FS7: FS7 vs FS700 - Image quality?

[Arash Ayrom]

Been doing some pixel pushing grading a piece shooting internal FS7 and FS700/7Q, often times trying to match them but also doing some quite stylised looks. I find there is so much more information in the FS7 files and they seem to be a lot easier to push and pull.

Ben, I'm very curious about this. What format were you recording to externally with the FS700? RAW or ProRes (or something else)? Would greatly appreciate you elaborating on what you mean by "more information" in the FS7 files.

Thanks!

 

[LeoGrey]

What format were you recording to externally with the FS700? RAW or ProRes (or something else)?

Thanks!

I believe he was referring to recording INTERNALLY, which the fs7 does exceptionally well. However when recording externally there is no footage to suggest the same performance deficit between the two, with or without the extension unit. One would assume that the external signal of the fs7 would be superior, but in fact there is zero real world proof of this.

It would appear that Convergent Design has unlocked a monstrously beautiful image from the fs700. Makes you wonder if Sony intended for it to be that good.

 

[ashclever]

Ergonomics aside, based on all the footage I have seen from FS7, I still think there is some magic mojo happening with the FS700 7Q combo over the FS7. I could make the upgrade at the moment but the ergonomics are just not enough reason to make the switch....and I would hate to give up my 240fps.

The Sony F35 spec wise shouldn't deliver what it does...but it has the MOJO, some cameras just got it.

 

[Ben Scott]

Ben, I'm very curious about this. What format were you recording to externally with the FS700? RAW or ProRes (or something else)? Would greatly appreciate you elaborating on what you mean by "more information" in the FS7 files.

Thanks!

The FS700 was 7Q raw to pro res slog2. The FS7 internal Cine-EI slog3 sgamut3.cine. Every FS700 shot was more challenging to make work. Don't know if it was DR or the codec but it was far easier to make the FS7 stuff sing.

It would appear that Convergent Design has unlocked a monstrously beautiful image from the fs700. Makes you wonder if Sony intended for it to be that good.

Compared to its original internally recorded image, certainly. But all things being equal I prefer the FS7's internal recorded footage I've not shot enough with my 7Q since firmware updates to make a definitive comment on the FS7 / 7Q external recording quality vs internal.

 

[DLD]

Video Devices PIX-E5 doesn't?

Off the spec sheet, E5 records only 1080p via 3G SDI. It records 4K via HDMI. Q7+ has more SDI inputs, so it can record 4K Raw out of FS-700, which doesn't have the 4K enabled HDMI out.

 

[paulcurtis]

I'll wade in, although i've said this on multiple threads so it might be like a broken record.

IMHO, a FS700 recording 4K RAW to an O7Q is as good as anything you'll get out of the FS7 so long as your post workflow is correct. If you compress those FS700 DNGs with slimRAW then your data storage requirements are on a par with ProRes 4444.

The key is RAW post workflow and that's not for everyone or every situation. If you're handing files off to someone else, the FS7 is a much better choice.

Shooting ProRes the FS7 is the way to go, hands down, Slog3/.cine - the workflow is easy and just right. If you don't want an external recorder, FS7 hands down too. Overall it's a much more usable camera. So for the majority of people it's the right choice.

But if you have control over every aspect of your workflow then the FS700+O7Q is such a bargain...

One benefit, for example, is highlight recovery in RAW, you can get back a stop or so and get some nice smooth highlights. Highlight recovery works best when white balance isn't baked into the RAW files. The FS7 raw files have white balance baked in, the FS700 doesn't.

There are compromises though, as far as i can tell, the FS700 RAW isn't really 12 bit, nor is the FS7 (at least it wasn't at the start, i don't have any recent tests). In the case of the FS700 this isn't so bad because the white balance isn't baked in (so by the time the colours are matrixed you don't see any issues), but on the FS7 i know that's led to issues with visible banding, especially in 2K. I'm assuming (but i don't know) that perhaps some firmware updates fixed this. And it's a RAW only issue (and i don't think many people are using RAW with the FS7, which is a shame...)

I'm amazed that the FS700 has lasted me for so long, partly down to the O7Q. I think the FS5 might offer similar benefits once RAW recording comes to that. I'd love to move cameras, i have totally new camera syndrome but there's nothing out there that i would go for (yet)...

cheers
Paul

 

[Ben Scott]

Hearing the leak from Jarred Land that the Red Raven is going to be under $6,000 for the brain so probably $10,000 ready to shoot makes me ready to swap cameras immediately if you want a good condition FS7 *

Redcode raws takes a wee on just about every other recording format from a great height in my opinion.

* Depending on whether it is s35 or MFT sensor...

 

[Gene Sung]

I believe he was referring to recording INTERNALLY, which the fs7 does exceptionally well. However when recording externally there is no footage to suggest the same performance deficit between the two, with or without the extension unit. One would assume that the external signal of the fs7 would be superior, but in fact there is zero real world proof of this.

It would appear that Convergent Design has unlocked a monstrously beautiful image from the fs700. Makes you wonder if Sony intended for it to be that good.

I've owned and shot with both the FS700 + 7Q and the FS7 extensively. I can say without any doubt that the color science from the FS7 is much better. CineEI / Slog 3 blows Slog 2 out of the water in terms of aesthetics / color science. LC709a give the FS7 a very filmic baked look that I never got with the FS700. With the FS700 you can get it looking very good, but it takes more time and know how. FS7 just looks good right out of the box if needed which is something I never got with the FS700.

Technically and on paper they might be the same, but in-terms of a pleasing image, no comparison.

One other major thing. S-Log2 on the FS700 was noisy as S#!T unless exposed perfectly. FS7 Slog3 is far cleaner and much more forgiving on exposure.

 

[LeoGrey]

I've owned and shot with both the FS700 + 7Q and the FS7 extensively. I can say without any doubt that the color science from the FS7 is much better.
Technically and on paper they might be the same, but in-terms of a pleasing image, no comparison.

Funny, the only folks I hear make these claims are current fs7 owners. If you owned and shot with both I suppose that counts for something, but I have yet to see anything produced on the fs7 that even remotely stands up to the quality produced from the fs700/O7Q. If you have some examples that you could point me to it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Arash Ayrom]

In doing my research, I went through all 77 pages of the FS700 section, and read hundreds of threads. Paul and Gene, you were both instrumental in helping me make my decision. Gene, your videos were very helpful in particular.

I'm sure the FS7 is a great camera, and if money were no object, that's what I'd pick. But I'm also sure I'll be very happy with it's slightly older cousin

 

[DLD]

... * Depending on whether it is s35 or MFT sensor...

It's in between, smaller than APS-C.

I'm sure the FS7 is a great camera, and if money were no object, that's what I'd pick.

Between you and I - if money was no object, I'd pick Alexa65 much like, if money was no object on a car purchase, I'd buy a Koenigsegg (or something in that vein).

 

[markfpv]

Redcode raws takes a wee on just about every other recording format from a great height in my opinion.

That is interesting to me. I've actually heard mostly about the large file sizes of Redcode...and how that has to be a factor for your post workflow. But I value your opinion...

 

[LeoGrey]

It really is a brilliant codec, like cineform raw(which should have been an industry standard long ago). Prores and Dnx have their place in the industry(fast turn around, minimal loss), but if one wanted to retain maximum latitude in post without the giant file sizes(bmcc, sony raw, canon raw) redcode/cineform is the way to go.

Interesting to note:

Prores HQ 24p@1920x1080 is 33MB/sec(which is 10 bit),
vs
Redcode 7:1 24p@4096 x 2160 at 47MB/sec(which is 12 bit).

That in itself is an eye opener.

 

[paulcurtis]

Redcode raws takes a wee on just about every other recording format from a great height in my opinion..

I'm tempted too. RAW is just the only way to go IMHO. The FS700 DNGs aren't ideal because the source is already compressed and therefore recompression (other than slimRAW) can't really be done.

The sensor is 20.5mm across, not too far from S35.

But timescales (it is red afterall) and the cost of red accessories aren't in line with the brain cost at the moment. So lets see what friday brings compared to the ursa mini 4.6k version.

Funny, the only folks I hear make these claims are current fs7 owners. If you owned and shot with both I suppose that counts for something, but I have yet to see anything produced on the fs7 that even remotely stands up to the quality produced from the fs700/O7Q. If you have some examples that you could point me to it would be greatly appreciated.

I can attest to Genes skills, his work is excellent and we've both been through workflow issues with the FS700. I just stuck with it and found my solution and Gene jumped ship

In doing my research, I went through all 77 pages of the FS700 section, and read hundreds of threads. Paul and Gene, you were both instrumental in helping me make my decision. Gene, your videos were very helpful in particular.

I'm sure the FS7 is a great camera, and if money were no object, that's what I'd pick. But I'm also sure I'll be very happy with it's slightly older cousin

Thank you, feel free to PM me with any direct questions, i don't generally post samples but have plenty

cheers
Paul

 

[Martin.G]

I have just recieved my FS7, and this past two weekends i have shot some documentary/fiction mashup project. And right now i am reviewing the footage with applied LUT on top of it. And man. These are so nice pictures! CineEI for the win! I can clearly see better color than i ever saw from my FS700. Im no colorist, so perhaps the potential for improvement from my FS700+O7Q footage is much higher than i can unlock, but the FS7 just works for me. Amazing. Mind is blown.

 

[Martin.G]

#2

 

[Ben Scott]

I shot plenty of stuff on MX at 4k with that 'just past s35' FOV and it was good enough for me. I'll take it.

Absolutely no problem with R3D file sizes either, especially if you're not trying to shoot every single thing at 5:1.

I've shot 2 x BBC documentaries at between 6 and 8:1 with no problems. 5:1 is the realm of drama, music promos or commercials for me.

 

[Gene Sung]

Funny, the only folks I hear make these claims are current fs7 owners. If you owned and shot with both I suppose that counts for something, but I have yet to see anything produced on the fs7 that even remotely stands up to the quality produced from the fs700/O7Q. If you have some examples that you could point me to it would be greatly appreciated.

Here's my reel - Some Canon, mainly FS700 and FS7

Here's my projects page with a ton of FS700 and FS7 videos, everything from jobs for networks to art projects.

http://builtbyugene.com/movies.html

There's a few tests here and there on my vimeo page, but generally I just shoot projects and not tests.

https://vimeo.com/builtbyugene

As you can gather, I've owned and shot a lot with both FS700 and FS7. And I will say it again, FS7 is in a different league than the FS700 + 7Q. Spec wise, they might be the same, but the color science from the FS7 is much better straight out of the box. Baked in profiles, I'm liking the FS7 as much, if not more than my Canon.

FS700 + 7Q you can get great images and color; but with the FS7 you can get there way faster and easier.

 

[LeoGrey]

What I am referring to has nothing to do with specs. I'm speaking strictly about the quality of material that my eyes have physically seen.

Having shot many projects with the fs700, I was eager when the fs7 was first announced. In doing some research I came across your videos Gene(any many others), and there was nothing I saw that compared to the organic image quality of the fs700/O7Q. If we are talking internal quality then yes, then yes without a doubt the fs7 is a big step up from its predecessor.

 

[Ben Scott]

With the greatest respect, nobody else can know how good or terrible your eyes are. For me, having 2 cams on the same shoot, internal FS7 looks better and grades better than 7Q/FS700.

I have no idea what you mean by organic. I have never found the FS700/7Q to be so, but then we might have different definitions of the word.

It may well be that FS7/7Q or internal does not offer enough over FS700/7Q for people to immediately upgrade, but the way it holds the highlights is far far superior to the FS700 to me, and I have used them both plenty.