FS7: FX9 success?
- Thread starter Martin.G
- Start date
cyvideo
Veteran
Peaking or crispening has been around on studio cameras and field cameras for years. I know of very few studio ops who wouldn't use it. On fast moving sports if you are trying to obtain critical focus using anywhere from a 50 to a 100 x lens then believe you me you aren't trying to 'focus' the image. All you are doing is framing and keeping those edges 'crisp.' You don't have time to study the image as such. This race car is approaching you you flat out and all you are concentrating on is 1, framing and 2, winding your focus demand to keep the image 'crisp,' no time for critical focusing on the image as such. Try keeping focus on 400 yard golf ball flight. We even used to turn off the green and red VF channel peaking to make the ball easier to see and focus against the sky using the blue channel only. The blue channel is the noisiest and gives the best edges.
What one has to realize is that with a lot of still cameras and their lenses and lower end video cameras the peaking circuits are not integral to the electronic circuits of the lens hence often don't work very well. They work purely using sensor image information with no lens feedback regarding aperture or length. How many times in low light at the long end of a zoom lens or long prime lens have you found peaking useless on these types of cameras. Often no doubt. Broadcast studio, field and ENG lenses where the focal length, lens position, aperture are all part of the focus feedback loop behave very differently. Even in low light wide open at 80 x the peaking circuits work well as they are receiving info from the lens that assists the process. Fuji have their new 125 x out. Couldn't imagine using it without crispening/peaking). No color used just edge enhancement.
Chris Young
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
To be fair - I cant remember - I think it was a marshall monitor
I can imagine that crispening on a $100k of 2/3 sports rig might work.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
To be fair - I cant remember - I think it was a marshall monitor
I can imagine that crispening on a $100k of 2/3 sports rig might work.
Marshall? So it wasn't even a camera's peaking you were looking at. No offense intended, but you are showing your inexperience and ignorance with your last two posts.
Im not weighing in on the debate as such. But to be fair, judging the tools most filmmakers actually use today is fair.
I only ever once touched and used a proper ENG camera, during film school. For the past 10 years i have been using DSLR, mirrorless, FS700, and FS7. For my part, im only interested in what works for my tools, how they can be used, and what works for my style.
Oh and i use the built in white/grey on the FS7, with stills lenses. Works okish.
Well as a guy who has been shooting 35 years and has plenty of experience using colored and not colored peaking and old B4 cameras as well as mirrorless and FX7, 9's and lots of monitors, I am willing to declare that it is simply BS to point blank tell people they don't know what they're doing if they use colored peaking. I use it all the time, but I use it intelligently. The first thing I do is test the peaking circuit against a larger monitor where I can really see how accurate it is. There is a big difference between how well its implemented on different monitors and viewfinders and you need to set the parameters so that the peaking just appears and doesn't give you too many false positives. I haven't used any recent Marshalls but the ones I used a few years ago were horrible - complete useless. Likewise the original 9" panasonic monitors were downright dangerous. The red peaking in the old EX-1 was actually pretty good but it was completely useless on the "improved" viewfinder of the EX-3.
Moreover youi have to understand that it will act differently on scenes with a lot of high contrast edges than it will on something flat.Thus it will act differently under a cloud than it will in sunlight. Its different with moving subjects than stationary. The Odyssey 7Q has 3 different adjustments and I change them for different situations all the time, but I also frequently check the "push in circut" to check more carefully. Its just another tool that can be used or abused. Across the board condemnation especially by people who haven't spent time working it with means nothing to me.
By the way if you want to test whether your 18-110 is "parfocal" or not I suggest using the red peaking with the viewfinder in 4X's mode. Way easier to see than on any monitor I've used .
Moreover youi have to understand that it will act differently on scenes with a lot of high contrast edges than it will on something flat.Thus it will act differently under a cloud than it will in sunlight. Its different with moving subjects than stationary. The Odyssey 7Q has 3 different adjustments and I change them for different situations all the time, but I also frequently check the "push in circut" to check more carefully. Its just another tool that can be used or abused. Across the board condemnation especially by people who haven't spent time working it with means nothing to me.
By the way if you want to test whether your 18-110 is "parfocal" or not I suggest using the red peaking with the viewfinder in 4X's mode. Way easier to see than on any monitor I've used .
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I dont pretend expericence of old TV cameras. Back in the mid 2000s I was playing with my 16bit raw hasselblad learning about the future of imaging and how to get critical focus on a chip bigger than the arri LF (you cant without AF!)
Last edited:
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Lenny, just to make sure I understand, are you saying that you prefer using colored peaking on your FS7 in some circumstances? May I ask what, specifically, those circumstances are where you think colored provides superior performance to normal peaking? In what way does color serve you better than normal peaking in those circumstances? How does normal fall short? And also, what colored peaking settings are you using on the FS7 so I can try them myself? And if you don't mind one more question, I'd be interested to learn what your settings are for normal peaking -- that doesn't work as good as your colored settings?
Clermond
Veteran
Isn’t saying no offense and calling someone ignorant a bit hypocritical? I’m asking for a friend.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
To be fair coming from ground glass I dont have too much experience.
cyvideo
Veteran
You want to talk focusing I'm going to sound ancient now now but while training with the Beeb in Bristol we did a couple of training lessons on the Mitchel BNC with "Rack over Focus." BNC Rack over focusing was old when I trained but I've never forgotten the experience of learning to use it. We did actually roll film with a BNC on a training shoot. Morgan will know the place where we rolled. We were invited as Beeb film trainees by the British Aircraft Corporation Film Unit to Filton, Bristol during the development of the Concorde. This was my first ever "location" shoot. I have actually been in the hanger mock up Concorde shown in the last clip as my uncle was a test engineer for BAC. I actually still have a shot of No 2 taking off on its test flight months later. Shot on my Nikon F.
Chris Young
BNC. Check the rack over focusing at 7:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZrkK2qy23Q
BAC film all shot on 35mm for Pathe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLUkhs6V364
I'm going to sound ancient now now but while training with the Beeb in Bristol we did a couple of training lessons on the Mitchel BNC with "Rack over Focus." BNC Rack over focusing was old when I trained but I've never forgotten the experience of learning to use it. We did actually roll film with a BNC on a training shoot. Morgan will know the place where we rolled. We were invited as Beeb film trainees by the British Aircraft Corporation Film Unit to Filton, Bristol during the development of the Concorde. This was my first ever "location" shoot. I have actually been in the hanger mock up Concorde shown in the last clip as my uncle was a test engineer for BAC. I actually still have a shot of No 2 taking off on its test flight months later. Shot on my Nikon F.Chris Young
BNC. Check the rack over focusing at 7:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZrkK2qy23Q
BAC film all shot on 35mm for Pathe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLUkhs6V364
cpreston
Veteran
Colored peaking is good when you don't have a particularly great view of the monitor. I am pretty farsighted and sometimes I have to use the camera with the monitor to close to my eyes to focus. The enhanced contrast of "normal" peaking is still just going to be blurry. I can, however, tell the relative increase in color.
Interpretation of peaking is still just a guessing game based on the relative intensity of the enhanced contrast. You just have to train yourself to interpret what you are looking at. One type isn't necessarily better than another. An edge wave form monitor is actually probably the quickest way to focus in some instances.
Interpretation of peaking is still just a guessing game based on the relative intensity of the enhanced contrast. You just have to train yourself to interpret what you are looking at. One type isn't necessarily better than another. An edge wave form monitor is actually probably the quickest way to focus in some instances.
Of course during my 'ground glass' days our focus system of choice was the tape measure -- and checking focus for a shot meant asking the camera assistant how they did on the pulls (and whether the actor hit the marks properly).
But in all fairness to the FX9, in the couple of days that I've used it for multicam shoots I was rather impressed with the way the autofocus system seemed to function on close-ups of talent that liked to lean quite a bit -- 150mm at f/3.2 on Sony 70-200/2.8 lens -- though I was operating a different (manual focus mode) FX9 at the time. Of course the operator on the autofocus camera was using a 7" SmallHD monitor with color peaking for focus confidence...
Doug, I have hesitated to answer your question because I want to take a look through my FS7 and reevaluate standard peaking vs color. Before doing that however I guess I would just answer that I made fairly quick judgements in the past that I could tell my focus more reliably and more quickly using the red peaking. I use it both in the camera EVF and with both my old TV logic , new 5" small HD and my Odyssey 7Q. That said I have sometimes been fooled by the red peaking even in the Odyssey. I used to just trust when I saw red dots in the eyes but now I'm even critical of that so if If I have the time to double check focus with 4X's push in on the EVF or the blow up 2x's on the Odyssey I do it. As I recall I certainly didn't notice that standard peaking was any better than red peaking, but I wear progressive glasses when I'm shooting and when looking at the small monitors that are right next to the camera. In fact now I throw a pair of cheap drugstore closeup glasses over my regular progressives so I can see better on the monitor that's just a foot or 2 away. Perhaps if my eyesight was more better I wouldn't need the peaking.
I'll double check what setting I use in the FS7 EVF . You always want it as low as possible to avoid false positives, and unfortunately it always disappears with movement so its not a panacea.
I'll double check what setting I use in the FS7 EVF . You always want it as low as possible to avoid false positives, and unfortunately it always disappears with movement so its not a panacea.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
You're kidding, right? The differences in performance and accuracy are enormous so I have nothing left to say about it. Either you see it or you don't.
And if you don't you are showing your inexperience and ignorance I guess.
Since this is a professional forum I had hoped to see arguments instead of opinions.
No offense.
I could find out about this red peaking thingy myself. But then again, as I am blessed with ignorance on some subjects, I never used red peaking anyway .
c'est le beton qui fait la musique
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
You said it, brother.
If you'd like to come over to my house I'll show you the differences in person. Until then, it is impossible for me to convey the advantages of normal peaking and problems with colored peaking in words alone. Like I said, either you see it or you don't. But either way, it really makes no difference to me.
If you'd like to come over to my house I'll show you the differences in person. Until then, it is impossible for me to convey the advantages of normal peaking and problems with colored peaking in words alone. Like I said, either you see it or you don't. But either way, it really makes no difference to me.
It's a pointless debate. The assumption here is that you both see and perceive exactly the same way, which isn't the case. You can't get inside each other's brains to see how they process information nor understand and feel each other's perceptions and preferences. One person's 'facts' about it are not the same as the other's. Enjoy the fact that you each have a method that works for you. There's no need to try to convince anyone of anything.
It's like arguing which camera has the best look.
It's like arguing which camera has the best look.
Last edited: