FS5: Is the FS5 as good as the FS7 in HD?

Amadou

Amadou

Carbonite Member
The FS7 is clearly the winner in 4K. However, considering the FS5 and FS7 both handle HD in 422 10bits, if one films a feature in HD, does it not make sense to use the FS5 rather than the FS7 for HD productions ? The final result will be the same. If you consider the the DCP just needs 2K, you can easily get by with HD productions, forfeit 4K altogether, and get beautiful images from the FS5 on par with the FS7. nOr is the FS7 better in HD also?
 
Only the FS7 offers XAVC-I codecs in both 4K and HD. If you compared the specs of the cameras yourself you'd see that withouth having to ask.

Let me repeat what I told you a couple of days ago, image quality is not the only thing to look at. The FS7 is a tremendously more powerful and feature-rich camera than the FS5. If you're shooting a "feature" and you don't want to use an external recorder you'd be a fool to choose the FS5 over an FS7 just to save a few dollars or West African CFA francs. The difference in price is nothing in the big scheme of things.

BTW, you keep mentioning 2K but I hope you are aware that 1080P is not 2K. So if you shoot HD you will have to up-rez for 2K. But if you shoot 4K DCI or 4K UHD, you will be all set for all of those resolutions. In 2018 it would be very shortsighted not to shoot a feature in 4K.
 
Last edited:
Fine. If I set my criteria on five requirements: 35 sensor, interchangeable lens, 422, 4K, and XLR inputs. Where does the FS7 fit in on a comparative budget scale? Are there cameras that do it for less?
 
Dare I also say that if you shoot Hd and drop the image into a scope DCP you will just have light bars on the sides and your aspect ratio will be 2 to 1 which is the classic 70mm aspect ratio used in Sound of Music, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. There's nothing wrong with that as the audience will never notice or see or care about the bars.
 
Amadou said:
Fine. If I set my criteria on five requirements: 35 sensor, interchangeable lens, 422, 4K, and XLR inputs. Where does the FS7 fit in on a comparative budget scale? Are there cameras that do it for less?
Click to expand...

Cheapest one that meets those requirements? Probably the Ursa Mini Pro
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro
Or you could go for the Ursa Mini 4K if you want to ditch the built in ND filters
and 4.6K oversampled sensor and save a few bucks. But even the Ursa Mini Pro is
$5995
 
Last edited:
outch

EVA-1 5.900 net
https://www.teltec.de/panasonic-au-eva1.html

EVA-1 plus Inferno Promo Kit 6.390€ net. / shogun itself about 1.130€
https://www.teltec.de/panasonic-au-eva1-atomos-shogun-inferno-promo.html

FS7 6386€ net
https://www.teltec.de/sony-pxw-fs7-4k-camcorder.html

FS7 II 7982€ net
https://www.teltec.de/sony-pxw-fs7-ii-4k-camcorder.html

but price should not be the reason, even if it's 2.000€ difference. If you work 3 yrs with it it will be 55€ a month.
Don't forget the URSA mini is really heavy of you attach the battery.
 
In rance the EVA is more expensive than the FS7. The FS5 does 422 10 bit in HD. Why not film the movie in HD 422 and drop it into a Scope DCP which will yield a 2.20-1 aspect ratio without rescaling. The two black bars on the side will bother nobody and the picture quality will be the same as that of the FS7 at half the camera cost. Am I right or am I right?
 
Just get the FS5 already. You clearly want it haha. Seriously though, you've posted everywhere on DVXUser numerous times asking roughly the same questions over and over. Every time someone tries to explain to you why the FS7 is vastly superior, you keep arguing "but the FS5". So, it seems to me and likely everyone else on this board that you really are wanting the FS5 and are trying to make sure you're comfortable with the purchase. If that's the case, then just do it so you'll be happy. It's not the FS7, but it's still a nice camera. Not trying to be rude, just pointing out the obvious so you can get it and move on.
 
Actually, the debate is not stagnating but evolving. So far we discussed the 4K high end side and it is clear that the FS7 is superior. The second part of the debate now focusses on the regular HD level. I think the question is relevant. Moreover I don't see why anybody in an FS7/FS5 forum should be in a rush. The purpose of a forum is to answer questions in writting more precisely than can be done verbally. We all benefit from the exchanges and that is what these forums are about. So I don't see why people feel they need to censor these discussions. Personally I think the HD question regarding the FS5/FS7 is totally relevant and has not been really discussed yet.
 
The problem, as I see it, as that you are asking other people to use their valuable time to explain elementary concepts that can easily be learned on your own through a simple Google search. And on top of that I don't even think you are listening to the advice you are being given about one camera vs. another. You brush off any advice and information to just forge ahead with different variations of the same questions over and over again on multiple threads as if you'd never gotten any replies at all. Just buy a FS5 and be done with it.
 
You do not want the FS5 to shoot 1080p. Even though it is 10-bit 422, it has a known tendency to create ugly blue and purple artifacts on specular highlights and areas of extreme contrast. It does this in S-Log as well as any other gamma on the camera. But only in HD and not in 4k. This has not been solved in firmware updates.
I, myself, have quit using the FS5 in HD because of this problem. If you are shooting a feature in Africa, chances are you will be shooting high contrast sunny exteriors, where this problem can rear its ugly head. Projected onto a theatrical screen, those artifacts will be very visible. Some FS5 users have not encountered this problem, but many have. I myself would never shoot a feature in HD on the FS5.
 
Amadou said:
Actually, the debate is not stagnating but evolving. So far we discussed the 4K high end side and it is clear that the FS7 is superior. The second part of the debate now focusses on the regular HD level.
Click to expand...

But that's the thing, it's not really a debate. You're the only one debating. We keep telling you over and over the answer, you just asking the same thing in a different way.
 
Thank you DV Brother. I just learned something. I also noticed that the 4K on the FS5 has a tendency to go blueish or yellowish when you add saturation. I suppose this is due to the 420 issue. However, I'm trying to understand what this video on YouTube is all about. This guy claims that when you scale down the 4K image from the FS5 to HD, you get the same response as if you had shot 422. Tell me what you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_ZjdwtUQ8&t=760s

NB: To all those people who feel their time is too precious for my posts, please consider the time you would save by not expressing your feelings about my posts. :)
 
Amadou said:
Thank you DV Brother. I just learned something. I also noticed that the 4K on the FS5 has a tendency to go blueish or yellowish when you add saturation. I suppose this is due to the 420 issue. However, I'm trying to understand what this video on YouTube is all about. This guy claims that when you scale down the 4K image from the FS5 to HD, you get the same response as if you had shot 422. Tell me what you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_ZjdwtUQ8&t=760s

NB: To all those people who feel their time is too precious for my posts, please consider the time you would save by not expressing your feelings about my posts. :)
Click to expand...

What this video is showing is that there are a lot of factors that come together to make a great image. Great imaging sensors, great processing, large color space, low compression etc... Just one of the numbers alone does not do it. So when a lower priced camera picks one attribute (like resolution) people want to hold it up as the one to use but you need to know it takes a lot of pieces to make the image sing. In his first test, if he had shot the Fs5 in 4k10bit it would have been even better. So to answer the question of the video, yes, 10bit is always better but 8bit can be good if it has some other help like increased resolution or an awesome sensor etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top