Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
It will be an easier sell also to provide for 4k and high fps but I don't count on getting a better looking image than the F3. If it'll be about the same I'm happy and it will save me money and rigging.
FS7: New Sony F7 XDCAM 4K Super 35mm Camcorder
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
steve phillipps
Veteran
Is it just me that doesn't see the F55 as a "high end" camera? Probably! But for me a high end camera should have excellent build quality, no glitches and a no compromises spec - for this look at the F65, possibly the new Varicams, F35 and F23 in HD terms. To me the F55 is basically in the same camp as the old HPX500, in that it doesn't have enough pixels to legitimately do what it claims to do - the HPX was a slightly more than SD sensor but upped it to call itself an HD camera, while the F55 has an 4k sensor which after debayer must go down to about 3k at most? For me it goes FS700 semi pro (sub-standard codec and dodgy ergonomics and build), F5 and F55 mid range (so so build, compromises), F65 high end. Of course this doesn't mean any of these cameras aren't capable of top quality work, but so is the Nikon D3200 - but you'd not call it high end compared a D4.
Just me? Probably
Steve
starcentral
Veteran
I thought it was high end when I paid a high-end price for it.
Today however, 18.46 months later, the F5 has caught up to it. The FS7 has caught up to the F5, and the F5 is not much much better in terms of image quality than the F3 with external recorder if its reasonable to say that.
So what do I say about the Sony's in general? They seem to maybe have some potential in terms of breaking through the REC709 image they are so "great" at making but from what I've seen since setting up Sony camp, it has been far from a few.
Today however, 18.46 months later, the F5 has caught up to it. The FS7 has caught up to the F5, and the F5 is not much much better in terms of image quality than the F3 with external recorder if its reasonable to say that.
So what do I say about the Sony's in general? They seem to maybe have some potential in terms of breaking through the REC709 image they are so "great" at making but from what I've seen since setting up Sony camp, it has been far from a few.
Last edited:
steve phillipps
Veteran
I think that's a good point - in my mind it's not a high-end price at all - over the last 30 years or more, right back to an Arriflex SR, through Beta SP, Digibeta, HDW900, Varicam - when a new camera came out it would be around the £50,000 at least, even more for the serious top ed stuff like F35, just as an Alexa and F65 still are today. The F55 only seems expensive because there are so many cheap alternatives today. That's why most people were surprised (actually shocked!) when the new Varicams stated a guide price of $60,000, we're in a market where seriously high-spec kit can be had relatively cheaply.
Steve
A lot depends on definition, but in terms of spec the F55 is ahead of the Varicam in several key areas - most notably global versus rolling shutter, and the way RAW is implemented. That is not to call the Varicam bad - but I don't see how anyone can rate the F55 below it (except in price....
) I don't deny the F65 is "higher end" than the F55.... but at the price it's not really surprising.Again, the F55 photosite count is the same as the Varicam - so use that as a criteria for saying it's not "high end" and the Varicam can't be either. And again, a lot comes down to definition. It's become generally accepted that "a 4k camera" means *as a minimum* to have a 4k Bayer sensor, so personally I would definitely call the F55 and Varicam 4k - not as good as the F65 4k, true, but......
I recall the HPX500 was 3 960x540 chips with green pixel shift? That (H & V pixel shift) predicts a luminance resolution improvement of up to 1.5x overall - or sq rt 1.5 (about 1.2x) in each direction as it's shared between the axes. So up to about 1150x650. Does that make it HD? Well, it's well short of 1280x720 - but then it was a big improvement on SD (esp NTSC), and it was progressive, so......
steve phillipps
Veteran
Grug
Veteran
With different lenses the comparison is moot. Different glass, different coatings - you can't draw conclusions about downscaling (or anything much else, for that matter) when you're changing such a significant variable.
I've shot quite a bit on both the F3 and the F5 (using the same glass, CP.2s), and with compressed recording the only appreciable difference image-wise is that the F5 is a little bit sharper. That's pretty much all there is to it.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Morgan , Green is on the opposite side of each square - where you see magenta on the left, green is on the right vertical. Not quite as noticeable but its there and I'm pretty sure that's typical of longitudinal aberration.
hscully
Veteran
Is it just me that doesn't see the F55 as a "high end" camera?
Just me? Probably
Steve
I think the F55 is a high end cinema camera. It's used on broadcast TV and studio films. It shares the color gamut with the F65 and that sets it way ahead of the other Sonys, plus the global shutter. You will see F55s on very pricey productions along or instead of Alexas and Epics. I've seen some really beautiful stuff from the F55 and I think you're going to see a lot more.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
LLe the gaffa tape has pink edges that I can't see a green "sister" to. I do know what ca looks like.
Grug
its not sposed to be super scientific - to me the point was that one had to peep to see differences
The f5 with unlocked 4k is a very different camera that I didn't buy a year ago.
Grug
its not sposed to be super scientific - to me the point was that one had to peep to see differences
The f5 with unlocked 4k is a very different camera that I didn't buy a year ago.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Is the 55 a high end cam? Well is is pretty cheap compared to most broadcast cams if the past - even Sd ones.
But shooting raw the image seems "good enough" even if the res on a chart is only 3k. Good enough to build a career on.
Coming from stills think the concept of high end will die to a major extent. Yes phase and Blad make high end stills cams but the 5d3 and d800 are widely seen as good enough..
But shooting raw the image seems "good enough" even if the res on a chart is only 3k. Good enough to build a career on.
Coming from stills think the concept of high end will die to a major extent. Yes phase and Blad make high end stills cams but the 5d3 and d800 are widely seen as good enough..
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082825-REG/sony_pxw_fs7_compact_4k_xdcam_with.html
Is anyone going to take the first bite of the apple? and willing to make a review on it?
qazwsx
Well-known member
How do you go about getting an eval unit from Sony (or any other manufacturer)? I've always wondered. Is there some sort of requirement?
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Sony starts with the 4K RAW signal but its deBayer takes into account the compressed recording format of the camera. It has to smooth out the high frequency detal and add some noise reduction so that the signal does not break the codec. Consequently the video signal's MTF is reduced, even out the SDI & HDMI ports.
We don't have the issue of a high compression codec. So we start with the same 4K RAW signal but we don't clip the high frequency details and we don't add noise reduction. The result is a much higher MTF that is easily noticeable to the eye. This is far more important a difference than any other factor like 8-bit or color sampling, and it is why our image looks so much better than the HD one available out the SDI spigot on the camera. There is way more photo sites on the FS700 sensor than on the F3 sensor, and the processing on the F3 is designed with the internal XDCam recording in mind. If the lack of noise reduction is an issue, one can always add it to taste in post, but the result will still always be a higher MTF than with the camera's processed HD signal. That goes for comparisons against the FS700's HD output as well as the F3's.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Thanks Mitch,
I agree you have to see it to realize how much better the FS700 4K2HD picture is than even the F3's before recording.
Does the 7Q method also provide a higher MTF than the F5's downconvert to XAVC or is that closer because its not as compressed as XDCAM EX?
I agree you have to see it to realize how much better the FS700 4K2HD picture is than even the F3's before recording.
Does the 7Q method also provide a higher MTF than the F5's downconvert to XAVC or is that closer because its not as compressed as XDCAM EX?
Erik Wittbusch
Well-known member
Isn't the HD resolution in F5/FS7 a downconvert from the original 4k image?
As both can output much better signals than the FS700s AVCHD it should be
much better.
As Adam Wilt already proved, the HD signal from the FS7 is the max resolution
HD can give:
In HD, images from 1-60fps are downsampled from the 4K capture, showing clean detail up to 1080 TVl/ph with gentle aliasing beyond that point.
As both can output much better signals than the FS700s AVCHD it should be
much better.
As Adam Wilt already proved, the HD signal from the FS7 is the max resolution
HD can give:
In HD, images from 1-60fps are downsampled from the 4K capture, showing clean detail up to 1080 TVl/ph with gentle aliasing beyond that point.
Actually it's not that simple. So it's not correct that most cameras can do it. To do proper anamorphic you need a 4:3 sensor camera like the Alexa. Anamorphic lenses are 2x. You could half arse it and use a 16:9 camera with a 2x lens. But not much point.
I only know one anamorphic lens with 1.3x and the set costs as much as your house. Renting it is nearly impossible as they are rare.
Manufacturers of related peripherals, select DP's, journalists (me) and others have opportunities to borrow devices from manufacturers for purposes of evaluation or testing. Alas, borrowed hardware has to go back after the loan term is over.
Is it just me that doesn't see the F55 as a "high end" camera? Probably! But for me a high end camera should have excellent build quality, no glitches and a no compromises spec - for this look at the F65, possibly the new Varicams, F35 and F23 in HD terms. To me the F55 is basically in the same camp as the old HPX500, in that it doesn't have enough pixels to legitimately do what it claims to do - the HPX was a slightly more than SD sensor but upped it to call itself an HD camera, while the F55 has an 4k sensor which after debayer must go down to about 3k at most? For me it goes FS700 semi pro (sub-standard codec and dodgy ergonomics and build), F5 and F55 mid range (so so build, compromises), F65 high end. Of course this doesn't mean any of these cameras aren't capable of top quality work, but so is the Nikon D3200 - but you'd not call it high end compared a D4.
Just me? Probably
Steve
This is how I see it too. F65, F35, F23, Alexa, Epic, Genesis high end. F55, F5, C500 etc mid range. Rest low end.
Just because the F55 is used in studio films and TV doesn't make it high end. House used a 7D for an episode right? Is the 7D high end?