FS7: FS7 or FS5 ?

Amadou

Amadou

Carbonite Member
Actually I'm surprised these two cameras don't have their own forum on this website. We are shooting a feature to be shown in a movie theater. The budget is tight and I have to film this in Africa. I tested both the FS5 and the FS7. Obviously the FS7 has Cinema 4K in 4:2:2 whereas the FS5 is UHD 4K in 4:2:0. This said, at twice the price, is the FS7 worth it when you have a tight budget? Thank you for your opinions.
 
If your shooting a feature I would look into the Panasonic EVA-1 or the Canon C200 aswell.

In terms of FS5 VS FS7:
If you shoot with the FS5 I would recommend recording with an external recorder, which in the end brings the price closer to the FS7.
It (the FS5) also has problems with how many outputs and screens it can run at the same time, which might make it a hassle to work with.
The FS7 4K XAVC-I is good enough for most stuff if you treat it right, and you have outputs to monitors working, the ability to run 3D-luts and change WB with a knob instead of in the menu and the ability to put the camera in CINE-EI mode which basicly makes it much more fit for shooting a feature than the FS5 custom mode, and a bit more fail-safe for shooting log without any settings being wrong.

If you records RAW or RAW to ProRes with an external recording on the FS5, it might give you an edge in IQ though.
 
I don't use external recorders. They are a pain and add weight. I am therefore comparing the cameras on internal recording. To be honest, if you consider that BLADE RUNNER 2019 was filmed in 3.5K, then it does not matter wether you film Cinema 4K or UHD. Both will get the job done insofar as the final DCP is in 2K anyways. This said, some people suggest that the FS7 looks more "cinematic" because the image processing is not the same. So this leads me to the same question.... FS5 or FS7?
 
Hi Amadou. I tested both and bought the FS7. I found it had less noise and preferred the image quality, not to mention the various shooting modes. You say you tested both so I would suggest checking the noise levels on your tests to see if you agree.
 
FS7 with XDCA adapter on the back of it.
When someone says feature, I'm assuming that not only will you need director's monitor (and possibly assistant's monitor) outputs, but that you will have an audio person who will want to sync time code, hence the XDCA.
 
If you're going to be shooting in 4K DCI or 4K UHD, and you don't want to use an external recorder, then the FS5 should not even be on your radar because it's 4K is only 8-bit. End of debate.
All the other advanced features and performance upgrades of the FS7 would just be icing on the cake. Really, the two cameras are not even in the same league.

 
What is wrong with 4:2:0? I have never had a distributor ask about what codec I filmed in. In the end I deliver a ProRes 2K copy. All they care about is whether the film works or not. I am not saying this to challenge you but tu understand why 4:2:2 is so important.
 
10 bit allows you to grade without breaking the file - ie getting banding and other artifacts.
If you shoot your look perfectly 'in camera' then maybe 420 is OK.

---
If you are shooting a feature you should have Black Magic cameras on your consideration list.

The sony cameras are great for other types of work like event coverage where recording pro res uses too much space.

Sony have other advantages like sound at dual levels from one mic - but this is not relavant to features
Sony also do high frame rates at reduced resolutions - also not relvant to features
Sony E mount allows a speed booster - useful for working with cheap zooms but also not relevant to features
The FS5 is small and light - not that relevant to shooting a feature
 
I think most of the features that make an FS7/5 good for coporate and event shooting are not relevant to shooting a feature.

I think manys thing about black magic cameras make them suitable for suiting features and not suitable for shooting events.

Ive been involved in a couple of features - both used black magic - all my corporate and event work seems to be on sony.

You have to fight the right battle with the right camera.

==

One thing about shooting a feature is that you have to be aware of data rates and the cost of the hard drives (and bakcups) you will fill and the time data management will take.
ProRes is bigger. XAVC is smaller, XAVC and a Prores Transcode is bigger. BMagic raw may be smaller than prores.
Is your editor happy with XAVC in the edit?
 
The FS5 is a bit poor for image quality IMO for a feature A camera. The killer app of this camera is that it is tiny and usable on a gimbal.

This puts you on a BM Ursa Mini or an FS7. The Ursa is cheaper. They are the same weight. The file from the ursa is prores - possibly better than the FS7.
Fs7 wins on high ISO and Dr - but under lights or in good natural light the Ursa will probably beat the FS7.

Worth a watch - Paul has an F5..
http://extrashot.co.uk/ursa-mini-pro-review/
 
So then it does not make a difference whether I use the FS5 or the FS7. What I like about the FS5 are the proxy files. That allows for quick editing. I wish the FS7 had the same think.
 
Going by your responses, I think the fs5 is the camera for you.

And conveniently for you, that happens to be in agreement with what your mind had already made up.:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

The fs5 will, from the sounds of things, be more than enough camera for the work you do and plan to do in the near future.
 
Amadou said:
So then it does not make a difference whether I use the FS5 or the FS7. What I like about the FS5 are the proxy files. That allows for quick editing. I wish the FS7 had the same think.
Click to expand...

If you think you need proxy files, what you really need is a better computer and/or drives. Any computer worth using at all should be able to slice and dice XAVC 4K like it was butter.

I agree with JPNola that you've already made up your mind to get the FS5 so just get it, I certainly don't have the time to explain the advantages of 10-bit 4:2:2 over 8-bit 4:2:0. If you are at the level that you don't understand the difference already, or can't appreciate the difference, then you will be perfectly happy with an FS5.
 
Thank you fof the feedback about the computer. That issue should be settled as I have an I7 6850 with 12 Terrabyte Raid 0. Are you saying that this will slice through the XVC like butter? Moreover, I do know the 4:2:2 holds more colour information... but does that really affect the image? Finally, how do distributers tell the difference if most people can't
 
Amadou said:
Thank you fof the feedback about the computer. That issue should be settled as I have an I7 6850 with 12 Terrabyte Raid 0. Are you saying that this will slice through the XVC like butter? Moreover, I do know the 4:2:2 holds more colour information... but does that really affect the image? Finally, how do distributers tell the difference if most people can't
Click to expand...

'Most people' can tell the difference...
If you heavily grade a 420 file it becomes covered in banding and blocks and looks bad to 'most people'

Your answer is here..

10 bit allows you to grade without breaking the file - ie getting banding and other artifacts.
If you shoot your look perfectly 'in camera' (and therefore dont need to grade) then maybe 420 is OK.
 
I usually add contrast and saturation and adjust brightness slightly. But does the audience notice any difference between 422 and 420? I am also being told the FS5 has more grain, less sensitivity and gives a les "cinematographic" look than the FS7 because of the way the signal is handled and processed. How much of that is true?
 
The initial tests with the FS5 were not looking great so I lost interest and never followed it. The FS7 looks better but the question is whether it looks ~$2500 better, and that depends on what you have to sacrifice in order to pay those extra ~2500.

What I don't get is why you don't consider the FS5 II: specs wise it was a bummer because it's just the same as the I, but it's using a new generation of color processing and the images seem to look a lot better. And it's just $500 more than the I. I'm not sure when the shipping date is, but it should be close.
 
Amadou said:
I usually add contrast and saturation and adjust brightness slightly. But does the audience notice any difference between 422 and 420?
Click to expand...

The audience views through a viewing device - maybe an iphone or maybe an imax cinema with the latest projector. Many low end viewing devices are 8bit only so the final delivery to the device will be 8bit. If you aquire in 8bit you have no 'spare' data to shift avout in the grade so any grade witll degrade the image. It is up to you and your audience to make a visual aesthetic judgment as if this degredation matters - or is 'noticable'. In the case of adding a little push in sat and contrast the degredation will probably be minimal. In the case of converting from Slog and giving a deep grade the degredation can become significant.
So the answer is 'it depends'
My personal answer is that I would not like to shoot a feature film in 8bit - I was 'forced' to shoot a BBC doc in 8bit and was not happy with the results.

Amadou said:
I am also being told the FS5 has more grain, less sensitivity and gives a les "cinematographic" look than the FS7 because of the way the signal is handled and processed. How much of that is true?
Click to expand...

I dont own the 5 - (but would like to) - you can infer some stuff about possible qualities by noting the data rates of each camera.

The thing about XAVC codec is that it varies its quality under differing conditions to save space (excellent for doco shooting with long roll times - less relevant to shooting a feature) and because of this variation the answers will often be 'maybe' 'probably' or 'occasionally'

For example the FS5 may match the Fs7 with a 'simple' image like a portrait on a plain background, while the FS7 may look better than the FS5 on a complex scene such as a wide view with lots of detail like trees and leaves and grass blades.
 
Unlike many on this board and the internet in general I dont feel you need an Arri or Red or F65 to shoot a feature.

If you take your time, light well, agree and test a look (camera settings) in proeproduction you can nail your shots 'in camera'

The Arri Red or F65 allows you wiggle room when the light is not perfect, the production team change their concept of the look they want or you do an special effect like creating day for night in the grade. They are tools that enable a film to be made safely and on time - which implies on budget.

If you have a tiny crew and budget the Fs5 is very appealing because it is so easy to move about, and uses small grip equipment, and flies on a cheap gimbal.

These could be factors that help your production team to concentrate on performance, character and art direction - the key elements to the creation of a good film.

Personally, however, I would still want the extra robustness of the FS7 or Ursa Mini codec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top