FS7: New Sony F7 XDCAM 4K Super 35mm Camcorder
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
Come on guys. I did say that it was my opinion and to take with a grain of salt (twice in fact) in addition to prefacing it with an apology in advance if it came off sounding like a know it all or arrogant. It's not exactly like I was behaving like an insensitive turd here.
Last edited:
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Isn't the FS7 just the F5 in a different suit? So these cameras should have the same capabilities when it comes to grading. At least when both records the same XAVC codec. Any arguing that compressed stills if they are far from perfect when doing an additional grade looks far from perfect is to be to picky in my opinion.
Let's just settle on that the footage so far doesn't look to sweet. Whatever reason.
Let's just settle on that the footage so far doesn't look to sweet. Whatever reason.
pchristoph
Well-known member
FS100 just an F3 with a different suit? (grin). Sony has this game figured pretty well eh?
Same capabilities with RAW, not necessarily when recorded to XAVC.
Even with the same chip, the image still needs to be deBayered, and then have all the processing applied to turn it into a "video signal" - gamma correction, matrixing, detail correction etc etc. So even with the same chip and same recording codec, there's a lot in the middle that COULD be different.
In the past, and with the difference in price, I'd have said that was most likely to be true - nowadays with everything on a chip (and likely same chips across multiple cameras) it's likely they share common processing hardware. That still leaves lots of possibilities for varying setups of menus - that's why it's so less relevant nowadays to talk of any "look" with reference to any particular camera.
cuervo
Veteran
Now, that's an interesting question. I'm not much of a computer geek, I can get by, but, I don't know much about FPGA's, CPU's etc. But, I wonder what the actual processor capabilities are for different models. It wouldn't be out of the realms of possibility if the processor on an FS700, for example, were less capable(speed, internal buffer, etc.) than an F55 processor, for example. So, all I'm sayin' is that when looking at footage, how did it get there? In the acquisition path,we have sensor, in-cam processor, in-cam memory buffer....all before the actual data write. Is it possible the lower cost cams have a less capable processor, and, therefore a less efficient encoder(debayering, profiling, etc.)? Given the differences in software encoders in PC's/Mac's, I have to ask the question. Inquiring minds want to know. If this were true, then RAW would be equivalent thru various models, assuming recording RAW takes less processing power than debayering first.
starcentral
Veteran
It very well could just be a matter of parts meeting a lower specification than "higher" models.
Manufacturers do this often with chips that are less capable. Intel does it, why wouldn't Sony or any other manufacturer for that matter?
By the way, anyone else interested in seeing more of my screen shot video based grading tests??
Manufacturers do this often with chips that are less capable. Intel does it, why wouldn't Sony or any other manufacturer for that matter?
By the way, anyone else interested in seeing more of my screen shot video based grading tests??
Mitch Gross
Veteran
There are different factories within the vast corporate structure that is Sony. They develop products concurrently, and while they sometimes use the same parts from other Sony facilities, they often do not share how they integrate and control them. The F3 and the FS100 were in development at the same time at two different factories (it was rather interesting sitting at a table on one side of a room and facing two tables on the other side - one from each factory - because they would never share a single one). Both cameras used the same sensor but the resilts out of each were markedly different. Move forward a few years and the factory that gave us the F3 now gives us the F5 and F55. The factory that made the FS100 then made the FS700 and now is making the FS7.
So do not assume that the FS7 is simply an F5 in a different form factor. While lessons are surely learned from that camera, I wouldn't doubt that it has more to share with the FS700 then the F5.
So do not assume that the FS7 is simply an F5 in a different form factor. While lessons are surely learned from that camera, I wouldn't doubt that it has more to share with the FS700 then the F5.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Well that makes sense Mitch, not what I wanted to hear of course, but pretty reasonable. Have my fingers crossed that the picture quality is simliar.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
It is intresting to look at the F3 and FS100. Sure same sensor but totally different specs. But if you look at the specs for the FS7 and F5 they share these things; same sensor, same XAVC codec and the same power consumption. If you then look at the FS700 which share the same sensor as the F5 but just as the FS100 have a totally different choice of codecs and power consumption.
For Sony it makes sense to just take the hardware and mould it into a new body rather than developing a totally new camera.
For Sony it makes sense to just take the hardware and mould it into a new body rather than developing a totally new camera.
Erik Wittbusch
Well-known member
FS100 vs F3 was just another story:
They share the same (at this time only available and affordable S35 sensor), but the
F3 has a much more powerful processor/bitdepth, different codec/bitrate, cinegammas/slog
and the price difference was huge.
And of course, the mount and formfactor and build quality are not the same.
F5 vs. FS7:
The do not only share the same sensor, but (as it seems) same processor/bitdepth, most
codecs/bitrates, cinegammas, slog...
The price difference is there, but not that huge.
Of course formfactor and build quality will be different.
Nobody knows by now, but I won't be surprised, if the image quality is more or less the same.
At the end, the difference may be in terms of colour resolution, but I already heard, that they also
share the same hardware colour filter...
They share the same (at this time only available and affordable S35 sensor), but the
F3 has a much more powerful processor/bitdepth, different codec/bitrate, cinegammas/slog
and the price difference was huge.
And of course, the mount and formfactor and build quality are not the same.
F5 vs. FS7:
The do not only share the same sensor, but (as it seems) same processor/bitdepth, most
codecs/bitrates, cinegammas, slog...
The price difference is there, but not that huge.
Of course formfactor and build quality will be different.
Nobody knows by now, but I won't be surprised, if the image quality is more or less the same.
At the end, the difference may be in terms of colour resolution, but I already heard, that they also
share the same hardware colour filter...
steve phillipps
Veteran
The F5 with viewfinder is twice the price - that's fairly huge in my book!
Steve
steve phillipps
Veteran
I would - because I know it's just a screen grab from Vimeo and is just an exercise in playing with the look, thanks.
Steve
Liam Hall
Veteran
Whilst I normally enjoy your erudite posts Mitch, I'm going to ignore this one since I'm assuming you'll be happier if FS700 users stick rather than twist and use your product as an upgrade path rather than investing in the FS7.
Marino215
Well-known member
Completely wrong, the fs7 needs exactly the same thing the fs700 does to achieve anything higher than 10 bit. Im not gonna repete the internal 10 bit, egronomics point. The fs7 clearly takes the prize in that department. In the commercial industry RAW is huge, as is 10/12 bit 444. If 10 bit is good enough out of the box, terrific, the fs7 is a winner. If you need more than the 10 bit internal than its 7Q all the way no matter what you shoot with. CD has lost nothing with the fs7 release, if anything it raised their position, no one I know is ditching their fs700/7Q. Especially when we know there will be another camera release soon after the fs7 makes some traction.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I don't se how you can say I'm completely wrong. That's more than a touch arrogant. You even doubt your own assertion by using the word IF more than once.
I don't know how much better the XAVC internal codec on the FS7 will be compared to the internal codec on the FS700 or the F5, but I've put my money where my mouth is and bought an FS7. In a couple of weeks we will see.
Worth noting, the target market for this camera is not the commercial industry. It's designed for the single shooter/small unit jobs where 10bit 4k internal should hit a sweet spot.
Last edited:
Great. I'll keep you in the loop when I hear something from Sony. My hope is also to borrow and early unit of the extension back so I can test raw with the 7Q. But that might be a bit ambitious.
Ned