aimed squarely at hand held shooting out of the box.

The FS7 rolling shutter is certainly adequate but not the fastest around, I rather doubt it'll be any issue for you unless you shoot like a whirling dervish.
Click to expand...

In fact we are going to use - whatever camera we decide to invest on - with our Zeiss glass plus 2 Sigma zooms (18-35 and 150-600)



JMtheDP said:
There are good deals on used FS7s beginning to appear too

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...7-package-for-almost-loosing-2500-(crazy-deal!!!!)
Click to expand...

buying second hand will be difficult since we are budgeting the whole project for financing. Anyway, a new one will end almost at the same price that guy is selling his, since we are going to deduct VAT charges on all the gear we are going to buy.
 
I'm not going to delve deep into the details here, as it can make for a very long, boring technical discussion. But I was asked to comment so I shall.

You cannot generate a "true" 2K 12-bit 4:4:4 image from a 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 image. You can generate a pseudo version but there will be missing data. There simply will.

4K -> 2K will allow 8-bit -> 10-bit properly.

4K -> 2K will allow 4:2:2 -> 4:4:4 properly.

Bigger jumps will mean some gaps in data. Mathematically you can create in between numbers but they are not "true" values, but instead are mathematical approximations which, while likely to be close to accurate and better than no in between data at all, are still in the end approximations of real data points. When you add compression into the mix, well, now you're asking to draw out approximation data from concatenated approximation data. This is where ugly errors begin to creep in.

Compression throws out vast swaths of information. Then it uses a bunch of math to approximate what used to be there. Now you want to take those approximations and use them to create new data? The improvement will be of little value.

Don't believe me? Test for yourself. Take the data through a workflow simulation and see where it gets you.

On the other hand, we have successfully taken the 4K RAW data from cameras such as the FS700 and generated exceptional levels of information from it. We do this before any additional compression is involved. And the C500 uses the same sensor data to output 4K 10-bit RAW or 2K 12-bit 4:4:4, and does so marvelously.

But if you start with a 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 signal that is recorded in a highly compressed format, well then you are fooling yourself if you really think that you will get a vastly superior 2K image from that source. It just won't add up.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Don't believe me? Test for yourself. Take the data through a workflow simulation and see where it gets you.
Click to expand...

People should make sure they also compare the do nothing until the end of post production approach i.e. downsampling to HD for output, by doing this you may have the added benefit of effects such as blurs, diffusion and vignettes over the top of the original data that will break up the 8 bit and compression posterisation to yield a marginally better HD downsample. Marginal being the operative word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top