FS7: FS7 and 7Q+ for Raw 4K DCI. Do I have a workflow problem.

So I'm not sure what you saw in the viewfinder as there are a few ways those settings can be confusing But the RAW feed to the Odyssey7Q+ was 2000ISO and when you used waveform and toggled on/off the standard LUT you were basing everything on 2000ISO. It's not the end of the world and your footage is fine, but in the future you definitely have room to overexpose. I'm not a fan of random ETTR for each shot. I prefer to set an exposure reference level and then always work to that. Otherwise I need to manually compensate for every shot and my noise and contrast structure can change with every cut. Setting a single exposure level and sticking with it will bring consistency to your image. This is why we have the Exposure Compensation LUTs. If these presets don't work for you then it is straightforward enough to create your own variants.
 
morgan_moore said:
Mitch do you have any videos/promo material showing FS7/back/7q raw working in any sensible manner?

Ive only heard of two raw shoots, both have ended on this board with (apparently) super thin files.

S
Click to expand...
I don't have any of this packaged, but I know of a number of clients who have had great success with this combination and workflow. And I've done it myself. The quality available from FS7/XDCA/7Q+ RAW is extremely high. There are several major productions in use currently that I am not at liberty to discuss, but these are major network shows that had to have the technical workflow tested and QCed before the distributor would allow their use. The quality is considered quite high.
 
i guess the question with all this is: is raw worth the hassle on the FS7?
when i bought the FS7 i ordered the XDCA right along with it since i am a firm believer in raw and thankfully had a chance to compare some sony raw footage with the internal codec.....i cancelled the XDCA right away....
i haven't had a chance to see some DNGs from the 7Q+ yet, if anyone would like to share, i would love it....but i am having a hard time wrapping my head around the workflow, extra weight, size, hassle, file size and also the extra cost of any raw solution with the FS7....it is a great camera and i find that even with the internal (non raw) codec as long as i expose correctly, cine-i with slog3 gives me raw quality files....raw on my red epic was in no way better and the extra DR of the sony actually makes exposure easier and the files more flexible.....
i still love raw and the advantages it can definitely have, and i do have the ursa mini 4.6 on order, mostly because the math of XDCA+7Q+=ursa mini body....
of course the ursa isn't shipping and who know when it will but until then i am not sure the FS7 is the right camera if one HAS TO HAVE raw....it kind of takes away much of what makes the camera so great....
but i would love to get blown away by some raw dng files if anyone would like to share:)
 
I completely get Red RAW a superb format with a good balance of quality and file size but DNG is off the charts painful.

The cost in dealing with that data must be considerable for a reasonable size production and there must be a point where it's cheaper to buy the latest RED Wang and shoot manageable RAW.
 
Absolutely. Redcode raw absolutely brilliant. Sony's raw implementation is nowhere near that level of maturity with not much more leeway than a well exposed traditional video file, and when allied to the file sizes of DNG it is hard to justify. However, leveraging the raw output and wrangling it in the 7Q to Pro Res (although I'd much prefer DNXHR) is something worth getting more excited about.
 
red raw is compressed and far from lossless, 3:1 or 4:1 DNG should be a good thing but i haven't seen any files so i can't say much about it....
in which way is pro res better then XAVC-I? i understand the math but is it really noticeably better? i haven't compared or seen any pro res out of the 7Q+ and haven't really been interested since my experience with sony raw (not in terms of handling, purely based on image/file quality) made me (very happily) stick with XAVC-I....

i generally agree that if a raw (or even pro res) workflow is required, there are other ways to do it...
 
It's nothing to do with being technically lossless or compressed, although I'd argue anyone having issues with correctly shot 5k red footage at 4:1 or 5:1 compression has ventured into the realms of pixel peeping. Redcode and Redcine gives user so much more control over the data and the image. If I recall correctly, stuff like WB is baked in with the Sony raw implementation as opposed to being adjustable at the metadata level.

I am not a fan of pro res personally, but I appreciate it is a necessary evil in production if you're not looking after the entire job and many (possibly the majority of?) places expect material delivered in that format.

As for the other benefits, 240fps straight to pro res is something the FS7 cant do on its own, or 240fps at all for that matter. Excellent real-time 4k downsampling to 1080p is another plus for the system. None of it is a 'must have' for everyday jobs but they are all great options to be able to cater for.
 
Last edited:
Ben Scott said:
It's nothing to do with being technically lossless or compressed, although I'd argue anyone having issues with correctly shot 5k red footage at 4:1 or 5:1 compression has ventured into the realms of pixel peeping. Redcode and Redcine gives user so much more control over the data and the image. If I recall correctly, stuff like WB is baked in with the Sony raw implementation as opposed to being adjustable at the metadata level.

I am not a fan of pro res personally, but I appreciate it is a necessary evil in production if you're not looking after the entire job and many (possibly the majority of?) places expect material delivered in that format.

As for the other benefits, 240fps straight to pro res is something the FS7 cant do on its own, or 240fps at all for that matter. Excellent real-time 4k downsampling to 1080p is another plus for the system. None of it is a 'must have' for everyday jobs but they are all great options to be able to cater for.
Click to expand...
you are of course absolutely correct about the features and the simple fact that pro res is the industry standard....and that red raw 4:1 or 5:1 might as well be lossless...it's as good as it gets from the sensor.....i was really referring to a best image quality possible scenario....and if the extra weight/size/cash actually improves the image...even when pixel peeping....
does any one have any input as to how 3:1 dng would compare with a red raw 5:1?
 
Ben Scott said:
Absolutely. Redcode raw absolutely brilliant. Sony's raw implementation is nowhere near that level of maturity with not much more leeway than a well exposed traditional video file, and when allied to the file sizes of DNG it is hard to justify. However, leveraging the raw output and wrangling it in the 7Q to Pro Res (although I'd much prefer DNXHR) is something worth getting more excited about.
Click to expand...

Sony raw via the AXS-R5 is tremendous, I'd absolutely put it on par with low-compression Redcode Raw. It obviously doesn't have the compression flexibility of Redcode, which is a shame, but the files are superb and offer vastly more latitude to grade than a traditional video file.

Paul schefz said:
does any one have any input as to how 3:1 dng would compare with a red raw 5:1?
Click to expand...


I haven't tried 3:1 DNG, just 3:1 Sony Raw - on a 1:1 pixel basis it trumps the more compressed redcode files, but the red has higher resolution, so overall the two are very comparable in overall tonality and resoluteness.
 
Uncompressed RAW workflow is not for everyone, we fully appreciate that. But in side-by-side comparisons to XAVC there are definite differences. Details in fine detail on moving subjects, detail as subjects fall into shadow regions, color information in low exposures. There is absolutely more information and greater freedom for manipulation.

All that said, High Frame Rate Apple ProRes is coming soon to the Odyssey7Q+. With it one will be able to shoot 4K60p and 2K240p directly to Apple ProRes 422(HQ). There is a lot out there comparing the visual quality of XAVC to ProRes. The image quality is certainly on par at a minimum, and many (myself included) find it superior for various reasons. Don't ever just shoot a chart, shoot real life subjects and move them. You can draw your own conclusions.

But one of the biggest differences is in post. I do not care that XAVC consumes less memory than ProRes. What I do care is that it chokes my computer. Real time work in 4K can be a chore in XAVC. In ProRes I can do it on my laptop. Any savings in memory are quickly destroyed by the heartache involved in working with the XAVC material, especially if I'm going to -- shudder -- render something.
 
So whats the reason.. XAVC I came along way after Prores.. Sony is a big company with many years in the video business.. I read XAVC is supported by all the name edit software.. the files are smaller.. why is so difficult to work with in post. ? Im not an editor but I just wonder why XAVC is a problem ..?

Thanks
 
Mitch Gross said:
But one of the biggest differences is in post. I do not care that XAVC consumes less memory than ProRes. What I do care is that it chokes my computer. Real time work in 4K can be a chore in XAVC. In ProRes I can do it on my laptop. Any savings in memory are quickly destroyed by the heartache involved in working with the XAVC material, especially if I'm going to -- shudder -- render something.
Click to expand...
XAVC-I 4K in fcpx is stupid good.....i can edit seemingly unlimited layers with effects applied...i almost can't get it to drop a frame....and this on my macbook pro...render is of course not instant....
dng and red raw are a completely different thing altogether....i would not even try to do anything serious with red raw 4 or 5K on anything below an 8 core mac pro with D700s...
 
I'm having the opposite experience on the PC platform. I suspect it will take a dual 18 core CPU and a gargantuan amount of memory to be able to handle smooth playback of XAVC.
 
Mitch Gross said:
All that said, High Frame Rate Apple ProRes is coming soon to the Odyssey7Q+. With it one will be able to shoot 4K60p and 2K240p directly to Apple ProRes 422(HQ). .
Click to expand...

sounds great but hopefully it will also be supported on the 7Q and not be limited to the 7Q+?
 
Paul schefz said:
XAVC-I 4K in fcpx is stupid good.....i can edit seemingly unlimited layers with effects applied...i almost can't get it to drop a frame....and this on my macbook pro...render is of course not instant....
dng and red raw are a completely different thing altogether....i would not even try to do anything serious with red raw 4 or 5K on anything below an 8 core mac pro with D700s...
Click to expand...

+1 My 2015 MBP edits 4K XAVC like a hot knife through butter, my 2010 12 core fares less well even off a fast RAID.
 
XVAC-I works absolutely perfectly on my self-built PC. Pro Res is always a pain in the arse unless you are in the mac ecosystem exclusively. DNXHD/DNXHR is surely the only cross platform codec that works perfectly all the time with no silly Quicktime related gamma shifts or slowing down Windows machines etc.
 
Last edited:
i would like to add that i tried the new premiere and the experience with XAVC was by far not as good...definitley had dropped frames and sputtering even without effects applied...fcpx is ridiculous...i am not sure why it works so well but i am not complaining....i just edited a short thing with all iPhone 6 clips and somehow fcpx handles 4k XAVC-I better then iPhone clips....
 
Not had any issues so far with Premiere CC, even mixing XVAC-I, red R3Ds, DNXD and Pro res all in the same timeline. Maybe it's all about the graphics card?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top