FS7: FS7 II - Does raw really make any difference? (qualitywise)

Thank you, SamEd. Your sample image shows how a complex image is ravaged by any codec based on the Discrete Cosine Transfer, which is: practically all codecs, except Redcode, but including both the FS5 and FS7 --- resolution and chroma subsample ratio notwithstanding.

However, the distribution destroys whatever care you took, by Raw or Redcode, to avoid this ravagement. As soon as you post it on Youtube or Vimeo, or put it on a DVD or Blu-ray, the artifacts will be foisted on your precious, pristine . . . what is that, TV static? Whatever. Until consumers stream video at much higher bitrates or with some ingenious codec, the distribution format will be our Cerberus.
 
combatentropy said:
...any codec based on the Discrete Cosine Transfer, which is: practically all codecs, except Redcode,
Click to expand...
Which is basically JPEG 2000.

But if you are trying to suggest that wavelet based encoding is somehow superior in quality with comparable bitrates I would like to see some proof of that.
 
Yeah, I was very much insterested in FS7 as the recent price drop made me think about getting one. We already have the old one at work, but no immediate raw addon for rent close by.
I think the internal codec is fairly resillient, but coming from stills shooting canon raw I love the ability to manipulate the image by a large amount afterwards, fx pulling up the shadows or the highlights.
But I take it that Sony raw is no where near that?
In other words give me more headroom than if I just take care when shooting internal.
 
legrevedotcom said:
Yeah, I was very much insterested in FS7 as the recent price drop made me think about getting one. We already have the old one at work, but no immediate raw addon for rent close by.
I think the internal codec is fairly resillient, but coming from stills shooting canon raw I love the ability to manipulate the image by a large amount afterwards, fx pulling up the shadows or the highlights.
But I take it that Sony raw is no where near that?
In other words give me more headroom than if I just take care when shooting internal.
Click to expand...


The Fs7 II has to be the best deal this side of Dodge .. just shoot internal HD or 4K Slog3.cine.. XAVC I .. how much head room do you need .. ! 12 bit Raw will never be that good anyway.. the maths dont work.. it has to be 16 bit to be worth the effort.. the EVF is not the best in the world, buy an EYE..a decent shoulder VCT plate.. a plate for V mount.. shame no TC in for sound devices to work .. thats the only thing I think thats a miss for the Fs7..
 
legrevedotcom said:
Yeah, I was very much insterested in FS7 as the recent price drop made me think about getting one. We already have the old one at work, but no immediate raw addon for rent close by.
I think the internal codec is fairly resillient, but coming from stills shooting canon raw I love the ability to manipulate the image by a large amount afterwards, fx pulling up the shadows or the highlights.
But I take it that Sony raw is no where near that?
In other words give me more headroom than if I just take care when shooting internal.
Click to expand...

As I thoroughly tested both RAW and Slog3 (the latter both from HDMI at 25p and from RAW SDI at 50 fps), I can say they are of visually identical quality when recorded to Shogun's DNxHR (and definitely higher quality than internal XAVC-I - especially at 25fps as it's only <300 Mbps). So were HDMI-out full 10bit 422 also at 50/60fps (like it is at up to 30fps), I'd say save your money and forget about the XDCA extension - unfortunately, if your'e into DCI 4K or UHD@50/60fps, you must either stick to the internal XAVC-I (which is OK at those fps as the bitrate is almost 600 Mbps), or buy the XDCA...

Piotr
 
Piotr,

Are you saying the ability to push/pull, set WB after the fact, create your own color profiles and shape the image with more information and tools was equal to doing the same with XAVC? I can only draw from my work with Canon RAW stills and some Magic Lantern usage but imho, RAW is not being utilized if it is not producing a better END result. I have always shot RAW for stills work as I wanted to escape in the in-camera processing and put my spin on the images. Out of the camera images can look fine but my RAW conversions end up looking better because of the effort put in and increased image information. But they could look worse just as easily with a poor conversion attempt. Since the video world is going more RAW, I would be interested to see how much you can actually bend these files if folks are not seeing a benefit to shooting in the format.
 
I only have been playing with stills saved RAW vs. compressed into JPG on my A7Rii recently (never was active in photography before) - and all I can tell you is this: no, RAW movies (recorded off the FS7 via the XDCA RAW SDI output, and stored by the Shogun Inferno as CinemaDNG) do not offer so much greater freedom in grading than those encoded into DNxHR (originated exactly the same way, but with S-log2/3 gamma applied by Inferno). BUT on the other hand, both these types of recording (i.e. CDNG and S-log2/3 with S-Gamut/S-Gamut3(.Cine)) DO offer much more fredom in grading than the in-camera XVAC-I encoding, even with S-log2/3... The diminished advantage of RAW (in comparison to RAW vs. JPG in stills) stems from the fact that in the case of FS7's it's only 12 bit, while RAW stills are 14 bit (at least on my A7Rii).

Piotr
 
And unless the FS7 raw differs from the raw of the FS5/FS700, White Balance is baked into the raw. One of the compromises that had to be done to fit it into 12 bits and to get it out through a single 3G SDI cable...
 
dmitrizigany said:
And unless the FS7 raw differs from the raw of the FS5/FS700, White Balance is baked into the raw. One of the compromises that had to be done to fit it into 12 bits and to get it out through a single 3G SDI cable...
Click to expand...

Yes. White balance is baked into FS7 SLog2/3 and RAW. That's why you only have the three pre-set choices and no ability to set a custom w/b. I've stayed out of the discussion as I continue to mend from my little encounter with BMW 5 series but now dying of boredom in the rehab hospital.

My experience in shooting FS7 RAW to the Odyssey is that, like with shooting SLog3, I tend to rate the camera EI 800-1000. Makes for a lot less noise. The Odyssey DNG's just grade so nicely when following C-D's recommended workflow in Resolve but I recognize that this is 12-bit RAW rather than the 16-bit RAW of the F5/55.

Just got a Shogun Inferno for testing and hopefully can compare Odyssey to AtomosRAW when I get out of the hospital.

Ned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top