FS7: NO Sony Fs7!!

Doug
Imagine a scene that was a fence (posts 1-10) and you were shooting along down it. Well if you blurred posts 4567 into one on the viewfinder you would not be able to assert that you were focussed on post 4 or 7. Trying to focus 4k on a 720 monitor is the same thing. The fs7 focus bash is so blurred as to not help. Shooting HD cuts your required focus accuracy to 1/4 of that of 4k. Simple maths.

I get that 2/3 lens at 1.8 is similar DOF to FF35 at 4 so that can be crossed off the list :)

Please understand I was shooting 4k a very long time ago on my hasselblad and have been fighting the 4k focus battle for longer than most videographers.
 
JPNola said:
Why are you ragging on the Fs7 in a thread about moving on from the Fs7?
Click to expand...

Because the general assertion vibe I get through the thread is that the producer mention by the OP is dumb to ban the camera. It seems to me that there are arguments to present in that direction.

Ive had (and still have) the camera since they made number 233 and have got lots of good use out of it. Other cameras are however more appropriate for many types of work.
 
Well, the Fs7 is a 5-6 yr old camera and that’s roughly the lifecycle of cameras now. The individual said he never cared for the color-repro of the Fs7 but does like the look of cinetone. And, be it silly or dumb, I can see where someone in Hollywood working for a major studio would want the latest-greatest. Something more “now”. He can say his crew is using the very latest gear, the “hot” camera. He can’t say that with the Fs7. He’s wanting to be current, if not leading edge. I get it. And I try to be mindful of the highly competitive market he is in, one where image / perception matters.


_______
 
morgan_moore said:
Doug
Imagine a scene that was a fence (posts 1-10) and you were shooting along down it. Well if you blurred posts 4567 into one on the viewfinder you would not be able to assert that you were focussed on post 4 or 7. Trying to focus 4k on a 720 monitor is the same thing. The fs7 focus bash is so blurred as to not help. Shooting HD cuts your required focus accuracy to 1/4 of that of 4k. Simple maths.
Click to expand...

I can't really follow that example, so we'll have to agree to disagree. But I will say that I find shallower DoF actually makes focusing easier because it is more clear when the subject is in focus or just kinda in focus. Following focus on a moving target at f/2.8 is actaully easier than at f/8 because it is easier to see if the focus is right on or not. Less gray area. Plus the shot will almost look better with shallow DoF. Wide open baby, all the time, that is my style regardless of the camera or lens. Push it to the limit. :-)
 
morgan_moore said:
Please understand I was shooting 4k a very long time ago on my hasselblad and have been fighting the 4k focus battle for longer than most videographers.
Click to expand...

Myth. There is no such thing as a 4K focus battle. Either the subject is in focus or it is not, regardless of the imager size or f-stop.
 
Well nothing is ever sharp it just has a CoC of a certain size (im opening up the flank here) .. circle of confusion

If that CoC is small enough then the image is deemed 'sharp'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

So you might focus a lens on 5ft but actually be hitting 4.98 or 5.00001 but you will rarely hit the 5.00000

Things appear sharp or are as in focus as they need to be to make the CoC smaller than the pixel size

Gerally I found the aquisition monitor to be the weak link in the chain. Aquire evaluating a 7in image (max) and then walk up to a projection 10ft wide and you realise you got the wrong eyelash in focus.

Shallower DOF does IMO help too. Its just when you think you are sharp you may find on the FS7 tools (and most others) that a small wiggle of the lens will not result in a clear improvement or degradation of the image. At that point you are lost. The worse the tools the greater the zone of confusion. My conclusion with stills was AF. Not to do the (big distance) focussing.. but to close the gap you could not due to poor monitoring tools. As video closes in on 4k it seems the situation will be similar.
 
Last edited:
Since we are talking about the FS7, may i ask exactly what peaking settings you tried with the stock FS7 LCD and loupe?
 
Doug Jensen said:
Myth. There is no such thing as a 4K focus battle. Either the subject is in focus or it is not, regardless of the imager size or f-stop.
Click to expand...

It's not a myth. There is only an infinitesimally thin plane of actual focus. But you rarely hit that anyway. Depth of field is a subjective perception and it is influenced by the size and resolution of the viewing format as well as by the conditions of recording.

I mean, you're talking about peaking. In my experience, peaking will never tell you what the precise plane of focus is.

I still have sharp eyes and I'm a great focus puller. autofocus is an additional option, not a crutch. I still use my 7" HD ikan for pulling focus or seeing exactly what the AF is doing. Your point about limiting your lens selection by using AF is salient, but not relevant for me personally.

These are all just tools and features. If it's not right for you or the shot, then don't use it. But AF is not the only distinguishing characteristic of the fx6/fx9 vs the fs7
 
ahalpert said:
It's not a myth.d it is influenced by the size and resolution of the viewing format as well as by the conditions of recording.

I mean, you're talking about peaking. In my experience, peaking will never tell you what the precise plane of focus is.

I still have sharp eyes and I'm a great focus puller. autofocus is an additional option, not a crutch. I still use my 7" HD ikan for pulling focus or seeing exactly what the AF is doing. Your point about limiting your lens selection by using AF is salient, but not relevant for me personally.

These are all just tools and features. If it's not right for you or the shot, then don't use it. But AF is not the only distinguishing characteristic of the fx6/fx9 vs the fs7
Click to expand...

You are waltzing right into a buzzsaw.
 
JPNola said:
You are waltzing right into a buzzsaw.
Click to expand...

Bring it on

Perhaps I should add that I don't use the 7" monitor with the FS7. I just use the FS7 loupe (and as jpnola mentioned "predictive intuitiveness, muscle memory, focus zen" lol). I use the 7" with the A7SIII on a gimbal. Previously I was pulling focus manually on the gimbal (and still do when the shot calls for it) on the S1 and the GH5 before it. Which is why I'm not in a burning rush to upgrade the fs7, because it's working fine for how I use it. Easy to imagine someone flying an FX6 and benefitting from the autofocus. Or just unmanned camera angles, either in an interview or at an event. The camera would pay for itself quickly in the savings from not hiring additional focus babysitters (tho obviously it won't pan to reframe for you). And of course there are big advantages from shooting ISO 12800 if the situation calls for it, as Grug recently noted. But not long ago, a chorus of dvxusers were saying they'd never need to light above ISO 3200 or that pushing the gain up further would look unnatural
 
Last edited:
“ Myth. There is no such thing as a 4K focus battle. Either the subject is in focus or it is not, regardless of the imager size or f-stop.”

But greater resolution more reveals out of focus area.

I’m probably screwing up the wording, so I’ll let David Mullen explain it:

“A major component of the depth of field calculation is the Circle of Confusion, a rightly named concept, based loosely on the idea of how far can the focus be out before point become a noticeable circle instead, or in other words, what is the focus range around the correct focus distance where a point still looks like a point and not a fuzzy circle. And that Circle of Confusion figure is based on the degree of image magnification, another fuzzy concept since we see images at all sorts of distances to the screen or monitor. But we have to pick a figure in order to make the calculations.



So logically you figure that the more resolution that the image and display together have, the more clearly you'd see whether a point was in focus or not.“
 
All this talk about critical focus reminds me of a lens design presentation I once attended - hosted by one of the traditionally high end cine lens manufacturers - where they talked about how part of creating a pleasingly smooth image sometimes involved designing and grinding prime lenses that combined slightly varied focus points to provide an image that was both sharp and smooth - and that because this could result in slightly different focus distances when the lens was at different f/stops it meant the assistant needing to critically check lenses and distance markings at different f/stops. The best way to think about it was to consider a lens where the center of the lens has one focus distance and the outer edges of the lens are slightly different - so as the iris opens the perceived focus distance changes slightly...
 
morgan_moore said:
Please understand I was shooting 4k a very long time ago on my hasselblad and have been fighting the 4k focus battle for longer than most videographers.
Click to expand...

Doug Jensen said:
Either the subject is in focus or it is not, regardless of the imager size or f-stop.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you might be talking past eachother here and saying slightly different things that are not mutually exclusive.

Focus is definitely more critical in 4K than HD, no question - but it is also true that a subject is either in focus or it is not, regardless of the imager size or f-stop.

Think of it like two different dart boards.
The dart we throw is either going to be in the bullseye or it is not, regardless of the size of the bullseye - but if one bullseye is 4 times the size of the other, it's a bit easier to hit that mark.
 
Of course we both (I hope) to some extent are wagging tails for 'fun' - Ive certainly complimented Doug on his excellent skills with telephotos and flying birds.

Either the subject is in focus or it is not

This is actually maybe the stumbling block. Because an image may be elected to be sharp when displayed on an iphone and viewed from six feet, but viewing on a large monitor from three feet one will then elect the image not to be sharp. So the subject is only in focus or not for a certaint monitor resolutions/viewing distance.

It is absolutely true that all systems move (down the 'fence posts') from blured to sharpest to less sharp to blurred
 
morgan_moore said:
Of course we both (I hope) to some extent are wagging tails for 'fun' - Ive certainly complimented Doug on his excellent skills with telephotos and flying birds.

Either the subject is in focus or it is not

This is actually maybe the stumbling block. Because an image may be elected to be sharp when displayed on an iphone and viewed from six feet, but viewing on a large monitor from three feet one will then elect the image not to be sharp. So the subject is only in focus or not for a certaint monitor resolutions/viewing distance.

It is absolutely true that all systems move (down the 'fence posts') from blured to sharpest to less sharp to blurred
Click to expand...

Not to be pedantic (but I'm going to be pedantic), it sounds like you're talking about two different things here. You brought up examples of perception depending on display - but in both examples you laid out the image itself would not actually change.

'Either the subject is in focus or it is not' is not the same thing as saying either the subject 'is perceived to be' in focus or it is not.

I guess first you would need to clarify if you two are discussing actual focus or perceived focus - because those can often be two different things.
 
JPNola said:
But greater resolution more reveals out of focus area.
Click to expand...

Yes. Anytime you look at anything with higher resolution you will be more likely to detect more errors and mistakes. No surprise there. But that doesn't mean those errors did not exist at lower reolutions. You might decide that a focus error was "good enough" for a lower resolution image, but that doesn't change the fact that something is either in focus or it is not, regardless of the circle of confusion or whatever else you want throw into the discussion. What changes is your acceptance of a less than perfect image. Personally, I strive for the same precision whether I'm shooting HD or 4K or anything else. I'm not perfect at manual focusing but I know when I have missed the mark and I'd never say "well, it's for HD so I guess its good enough". Someone else might say that, but not me.

But let's get back to the FS7, which is what this thread is supposed to be about. If I go into the menus and change the recording format from HD to 4K --- nothing visible CHANGES onboard the camera. The viewfinder resolution is exactly the same. Peaking works exactly the same. Focus mag works the same. Even zebras, waveform, histogram, etc. all perform exactly the same. All that changed was whether I am recording a 4K file or an HD file. And the focus is either going to be correct or it is not. Please don't try to tell me that if I focus the camera with an HD recording format, and then switch to a 4K format, that somehow I'm going to become more aware of any focus error I have made. That is a bunch of bunk. And the circle of confusion has nothign to do with it. It's the same lens and the same sensor. The focus is either right or wrong, and the actual act of focusing is exactly the same for HD and 4K on the FS7.

You can quote me on this: Focusing is no harder or easier; or requires any more or less precision; when you are recordng 4K vs. HD with the same camera, lens, and same viewfinder.
 
morgan_moore said:
Of course we both (I hope) to some extent are wagging tails for 'fun' - Ive certainly complimented Doug on his excellent skills with telephotos and flying birds.
Click to expand...

Yes, I enjoy the debate. No hard feelings here. Thank you for the compliment and I respect your work as welll. The guy shaving in the bathroom a few months ago was very nicely done.

But I'm still waiting to hear what your specific peaking settings you used with the FS7 viewfinder that led you to decided you couldn't use it for focusing. You continually rag on the FS7 but when you are asked about HOW you are using the camera you just move on to something else. Others have suggested you could easily add a new rod to extend the viewfinder's length, but you don't care to hear that simple solution either. I'm trying to see if your complaints about not being able to focus with the FS7 could also be easily remedied with a couple of menu changes and a little practice. But I think you'd rather just complain that actually solve the challenges.

I look forward to the day when I can take a camera out of the box, turn it on, make no changes to the menus, add no accessories, and start shooting great video. If that's what you thought the FS7 would be, you were mistaken.
 
THe sharp not sharp thing I will disagree. I remember (2003?) shooting some specific shot, (quite wide people on a boat) probably with my new 'high res' hasselblad and realising that my subject had sharp ears and mussy eyes. Dissapointment.

When I downscaled the image to 'my normal' size (whatever that was then - maybe 5mp still) I realised that the misfocus was now gone - I realised that by moving from 5mp to 20mp for stills I was going to need to up my game as new levels of accuracy were required. I extensively fiddled with, returned, had calibrated, my Mamiya and hasselblad cameras. Getting manual focus 20mp was hard.

Then my nikon D3 turned up and the AF just popped. The nikon AF ate the hasselblad AF an the hasselblad even though a prime bit of jewelery was quickly relageted to the shelf.

Now about this time I was stepping into video as I could afford it with the ex1 then 5d2 - I never had got in the position to join the $80k beta crowd before that although was trying to head that way with my various connections at the beeb.

As someone shooting stills at 4k and enjoying them on my 27in imac I was well aware that one can focus on the wrong eye. Its now 2008 and I went to london to get hands on proper video kit.. (somewhat historic https://vimeo.com/16272018) .. anyway this was my first experience of peaking probably on that transvidoeo monitor you see.. and I could tell it was lighting up more than one eye even at telephoto/f2 .. clearly peaking was bunk.

And this I still beleive - peaking is bunk. In my mellow old age I can see that it helps when the situation is bad.. like sitting on a tuk-tuk in zambia not really being able to see any thing at all.

So my FS7. .I had (and you will laugh) all those assists off and soon relagated the 'monitor' to be a confidence view for the director and bought a smallHD 502.. which is OK, but not great. Ive had various monitors - shogun - DP1, Dp6 and now even a 23in set monitor. Really they are all pretty piss poor in all modes for getting the right (correct) eye sharp.

Recently I shot something and did use peaking an focus bash.. (at the same time) considering them the best of a bad bunch of tools. Was it sharp ? No idea really.

Im now moving to AF and letting the computer do the heavy lifting. And if you are not shooting through a bush in heavy backlight it seems to be the thing :)
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
Yes. Anytime you look at anything with higher resolution you will be more likely to detect more errors and mistakes. No surprise there. But that doesn't mean those errors did not exist at lower resolutions.
Click to expand...

I would disagree - it actually very well may mean that those errors do not exist at lower resolutions if the focus error is within the margin of what the lower resolution is able to resolve. If an image is out of focus by a factor of X and a given resolution can only resolve to a factor of X+1 the 'error' would be erased at that lower resolution. It's not only that we wouldn't be able to perceive it at the lower resolution - it would no longer exist.

You might decide that a focus error was "good enough" for a lower resolution image, but that doesn't change the fact that something is either in focus or it is not, regardless of the circle of confusion or whatever else you want throw into the discussion.
Click to expand...

You're right that an image is either in focus or it is not. No argument there.
But when you talk about an image "at a lower resolution" or an image at "a higher resolution" you seem to ignore the fact that you're talking about two different images. It is possible for one to be in focus and the other not to be.

So each image is either in focus or it is not - but you cannot say that all copies of an image are either in focus or they are not.


(Sorry if I'm the only one that found this issue so fascinating - but it's got a real Ship of Theseus vibe to it that I just couldn't let go.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top