alaskacameradude
Veteran
I thought this was the case but I wasn't sure. I thought it would be
better to keep my mouth shut and stay away from the risk of speaking
out of my a$$.
FS7: FS7 successor (rumours/expectations)
- Thread starter alohype
- Start date
I thought this was the case but I wasn't sure. I thought it would be
better to keep my mouth shut and stay away from the risk of speaking
out of my a$$.
NorBro
Major Contributor
It's the case with every camera on the market that offers these kind of options.
But when discussing base/native ISO in cinema cameras (even today's mirrorless'), manufactures have referred to the number that provides the piece of hardware in question the most dynamic range.
And IMO, the rest is POV and semantics.
If someone chooses to use the word base/native interchangeably with "lowest" then so be it. It's not my business.
But these companies do not provide you multiple base/ISOs in their marketing material, which is by the way why I have this opinion. There is only one number unless the camera provides a dual-ISO (very few on the market) and/or there are other circumstances.
Just like when advertising maximum DR you don't mention the camera is capable of 8-10-12 and 14 stops. You share the highest number. As mentioned it's understood that the ISO (this is the terminology used when speaking about cinema cameras) drops when you're switching over to REC709 and other options.
Have you ever seen a camera with 14 stops and 100 ISO?
I looked up the Sony material because I was curious and sure enough they mention 2000 in S-Log3. Also enclosed are random exhibits A, B, and C. Check your manuals and specs of your favorite cameras and you’ll find that all of them have ONE base/native ISO, not two or three or four (not considering dual-ISO).
So again, it of course doesn't matter what anyone says but just know that many people you speak with regarding a camera's base ISO will automatically think S-LOG, C-LOG, V-LOG, etc and not a "natural" picture profile.
But when discussing base/native ISO in cinema cameras (even today's mirrorless'), manufactures have referred to the number that provides the piece of hardware in question the most dynamic range.
And IMO, the rest is POV and semantics.
If someone chooses to use the word base/native interchangeably with "lowest" then so be it. It's not my business.
But these companies do not provide you multiple base/ISOs in their marketing material, which is by the way why I have this opinion. There is only one number unless the camera provides a dual-ISO (very few on the market) and/or there are other circumstances.
Just like when advertising maximum DR you don't mention the camera is capable of 8-10-12 and 14 stops. You share the highest number. As mentioned it's understood that the ISO (this is the terminology used when speaking about cinema cameras) drops when you're switching over to REC709 and other options.
Have you ever seen a camera with 14 stops and 100 ISO?
I looked up the Sony material because I was curious and sure enough they mention 2000 in S-Log3. Also enclosed are random exhibits A, B, and C. Check your manuals and specs of your favorite cameras and you’ll find that all of them have ONE base/native ISO, not two or three or four (not considering dual-ISO).
So again, it of course doesn't matter what anyone says but just know that many people you speak with regarding a camera's base ISO will automatically think S-LOG, C-LOG, V-LOG, etc and not a "natural" picture profile.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make.
I understand you are talking about log when discussing base ISO for Sony but as a footnote, 709 has a place in professional settings too. The base ISO should be discussed in the context of the gamma.
Alister Chapman said:
http://www.xdcam-user.com/2018/08/noise-iso-gain-s-log2-v-s-log3-and-exposure/
NorBro
Major Contributor
No, no - not just Sony, every relevant camera. Sony could actually be considered an exception in this case if you wanted to be meticulous.
It would be more obvious with cameras like RED and ARRI. No one on the planet would ask me what's the native ISO of the Weapon in REC709.
Even though I provided one view, I think it's best to take Doug's advice and be specific because there may always be a disconnect at some point based on personal experience, misconceptions, and/or expectations.
But again, if you're replacing the words native or base with 'lowest' and you'd like to know what's the native/base - lowest ISO - in a particular gamma then that's 100% correct for you.
But to me, native/base ISO = most dynamic range = that ISO #.
Will anyone see a difference between 2000 or 2500? No! But companies needed to claim something and that's the rating.
It would be more obvious with cameras like RED and ARRI. No one on the planet would ask me what's the native ISO of the Weapon in REC709.
Even though I provided one view, I think it's best to take Doug's advice and be specific because there may always be a disconnect at some point based on personal experience, misconceptions, and/or expectations.
But again, if you're replacing the words native or base with 'lowest' and you'd like to know what's the native/base - lowest ISO - in a particular gamma then that's 100% correct for you.
But to me, native/base ISO = most dynamic range = that ISO #.
Will anyone see a difference between 2000 or 2500? No! But companies needed to claim something and that's the rating.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Base ISO = Gain at 0dB.
On another point, I'd never take a company's claims for ISO at face value anyway. I can't speak for other manufacturers, but if you rate Sony's cameras yourself with a meter, charts, and scopes (as I have done) none of them actually have the ISO that is claimed. Thus, negating the whole point of publishing an ISO anyway -- which the whole idea is supposed to be an international standard that does not vary from camera to camera. ISO 1000 ought to be the exact same sensitivity on every camera and every film stock in the entire world, but we know that it is not the case. One more reason why the GAIN setting is what matters for electronic cameras, and ISO numbers displayed in the viewfinder are just bulls*%t -- unless you take the time to rate the camera yourself with a meter. That is the only way you will have a meaningful and reliable number for YOUR camera with THAT particular setup. Change a setting? Then you have to rate the camera all over again.
NorBro
Major Contributor
haha, well now that's a response I love!
But still...based on what companies continue to publish (and I don't use the word gain), the native/base ISO to me is the ISO that provides you the most dynamic range and it's always through a LOG format.
I mean it's all right there in their write-ups (even the FS7 one above). It's just a claim but that's why this/my POV exists.
What you are also describing is practice vs. theory which is a separate notion and something any professional mind would agree with too...and that you really can't trust anything anymore!
But still...based on what companies continue to publish (and I don't use the word gain), the native/base ISO to me is the ISO that provides you the most dynamic range and it's always through a LOG format.
I mean it's all right there in their write-ups (even the FS7 one above). It's just a claim but that's why this/my POV exists.
What you are also describing is practice vs. theory which is a separate notion and something any professional mind would agree with too...and that you really can't trust anything anymore!
ISO is all over the place between brands and different cameras so just take it for what it is. I put my FS7, FS5 and A7RIII at the exact same settings but the exposure differed. I would just get to know any camera I own and decide for my self how high or low I can get acceptable results at.
S.Blanchardon
Well-known member
I'm betting on the new codec, probably X-OCN, internally or with a new form of back extension. Sony doesn't make LOG encoded RAW so it will be 16 bits Linear RAW (X-OCN only exists in that way anyway)
Now, if we could still use XDCA-FS7 and be able to record it externally via the RAW output, who would have been tweaked to work that way too... it would indeed be nothing short of incredible ! I think same could apply to FS5 possessors as well.
Maybe it's going to be X-OCN LT, as this format is even lighter that Prores.
Now, if we could still use XDCA-FS7 and be able to record it externally via the RAW output, who would have been tweaked to work that way too... it would indeed be nothing short of incredible ! I think same could apply to FS5 possessors as well.
Maybe it's going to be X-OCN LT, as this format is even lighter that Prores.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I hope I didn't accidently raise anyone's hopes too high. I like what Sony is doing with the FS7 and I'm looking forward to what I've seen so far, but it doesn't measure up to some of the speculation here. Just saying.
S.Blanchardon
Well-known member
Trying to read between the lines like we try to do is silly, right ? OK, OK, we will lower our expectations...
Gizmosgadget
Active member
If Sony implements X-OCN for the FS7 I highly doubt it will be 16-bit. That would be a kick in the teeth to those who shelled out $10K+ for the R7 recorder + media. Besides, other RAW offerings from Canon, BM and even ProRes RAW are all 12-bit.
I'm thinking Sony might be offering something more broadcast centric to the FS7. Wireless connectivity etc. It is NAB after all. I could be wrong. A lot of people, (me included) get their hopes up every NAB only to see Sony introduce a new HDC camera, or new IP solutions. Souls get crushed. Not trying to s#1t on NAB, but I think Cinegear or IBC have better camera announcements. Hope I'm proved wrong.
I'm thinking Sony might be offering something more broadcast centric to the FS7. Wireless connectivity etc. It is NAB after all. I could be wrong. A lot of people, (me included) get their hopes up every NAB only to see Sony introduce a new HDC camera, or new IP solutions. Souls get crushed. Not trying to s#1t on NAB, but I think Cinegear or IBC have better camera announcements. Hope I'm proved wrong.
traviswears
Well-known member
I found out a little bit more but I think I'm even more confused now. Was hoping for a new cinema camera but from what I heard, I don't think it'll be a direct FS7 successor. Sounds more like an upgrade to existing systems, though if so...I'm not sure why all the secrecy. There will be a new camera but I'm not sure where it fits in the lineup.
Embargo ends Sunday, so we'll find out more right before show opens.
Embargo ends Sunday, so we'll find out more right before show opens.
New camera with:
Updated more modern sensor (still being "only" 4K is just fine)
Better AF
Better codecs / raw
Timecode I/O added to the body, which can otherwise stay the same (or go even more compact? Like the FS5/EVA1?)