Odyssey7 & Odyssey7Q Status Update

morgan_moore said:
Judging by the jumping up and down on the thread I thought all the 4k had been removed?
You get Hd derived from 4k and 4k-422 in time?
This seems excellent and already a serious reason not to buy an f5
I don't think anyone ever expected or announced 4k raw did they?
Click to expand...

Hey Sam (congrats on the F3)

No one has ever promised 4K RAW from the O7Q, nor is it expected. We were hoping for a flavour of 4K at launch but hopefully that isn't so far behind. Of course with the news that the O7 will display a down sampled 4K RAW image and output that to the HD-SDI at 1080p 10 bit, has people interested as a possible stop gap way of getting something better than the 8 bit internal 1080 out. Until we know more about this i can't say if it's viable or not (i.e. what colourspace it might be, or what kind of downrezzing is going on). I'm sure if it was as good as CD wanted it to be then they'd be recording it themselves internally. I suspect it's a great image to view and monitor with but maybe not to record. We're clutching at straws as usual :)

cheers
Paul
 
anatusa said:
i dont think so, as far as i understand u ll get 8bit 4:2:2 in 10 bit wrapper with samurai..... what is still 8 bit.

with CD u get TRUE 10 bit and its completely different!
Click to expand...

You get 8 but in a 10 bit wrapper because that's what the camera natively outputs, not because that's what the Samurai records. Mitch has mentioned that, on release, the 07Q will debayer the 4K Raw input and output it as (true?) 10bit 422 for monitoring. Since the O7Q will not be able to record this itself on release (as they're working on a different solution - slog2 I'd guess), the I was proposing it might be better to record this 'monitoring' output to a Samurai to get the benefit of 10bit 422 early.
 
My independent assessment would be to bank on nothing until it is in the shops and functioning - someone is struggling culturally, that someone probably still believes this to be viable in todays world.
 
I'm not banking on anything. I'm a tad frustrated that there's no 4K recording option on release, not that I ultimately want to be recording 4K, 12 bit 1080 444 is what I'm really looking forward to - but some form of 4K would allow me to get there while I wait for it. Now it seems they'll both come at roughly the same time. It's a bit of a shame as I had thought 4K cinema DNG was going to be available on release (although I honestly can't say where I got that idea from) but I am still somewhat disappointed.

As for the 4K Raw: it's just incredibly frustrating to know that the O7Q could deliver it, and could do so on release - and the only thing stopping that happening is the licensing agreement with Sony. In today's world I think it is a bit silly for companies to knowingly hobble their products in the hope of getting customers to pay more money to 'unlock' a feature. Social Media means we become very aware of these wheezes very quickly and it does little but damage their brand. The flip side of it, though, is that those companies that work hard to deliver everything a product is capable of end up creating very loyal customers who become 'brand ambassadors'.

Convergent Design clearly understand this - as Mitch's presence here indicates (and their general approach to the product) but Sony still seem a little behind on this one. Although, from what Mitch says, they're getting there...
 
With the original discussions with Dan, the 4K was originally going to be uncompressed, with the 'popular compressed codec' option coming later on down the line. The archives on here would hold that. Although i'm not saying anything was promised though.

cheers
Paul
 
It's all so confusing, no recorder, no 4k, pay big money for licensing and then what will we have? Or WHEN will we have it? To tell the truth, I'm holding out till next round at this point. I'm Selling the camera (while there's still hope) and will buy a better equipped unit when it comes out (definitely wont be Sony). They sold us what they wanted us to have, not what we needed. I understand Mitch and the CD team have to walk on eggshells with Sony but I sure dont. They lost me, But I learned my lesson, the camera served me well but it's time to move on. Reports just came out that Nikon is ahead of Canon in camera sales, thats no surprise and I'll bet Sony falls way behind the competition too if they keep up this BAD KARMA way of doing business. Shame on them.
 
If anyone cares to - and really I can't imagine why one might bother - one could look back at the original Odyssey7Q announcement from March, then subsequent announcements before CineGear in June and then various progress reports from Dan over the summer, and finally to my posts in the last month or so. There is a very clear evolution going on here, and I don't think it fair to characterize Sony as uncooperative. If anything, over time they have continually granted more and more access into their system. The original Odyssey announcement only mentioned the ARRI ALEXA and the Canon C500, because those two companies have a history of dependence on 3rd party recorders. In fact, throughout its history, Canon has never manufactured a deck of any kind (back in the MiniDV days they would suggest using the camera to play out to a computer).

Sony has always been a "complete solution" company, which has been one of its greatest strengths. When a new format like Betacam or XDCam was introduced, Sony not only announced a camera, but an entire suite of products designed to support the workflow from start to finish. Times have changed and it is hard for any company to turn on a dime, especially one with as large an infrastructure as Sony. What do you say to a 3rd party recorder option when you own a factory full of workers who make nothing but recorders?

Things change. Business models evolve. Convergent Design is actively working with Sony and we have been for quite a long time. Please recall that one of our premiere products, the nanoFlash, records exclusively in Sony's XDCam codecs. We are working to make the Odyssey7Q everything you want it to be. But sometimes just because something is technically possible does not mean it is the prudent thing to do, or at least some people may have to be convinced it makes good business sense. We're working on it.
 
For the senior users in this community, I think history has a way of coming back on itself. A company that has been unreceptive to user needs has to work pretty hard to rebuild their rep. I think Avid is a perfect example. For sure, the business model of the future is, hopefully, represented by companies like C-D. As for companies with a history like Sony's, well, show me. And, hopefully, if a Sony rep is monitoring this site, he/she can report back to his/her management that there is discontent out in the field. The only leverage we have as consumers and users is our wallet.

"Fool me once, foolish you, fool me twice, foolish me."
 
Last edited:
Marino215 said:
It's all so confusing, no recorder, no 4k, pay big money for licensing and then what will we have? Or WHEN will we have it? To tell the truth, I'm holding out till next round at this point. I'm Selling the camera (while there's still hope) and will buy a better equipped unit when it comes out (definitely wont be Sony). They sold us what they wanted us to have, not what we needed. I understand Mitch and the CD team have to walk on eggshells with Sony but I sure dont. They lost me, But I learned my lesson, the camera served me well but it's time to move on. Reports just came out that Nikon is ahead of Canon in camera sales, thats no surprise and I'll bet Sony falls way behind the competition too if they keep up this BAD KARMA way of doing business. Shame on them.
Click to expand...

It's really not that confusing, it's just a little more complicated for early adopters, which is a common business strategy these days since it gets tools into the hands of customers earlier and probably helps the software developers get earlier feedback to make it a better product a few months down the road. If you are confused now, look at the 7Q roadmap and you'll see that all you have to do is wait about 3months and things get a lot simpler because that is when pretty much all the big expected features will be available. So wait 3 months if you want to avoid the earlier limited feature set of the launch firmware, there certainly isn't any other option in the same price range or with the same features as the 7Q, though so I'm not sure what there is to wait for. Keep in mind that even if CD misses all the marks and only delivers the firmware they are shipping with now, they still did a lot of stuff no one else ever offered at that price point. So maybe the FS700 feature isn't finished and may not be worth buying until Q1 2013 for most people, that's fine, but the 7Q already replaces 2-4 monitors and has a lot of features and flexibility you cant get in any other device on the market. I was told you can use it as a 4-camera monitor+switcher right out of the box, and it's ideal for matching two cameras. Even if it was just a single input OLED field monitor the price would be pretty justifiable (though not quite as exciting).

The FS700 feature is awesome, but don't forget it's not the only thing the 7Q does. I have a feeling these will be standard on every set in a year, whether they are shooting FS700 or Alexa or C100/300/500 or whatever else. I thought the same thing when I got a TVlogic 5.6 LCD years ago, and they are everywhere now but this is even bigger.
 
One thing I've been curious about, maybe you can answer, Mitch, is about the contrast ratio and brightness of the OLED panel. Seems likely it's the same 7.7" OLED panel SmallHD is using and lists in their specs as 10,000:1 contrast ratio. CD rates it at 3400:1 which seems pretty low for OLED (Sony lists their OLED specs as 1,000,000:1...). Is that because of the way brightness has been implemented with 3 different calibrated OLED brightness ranges, none of which use the full range? Or because of the capacitive panel and/or hardened glass in front of the OLED? Is there any way to use the full contrast range of the monitor? Or is there some other explanation I'm missing?
 
I believe it is a different way of measuring the same thing, as in "what is the potential possible contrast range that this display could handle before failure" v. "what is the functional contrast range of this panel in normal use?" We do limit it a tiny bit to help prevent burn-in, which can otherwise be an issue with OLED technology. A manufacturer can also force contrast, but that can introduce noise into the mid to lower ranges of the signal very fast. I've seen this on other monitors, where artificially pumped contrast introduces noise into the image which is not actually there in the camera's signal. That can be okay if you just want to get an image to frame by, but if you are lighting and exposing based on the image then it's a huge minefield. I won't comment on any other manufacturer's numbers, other than to say that comparing ours to theirs without looking at the images isn't going to tell you much of anything.

I don't know anyone who has been disappointed by the image on our OLED display, and that's been with DPs, engineers and laypeople. We have three each of contrast, brightness and backlight ranges (so nine variants), with the colors all carefully balanced to match out properly between them. Depending on your ambient light situation you should be able to find a happy monitor setting to deliver very accurate images. You will need the hood in daylight, but that's the only way to ever get any monitor to deliver an accurate image.
 
Thanks Noah. Certainly a voice of reason and I do applaud the Convergent Design team. It's just Sony I'm frustrated with. As an early adapter I figured by the time 4k rolls out they'll be on point. I'm guilty of thinking maybe the proprietary recorder is like the f65s, new codex or Ki pro...instead they offered someting in addition to a recorder (interface unit) more expensive than the camera it's self, bigger then the previous mentioned and made for an entirely different camera. And now they're crippling our only reasonable solution to capture the 4k image. Really Sony?? Who does that? But I thank you for indulging me Noah, haha. I need to vent every couple months. :) stay well. I know better times are a head. Thanks
 
Last edited:
For the highly compressed, but 10-12 bit, 422 or 444, 4k, there's Sony's XAVC, which would be a nice alternative for the O7Q.
 
cuervo said:
For the highly compressed, but 10-12 bit, 422 or 444, 4k, there's Sony's XAVC, which would be a nice alternative for the O7Q.
Click to expand...

If Sony are happy to licence it to CD it would definitely make sense - it's certainly in Sony's interest to have it used more and to encourage it to become the de facto standard, not to mention the fact that it would sit well with their full range of cameras if they all can be said to record XAVC...
 
cuervo said:
For the highly compressed, but 10-12 bit, 422 or 444, 4k, there's Sony's XAVC, which would be a nice alternative for the O7Q.
Click to expand...

Now if they were somehow able to update the FS700's own firmware to allow 4K recording in this format to super fast SDXC cards (like the Sandisk Extreme Pro) I would be extremely happy! Probably not fast enough write speeds for 4K recording - but wouldn't it be brilliant!
 
pythonman said:
Now if they were somehow able to update the FS700's own firmware to allow 4K recording in this format to super fast SDXC cards (like the Sandisk Extreme Pro) I would be extremely happy! Probably not fast enough write speeds for 4K recording - but wouldn't it be brilliant!
Click to expand...

Now you are dreaming, Sony F5 can't even record 4K XAVC internally, owners would revolt :P
 
pythonman said:
Now if they were somehow able to update the FS700's own firmware to allow 4K recording in this format to super fast SDXC cards (like the Sandisk Extreme Pro) I would be extremely happy! Probably not fast enough write speeds for 4K recording - but wouldn't it be brilliant!
Click to expand...

I personally don't have any use for an MPEG4 based codec such as XAVC, but it might work for users who don't want too much color correction to go on prior to delivery, or simply have lower delivery requirements. I'm pretty sure the recently released Sony PXW-Z100 has XAVC onboard. That being said, if you want a camera that only offers onboard compression the 1DC is supposed to be a compelling option. Even the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 has a 4k camera that offers compressed recording.

Those of us looking for the benefits of raw as a format are not going to find an equivalent in XAVC or MJPEG. Raw offers a lot of flexibility in a modern workflow. If you have the budget and a good post infrastructure available it makes a lot of sense for documentary, Indy and commercial work.

If I was forced to use compression I would look to a "popular codec" (either of them) well before the choices that Sony and Canon have made. There is a reason why Blackmagic built a fanbase and it largely has to do with offering small scale production customers the record formats they want at dirt cheap prices.

-FDP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top