FS700 could film cinema quality like RED footage? (7Q or SONY AXS-R5 RAW recorder)

alaskacameradude said:
It's just that the 7Q is a way better solution in terms of ergonomics, smaller, lighter and so
on. But as far as 4k raw from the FS700, it's been available for quite some time, my assumption
is that the 7Q 4k raw will be the same as the Sony solution, but without the 120 burst mode.
Click to expand...

.. I'm not 100% sure about it.. I shoot a lot with Sony RAW SET ...

MyRIG_08.jpg


and R5 recorder write a lot of data, so it's need remove a lot of heat .. ->

AXS-R5_5.jpg


.. and now I play with Odyssey and two SSD drives there work at the same time to be able to get data from only 2K 240fsp .. TWO 512GB drives ( $795 each SSD) record only 20 min in 2K 240fps and 200 min. in 2K 24fps

Odyssey7Q_11.jpg


..so I will see as soon as I get an update to 4KRAW - how much I will be able to record ... probably 4K RAW recording will need 2 drives also, even with normal 24/30fps speed...
seems like for normal shooting I will need AT LIST 4 X 512GB SSD drives: when 2 in camera, another 2 SSD in assistant hands to copy footage to storage...
 
SergeSmArt said:
..so I will see as soon as I get an update to 4KRAW - how much I will be able to record ... probably 4K RAW recording will need 2 drives also, even with normal 24/30fps speed...
seems like for normal shooting I will need AT LIST 4 X 512GB SSD drives: when 2 in camera, another 2 SSD in assistant hands to copy footage to storage...
Click to expand...

It wont need 2 drives for 4k 24fps. 24fps is about 320MBps, 1 drive does up to 450MBps.
 
SergeSmArt said:
.. I'm not 100% sure about it.. I shoot a lot with Sony RAW SET ...

MyRIG_08.jpg


and R5 recorder write a lot of data, so it's need remove a lot of heat .. ->

AXS-R5_5.jpg


.. and now I play with Odyssey and two SSD drives there work at the same time to be able to get data from only 2K 240fsp .. TWO 512GB drives ( $795 each SSD) record only 20 min in 2K 240fps and 200 min. in 2K 24fps

Odyssey7Q_11.jpg


..so I will see as soon as I get an update to 4KRAW - how much I will be able to record ... probably 4K RAW recording will need 2 drives also, even with normal 24/30fps speed...
seems like for normal shooting I will need AT LIST 4 X 512GB SSD drives: when 2 in camera, another 2 SSD in assistant hands to copy footage to storage...
Click to expand...
The Odyssey7Q can capture 4K RAW at 24p, 25p, or 30p to a single SSD. To record 4K at 50p or 60p, the signal must be split to two SSDs. This is not a traditional RAID configuration but instead we simply write even frames to one SSD and odd frames to the other SSD. We have a free Clip Merge program which literally take just a few seconds to recombine the material into a single file.

I'm not going to speak to Sony or anyone else's manufacturing technology and choices. The Sony R5 has a built in fan, the Odyssey7Q does not. We do not require one and the device can record 4K RAW with no issues until the internal temperature on the chip surface reaches 65 degrees Celsius. We literally have to place units in an "hot box" oven to get them to run that hot.

Yes, you will need a number of drives if you start shooting a great deal of material. 2x 512G drives will capture 62 minutes of 4K at 24p. Plan your shooting days accordingly. No matter how high this cost may appear, I invite you to do a cost comparison to the Sony recorder, it's adapter module, it's media cost per Gig, and the cost of the download device. I would even suggest adding in the cost of the larger battery and charger system required compared to the Odssey7Q, which consumes very little power and can be run for hours with the same small and inexpensive batteries used to power the camera. The gap in price is quite wide.
 
I have to chime in to agree with Mitch. The O7Q compared to the Sony solution is like a fox compared to an elephant. The O7Q is a solid piece of very clever kit, and incredibly capable. The only reason i can see for an R5 based solution is if you plan on getting an F5 or F55 or have them already.

cheers
paul
 
gene_can_sing said:
"Doesn't come close" is a bit of a stretch in this day and age. I really liked your reel as it's definitely better than mine, but I would say the FS700 with 7Q, you can get in the ball park in terms of image quality, especially compared to a non Dragon Epic. If the RED EPIC were an A / A+ of a camera, I would say the FS700 with 7Q would be an B+/A-.

Unfortunately for us, and fortunately for you, those of us on an FS700 can only afford an B+/A- camera. One of the networks I work for just recently bought a RED Epic and I know their budget for an Epic package was north of $90K (That's including some lenses, rigs, monitors, support, etc...). An FS700 + 7Q + a few decent lenses + rig would be under $20K; far, far cheaper than Epic.

For being a small fraction of the price of an Epic, the FS700 + 7Q is a great value. Because of the price difference, it's almost pointless to compare the EPIC to the FS700 because if someone is looking at an FS700 + 7Q, they probably can't even come close to affording an Epic. So while the Epic might be the ultimate camera, the FS700 + 7Q is still pretty dang good for the price and I've been using 7Q RAW pretty regularly lately, and it's a huge, huge improvement over the original FS700. And as Mitch says, they're just getting started.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a bad camera. The fs700 has 11.5 or 10 usuable stops when I tested it (Rec709). Haven't tested the RAW yet. While the EPIC has 13.5. Then you also have HDR, but thats a whole can of warms. With Codec, its really hard to beat REDcode when it comes to RAW. But like I said, it should be up to the production to decide threw its own testing which will suit their needs from pre-pro through post. Not every job can be done with one camera. It would be nice to know if RAW helped push out 12 usable stops on the fs700. But I would need to test it again with the raw option in play on my own.
 
Joncarr said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a bad camera. The fs700 has 11.5 or 10 usuable stops when I tested it (Rec709). Haven't tested the RAW yet. While the EPIC has 13.5. Then you also have HDR, but thats a whole can of warms. With Codec, its really hard to beat REDcode when it comes to RAW. But like I said, it should be up to the production to decide threw its own testing which will suit their needs from pre-pro through post. Not every job can be done with one camera. It would be nice to know if RAW helped push out 12 usable stops on the fs700. But I would need to test it again with the raw option in play on my own.
Click to expand...

slog2 seems to have around 12 to 12.5 usable stops afaik...
 
Joncarr said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a bad camera. The fs700 has 11.5 or 10 usuable stops when I tested it (Rec709). Haven't tested the RAW yet. While the EPIC has 13.5. Then you also have HDR, but thats a whole can of warms. With Codec, its really hard to beat REDcode when it comes to RAW. But like I said, it should be up to the production to decide threw its own testing which will suit their needs from pre-pro through post. Not every job can be done with one camera. It would be nice to know if RAW helped push out 12 usable stops on the fs700. But I would need to test it again with the raw option in play on my own.
Click to expand...

Testing the FS700 while using Rec709 (which is what I think you are saying you did) will
give you the absolute worst DR from the camera. Other gamma curves give much better results.
Slog 2 and raw should help as well.
 
Also, if you take a major Hollywood production, I would imaging the cost of the camera is a quite tiny bit in the big picture, where personnel, actors, catering, transport, light, post production, marketing etc etc taking up the most of the budget. So on those productions they might as well go with the best camera they can get.

But if your budget is more limited, I would say that getting the lighting, acting and script right is more important than if you use a FS700 4K raw or a RED camera. So I'd say make sure you have those things covered and top notch first. If there's any money left after that, then worry about getting a better camera than the FS700...
 
Joncarr said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a bad camera. The fs700 has 11.5 or 10 usuable stops when I tested it (Rec709). Haven't tested the RAW yet. While the EPIC has 13.5. Then you also have HDR, but thats a whole can of warms. With Codec, its really hard to beat REDcode when it comes to RAW. But like I said, it should be up to the production to decide threw its own testing which will suit their needs from pre-pro through post. Not every job can be done with one camera. It would be nice to know if RAW helped push out 12 usable stops on the fs700. But I would need to test it again with the raw option in play on my own.
Click to expand...

Actually, Art Adams shot a chart using FS700 RAW + S-Log and he says 14 stops DR with 13+ usable. So that pretty much makes it very similar to non-Dragon Epic. Here's the article

http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/fs700-the-4k-story-from-my-perspective.html

That's pretty good DR for a $12K camera. Of course the RED RAW codec is probably the best, but that's one of the reason why it costs 5X more.
 
It says in the article that it is 14 stops visible, but I don't see 13 stops useable anywhere? It says 11 stops with the noise flattened.....
 
ilnow said:
It says in the article that it is 14 stops visible, but I don't see 13 stops useable anywhere? It says 11 stops with the noise flattened.....
Click to expand...

Art writes on Pg 3: "in log mode we’re cramming about 13 stops into it."

You know, it's really how you personally interpret it. Some people cannot take any noise at all and some people can, so that skews your interpretation of DR. So interpret it how you will.
 
I doubt the DR on RED MX and FS700 are very different. I own and shoot both and both have similar 5stops over and 8-9ish under (cine4 vs iso800 redgamma3). RED may give the impression of more because it doesn't break apart in the highlights as easily (RAW vs AVCHD) since cinegammas still have some knee function and have weird problems with bright colors etc. The point of RED's fixed gain is to maximize DR but fs700 does the same with adjustable gain which is more flexible since it allows you to take advantage of the greater DR of the sensor itself despite being DR limited by the ADC. If only they could output dual gain readouts...

Usable DR is very subjective and will likely depend on your scene and delivery format and especially your particular asthetic. Useable for what? Useable for skin tones or latitude to push the image, or useable to see subtle extended tonality at the edges of the scene exposure range?
 
dmitrizigany said:
Also, if you take a major Hollywood production, I would imaging the cost of the camera is a quite tiny bit in the big picture, where personnel, actors, catering, transport, light, post production, marketing etc etc taking up the most of the budget. So on those productions they might as well go with the best camera they can get.

But if your budget is more limited, I would say that getting the lighting, acting and script right is more important than if you use a FS700 4K raw or a RED camera. So I'd say make sure you have those things covered and top notch first. If there's any money left after that, then worry about getting a better camera than the FS700...
Click to expand...

Dmitri has nailed it in one. I was going to say pretty much the same thing: the real difference between Hollywood productions and your average low budget film has very little to do with the cameras and lenses they use. It's much more about the other stuff: props, locations, lighting, grips, make up, costume, sound recording, sound design, music composition, post, SFX.... Everything.

To be honest, if the original poster had the resources of a Hollywood production he wouldn't even be asking whether or not the FS700 is a good camera to shoot on, he'd just go get an Alexa and a set of Cooke S4s/Masterprimes/Fujinon Zooms or whatever.

However, if resources are limited I would strongly consider shooting on the FS700, most probably using CP2s or even old stills lenses purely because you the money you'd save would most likely be much better spent on the art department or hiring more lights and more crew.

The very little 4K and 2K Raw I've shot with the FS700 convinces me that the extra cost of using an Epic or Alexa simply isn't worth the marginal improvement in image quality (and when it comes to audience perceptions, the improvements really are marginal and I've shot a fair bit on the Epic as well) certainly for 95% of all low budget productions. If it were me, I'd definitely prefer to shoot on an FS700 and spend any money saved on more lights, better locations, better props etc - because I know that, ultimately, I'll end up with a much better looking film that way.

There's been a couple of seasons of Dexter shot on a Nikon DSLR that look a damn sight better than many a low budget feature shot on an Epic, purely because they got the rest of it right.

To waste all your budget on a fancy camera and some nice lenses is little more than an exercise in self aggrandisement if you ask me. There's no real reason for it except being able to brag that you 'recently shot a film on an Epic with Master primes...'
 
Hello, I have seen on a post of a dvx forum user, Kyron, he filmed a short using Sony FS700 & Oddyssey 2k RAW, a Canon 24-70 and two LEDs. This is a graded with DaVinci part of the short film ...


What do you think about the quality of the video in relation with the meaning of this post?

One more question, the 4k RAW output of the Oddissey is 12 bit or 16 bit?

Thanks!
 
Roswelito said:
Hello, I have seen on a post of a dvx forum user, Kyron, he filmed a short using Sony FS700 & Oddyssey 2k RAW, a Canon 24-70 and two LEDs. This is a graded with DaVinci part of the short film ...


What do you think about the quality of the video in relation with the meaning of this post?

One more question, the 4k RAW output of the Oddissey is 12 bit or 16 bit?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The Odyssey doesn't output anything, it's a recorder - it just records what it is sent.

The output from the FS700 is 12 bit Raw and the Odyssey records this. As I recall the Canon C500 is 10bit Raw (which the O7Q can record), the F5, F55 and F65 are 16bit (I believe the O7Q will be able to record 4K from the F55, but I don't think it will be Raw) , Arriraw is 12 bit (which the O7Q can record), Canon 5D is 14bit (which can only be recorded internally) and the Red MX/Scarlet/Epic are 12bit and these can only be recorded internally.

In terms of how cinematic this output is - a lot of that depends upon who shoots it and what they shoot. If they have good sets and locations, they light it well, get the exposure right and it is graded nicely - the raw from the FS700 will look cinematic.

Equally, if they do a bad job, it will look like bad video - just like badly shot Alexa/Epic footage does.

Ideally you'd want to shoot the 4K if you're aiming for a cinema screening, but 2K will look good too, the Alexa is 'only' 2K (technically, slightly above this).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top