Pmw F5 & F55

[Admit One]

When you're not hitting it with daylight, it's not so good and I suspect film would have looked better...

Virtually all CMOS sensors are daylight balanced. Film, on the other hand, is naturally tungsten.

Only filtration (e.g., 80A) can properly balance CMOS sensors in tungsten. Camera White Balance adjusts gain after the sensor (not the sensor itself), which increases noise in the blue channel, and tends to clip the red channel.

It would be interesting to see how the F65 looks when filtered.

Cheers.

 

[GaryinCalifornia]

the 8k evf is probably the 7"... the 2k evf is probably the smallest.... what would make it interesting... if the F5 came in at the C300 price.. the F55 come in for a real basic kit for less than 30k... just thinking out loud...

really what I like to see... which one (Red, Canon or Sony) would be the cheapest in workflow for the small indie guy...

 

[starcentral]

Yes and let's agree on one thing, despite what any of us might think I doubt that even Sony sees themselves competing with "RED" - so I'm not inclined to think RED'S pricing will impact Sony, I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

http://vimeo.com/47582731

So I watched that video and what I got from it, in my view, is:
-On the low end, I dare say the iPhone video is actually better in some aspects than the GH2 footage, but the 7D is smoother and more pleasing overall.
-The Sony F3 is surprisingly good up against the big three (Epic/Alexa/F65), in terms of DR in particular.
-I didn't like RED colors at all, graded or not, there's just something wrong about them... which I find surprising considering the flexibility in post.
-Alexa makes anything you point it at look good, F65 has this quality too, but of a different flavor. Neither is better or worse from a color/DR point, in my view, just differently excellent.

If the F55 will have the same out-of-the-box "look" of the F65, I will be most pleased indeed; RED results left me disappointed, especially because of the high production level at hand.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Virtually all CMOS sensors are daylight balanced. Film, on the other hand, is naturally tungsten.

Not true.

Silver Haylide is equally blue-starved as silicate substrate. The difference is when Kodak makes a tungsten-balanced film stock they rebalance color layers to shift the sensitivity -- basically sticking in a thicker blue-sensitive layer. Look at any can of B&W film. It is more sensitive in daylight than it is in tungsten light. Physics.

 

[rx8pilot]

Not true.

Silver Haylide is equally blue-starved as silicate substrate. The difference is when Kodak makes a tungsten-balanced film stock they rebalance color layers to shift the sensitivity -- basically sticking in a thicker blue-sensitive layer. Look at any can of B&W film. It is more sensitive in daylight than it is in tungsten light. Physics.

I am so sick and tired of physics getting in the way of my reality!

 

[Admit One]

Not true.

Silver Haylide is equally blue-starved as silicate substrate. The difference is when Kodak makes a tungsten-balanced film stock they rebalance color layers to shift the sensitivity -- basically sticking in a thicker blue-sensitive layer. Look at any can of B&W film. It is more sensitive in daylight than it is in tungsten light. Physics.

B&W film?

Yes, they re-balance the layers, but historically, tungsten has, at any equivalent grain level, had the higher ISO (ASA).

Cheers.

 

[Steve Castle]

Yes and let's agree on one thing, despite what any of us might think I doubt that even Sony sees themselves competing with "RED" - so I'm not inclined to think RED'S pricing will impact Sony, I hope I'm wrong.

Sony, as a company, probably is happy that RED is dropping prices for their cameras.

While their camera division may not be ecstatic about the news, Sony as a whole is trying to push 4K into consumer's hands. Its TVs, its new 4K Blu-rays, 4K broadcast, and all the support and equipment that is needed to run and deliver 4K. 3D didn't catch on with consumers, Sony is hoping 4K will instead. That's where the money is at, and a push to produce to 4K from the content producers side only helps Sony and the other CE companies. Usually, content-producers are the hardest to convince to invest in a new format. Its the chicken-and-the-egg conundrum. This seems to be the opposite with 4K, consumers will have an abundance of content waiting for consumers.

So I agree, Sony probably don't see themselves directly competing with Red. They obviously offer a different product in many ways, a little more mature in monitoring and output options, global shutter, etc. While I'd love to be wrong, I'm expecting the Sony F55 to be much more expensive than the Epics.

 

[Mitch Gross]

B&W film?

Yes, they re-balance the layers, but historically, tungsten has, at any equivalent grain level, had the higher ISO (ASA).

Cheers.

Yeah, probably because there are not a lot of really dark daylight-lit spots in the world. ;-D

 

[Nate Weaver]

Yeah, probably because there are not a lot of really dark daylight-lit spots in the world. ;-D

Moonlight!

j/k, underlying premise solid.

 

[EIREHotspur]

Remember when DVD Players and Flat Screens came into the market.
There was a sweet spot where people would buy TVs and Video Recorders over here (Ireland) at anything from 300-400.
The masses didn't buy them until they hit that.

Look how they have really pushed 3D the past year or so....what are the figures for people who own them now?
They are not going to sell 4k Cameras in any quantity until their TVs reach the masses which judging by the slow take up of 3D will not be for a long long time.

When will the price of the F5 be known...this year?

 

[David G. Smith]

Remember when DVD Players and Flat Screens came into the market.
There was a sweet spot where people would buy TVs and Video Recorders over here (Ireland) at anything from 300-400.
The masses didn't buy them until they hit that.

Look how they have really pushed 3D the past year or so....what are the figures for people who own them now?
They are not going to sell 4k Cameras in any quantity until their TVs reach the masses which judging by the slow take up of 3D will not be for a long long time.

I don't know about that actually. I think the issue for content producers at this point now is future proofing what they have created. Even though HD TVs are the current standard, 4K is coming. The only question is when. It might take a long time for any decent 4K home display/exhibition device market penetration, but with the price of 4K acquisition falling rapidly, current content creators are going to very tempted to go that route, with the knowledge that their content will be compatible, at least resolution wise, for the foreseeable future. These new Sony cameras look great and I am excited about them. Now, I personally do not see upgrading to 4K acquisition for at least a few years, but I am glad that the 4K wave is building, so when I am ready to upgrade, I there will be some more choices, at reasonable costs, to choose from.

 

[Sweeney]

Can anyone honestly tell me that they see a big difference in a 4K TV and good HD one? Is the average buyer or client going to be able to see it? Here's the other big thing: Would anyone be able to tell the difference when watching well done 1080, compared to 4K native, if the 1080 is being uprezzed automatically on the 4K screen? I really doubt 99.99% of anyone would be able to tell that. On an IMAX screen, likely, but other than that? Auto uprezzed DVD's can look pretty surprising on an HD monitor and 480 and 1080 are much further apart relative to what the human eye can see, than 1080 and 4K. A theater near me has all 4K projectors but has shown tons of 1080/2K movies and I really don't notice any resolution issues, just color and DR when its not film of course.

I watched red's and others demos at NAB on 40-50" 4K screens and it looks nice, but a blu-ray looks awfully nice and much like projected film on my 1080 THX plasma. If I were 2 feet away from the screen, yeah I can see lines, but 7-8 feet? Not really.

I think a lot of well done 1080/2K material is pretty much future proofed already, in as much as a lot of today's 4K is. For example, 10 years from now, if you compared good 1080 with a good lens to 4K with a softer lens on the same 4K screen, would anyone know the which was which? DR and color is what matters so much more.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

it's already here, so you can't fight it at this point, a wider spread of a 422 10 bit 1080p system would have been better than wasting data rate and compressing 4k or ultra hd, but that ship has sailed. it might mean a compromise in bit depth, color space, ..etc. until the next generation delivery format.

 

[GaryinCalifornia]

Watched the UK video on the F55... has anyone heard since the camera has 2 slots... can you record 1080p for editing and then 4k on the other card.... I know if you use the raw recorder you can do both... raw to the recorder and then 1080 to the internal cards...

 

[Nate Weaver]

Watched the UK video on the F55... has anyone heard since the camera has 2 slots... can you record 1080p for editing and then 4k on the other card.... I know if you use the raw recorder you can do both... raw to the recorder and then 1080 to the internal cards...

Yeah, Andy Shipsides has said you can do XAVC 4K to SxS and XDCAM 1080p concurrently to the same card.

 

[EIREHotspur]

I don't know about that actually. I think the issue for content producers at this point now is future proofing what they have created. Even though HD TVs are the current standard, 4K is coming. The only question is when. It might take a long time for any decent 4K home display/exhibition device market penetration, but with the price of 4K acquisition falling rapidly, current content creators are going to very tempted to go that route, with the knowledge that their content will be compatible, at least resolution wise, for the foreseeable future. These new Sony cameras look great and I am excited about them. Now, I personally do not see upgrading to 4K acquisition for at least a few years, but I am glad that the 4K wave is building, so when I am ready to upgrade, I there will be some more choices, at reasonable costs, to choose from.

I know what your saying and with a lot of other media forms I would agree but Video Cameras are something that change so quickly.

For people buying the FS700 with the view to "future proofing"....we know that by the time everyone thinks they will upgrade to 4k with that camera, they will have a successor out.
People who have the FS100/FS700 are already looking at the F5 with great interest.

Also to edit 4k your going to need a really really fast PC.

 

[Steve Castle]

Can anyone honestly tell me that they see a big difference in a 4K TV and good HD one? Is the average buyer or client going to be able to see it? Here's the other big thing: Would anyone be able to tell the difference when watching well done 1080, compared to 4K native, if the 1080 is being uprezzed automatically on the 4K screen? I really doubt 99.99% of anyone would be able to tell that. On an IMAX screen, likely, but other than that? Auto uprezzed DVD's can look pretty surprising on an HD monitor and 480 and 1080 are much further apart relative to what the human eye can see, than 1080 and 4K. A theater near me has all 4K projectors but has shown tons of 1080/2K movies and I really don't notice any resolution issues, just color and DR when its not film of course.

I watched red's and others demos at NAB on 40-50" 4K screens and it looks nice, but a blu-ray looks awfully nice and much like projected film on my 1080 THX plasma. If I were 2 feet away from the screen, yeah I can see lines, but 7-8 feet? Not really.

I think a lot of well done 1080/2K material is pretty much future proofed already, in as much as a lot of today's 4K is. For example, 10 years from now, if you compared good 1080 with a good lens to 4K with a softer lens on the same 4K screen, would anyone know the which was which? DR and color is what matters so much more.

I've had the opportunity to see both 4K as well as 8K displays. Needless to say, the 8K is the most impressive, its one of those things that is a bit surreal. It draws you closer and closer to the screen, its like a window, you want to approach it until you can assure yourself of the tricks that the image is playing on you.

While personally, I do think even the layman could probably immediately notice the difference between 1080p and 4K, I do agree that to many people 1080p may be 'good enough'. People seem to notice Apple's Retina Display screens on the iPhone and iPad, meaning even the layman can appreciate slightly higher pixel density of displays. The issue here is that will it convince people to spend the extra money to buy a new TV or the delta price difference between the 1080p and 4K TV set. I think it will be a good 5 years before 4K content is sold in any real numbers beyond theatrical releases.

Likely we'll see a 4K/8K Blu-ray format announced sometime next year. Probably HEVC H.265-based, and using the multi-layer 250GB Blu-ray disks. We probably see a gradual shift from 4K->8K as well, since HEVC standards seem to support this. For Blu-ray 4K/8K delivery would be the differentiation factor against the increasingly influential Digital-Distribution market like NetFlix. "10 years from now" we'll be at 8K rather than 4K.

 

[Westside71]

Can anyone honestly tell me that they see a big difference in a 4K TV and good HD one? Is the average buyer or client going to be able to see it? Here's the other big thing: Would anyone be able to tell the difference when watching well done 1080, compared to 4K native, if the 1080 is being uprezzed automatically on the 4K screen? I really doubt 99.99% of anyone would be able to tell that. On an IMAX screen, likely, but other than that? Auto uprezzed DVD's can look pretty surprising on an HD monitor and 480 and 1080 are much further apart relative to what the human eye can see, than 1080 and 4K. A theater near me has all 4K projectors but has shown tons of 1080/2K movies and I really don't notice any resolution issues, just color and DR when its not film of course.

I watched red's and others demos at NAB on 40-50" 4K screens and it looks nice, but a blu-ray looks awfully nice and much like projected film on my 1080 THX plasma. If I were 2 feet away from the screen, yeah I can see lines, but 7-8 feet? Not really.

I think a lot of well done 1080/2K material is pretty much future proofed already, in as much as a lot of today's 4K is. For example, 10 years from now, if you compared good 1080 with a good lens to 4K with a softer lens on the same 4K screen, would anyone know the which was which? DR and color is what matters so much more.

Geoffrey Morrison has several articles on CNET on this very subject. See what you think. I happen to agree with him.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57491766-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/

 

[morgan_moore]

I dont think 'ability to resolve' is a reason that punters will go 4k at home

Its marketing and hype - having a better TV than Joe Next Door.

Like cars, people have one that will break the speed limit, yet still buy a faster one

S