F55: Re: The MOST POLARIZING camera?

yoclay said:
I find it amusing too, that not only are many BM camera forum members comparing a camera they have as yet never used (4.6K Ursa), but also they are compairing it with another camera they have never used (Alexa). It's hilarious that they are thus comparing TWO cameras they have never used in fact!

The other thing I see over and over again is that funky cyan/magenta crossover in all BM videos. (The pastel effect). Am I the only one that see's this? The shadows are not blue for instance, they are cyan. No way anyone who has worked with footage from the Alexa could confuse the two. BM has a look, which comes from having to consistently pull up the saturation in an exaggerated manner in order to achieve "normal" color saturation levels. This distorts the edges of the color spectrum.
I truly hope the 4.6K version gets beyond this. But it remains to be seen. This is what I will be closely looking at in any case.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It's why I've been saying in other threads that 100% of the Ursa Mini 4.6k clips i have seen seem to have a really OTT 'blockbuster' LUT applied in lieu of any actual colour correction.
 
seems we can't get away from polarizing stuff in this thread...

But seriously though every single clip whether inside or out. While that clip is making use of one, I very much doubt the issues across the board are all due to polarizers. Much more likely down to the application of the '1-click SuperFilmicInstantFilmlookDeluxe LUT pack'
 
maxjw said:
For some of us, there was a very pointed goal. Identify the edge tearing artifacts that were clearly visible in footage, and find out where that issue originates in order to report it to Sony so that they may evaluate it and potentially make tweaks.

Some in this community took this as an opportunity to condescend and diminish those that had a very specific and legitimate concern. Noise reduction on the FS5 has an unfortunate effect that is beyond the threshold of "typical noise reduction" for many, and we wondered if there was a way for Sony to improve it.
There were posts about how polarizing the FS5 is. No, its not. Owners love the FS5, they just noticed a flaw and wanted to get Sony’s attention to shed more light on the matter.

Yet that one simple and innocent request resulted in a deluge of personal attacks that I can only imagine were borne out of condescension, insecurity, or both. Alister’s blog took people’s concerns and roundly mocked them as “complainers” conducting “stupid and silly tests”, while tacitly admitting that there was something not ideal about the way the FS5 was applying noise reduction in the image. It escalated what was merely observations from users into a petty and at times nasty debate about who knows how to use their camera correctly. Come on people, we’re a better community than that. Rather than looking upon people who have legitimate concerns as “pixel peepers”, and sitting on your high horse, why not contribute constructively, or stay out of it if it’s not relevant to you.

Others took a “holier than thou” attitude to make a point about operator vs. camera. This misses the point completely, and is so irrelevant and obnoxious, I don’ t know where to start. Just remember, this is a very specific issue with a very specific aspect of the FS5 that we hoped for improvements on. Not saying that the FS5 is a bad camera by any stretch, or to say that we don’t know how to make a nice image with the FS5.

Meanwhile, Sony is appreciating the feedback and tests because it helps them with their jobs and is helping them make a better camera (granted their PR department may not like it). Don’t forget that Sony is made of people, who make mistakes and learn new things just like the rest of us because they aren’t able to conduct the level of testing that can only occur when a camera releases to the public. They’re not the all-knowing robots that Alister seems to suggest that they are, who were aware of every single consequence of every element of the FS5’s engineering. Cameras evolve. That’s the reality of modern videography. Firmware updates allow manufacturers to release improvements afterwards, while bringing camera to the market faster.

I sincerely hope that this community will keep a more open mind in the future, because I think this whole situation has reflected poorly on both sides, but worst on those who made this into a pissing match on ISO’s, Db’s, lighting, noise, broadcast standards, etc etc. There’s an anomaly in the FS5, an otherwise fantastic camera. That’s all there is to it. Let’s not turn this into something else that does a disservice to everyone involved.
Click to expand...
+1000
It's beyond my understanding what's some people business in diminishing those bugs. I also don't understand why your balanced, impartial post has down votes. There's clearly something wrong going on.

Ben Scott said:
Agree completely. Certain people loudly and repeatedly going 'Well I don't have the shutter bug on my FS7 you must all be doing cameramanning wrong' is why over a year later we still don't have the shutter bug fixed on the FS7.
Click to expand...
+1
This is coming back in every thread related to some issues found in a camera: "You're doing it wrong! Look, I can do provide beautiful images with 600d!".
 
Last edited:
lElxbNC.gif
 
Nirv said:
It might be, and this is just a guess, that people strongly disagree with him.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagreeing that flaws should be fixed? That's what I'm saying- there's something deeply wrong with that way of thinking and I'm trying to understand it's reasoning.

Fighting for silver knob replacement in F5 is ok but resolving firmware flaws in FS7 and FS5 is not. This is what it's coming from some people. People making bread and butter on Sony cameras, it's very concerning.
 
alohype said:
Strongly disagreeing that flaws should be fixed? That's what I'm saying- there's something deeply wrong with that way of thinking and I'm trying to understand it's reasoning.

Fighting for silver knob replacement in F5 is ok but resolving firmware flaws in FS7 and FS5 is not. This is what it's coming from some people. People making bread and butter on Sony cameras, it's very concerning.
Click to expand...

To move the discussion forward there has to be some acceptance that adding huge amounts of gain has consequences be that straight forward noise or in the case of the FS5 NR circuit smearing. You say the artefacts are a flaw, I would say adding so much gain the you drive the NR circuit into submission is a consequence of bad practice. I'd agree the tearing was a flaw if the camera did it without gain but it doesn't, it is as a consequence of some quite high levels of gain. The mistake Sony made was not providing an off switch so the operator could see what a mess the NR was clearing up.

If your work is important enough to shoot then it's important enough to light even if it's only a camera mounted light like we did out of necessity in the old days. I used to carry a back breaking coffin with Arri redheads, stands and miles of extension cablesaround with me, today it's so much easier, cheaper and less painful to lug lightweight battery powered LED panels. The yoof don't know they're born...

If you throw noisy video into NeatVideo it's not necessarily artefact free and that is not working in realtime and has all the power of your PC to work with so how can anyone expect a camera to be doing a flawless job at 10,000 ISO on the fly?
 
Nirv said:
To move the discussion forward there has to be some acceptance that adding huge amounts of gain has consequences be that straight forward noise or in the case of the FS5 NR circuit smearing. You say the artefacts are a flaw, I would say adding so much gain the you drive the NR circuit into submission is a consequence of bad practice. I'd agree the tearing was a flaw if the camera did it without gain but it doesn't, it is as a consequence of some quite high levels of gain. The mistake Sony made was not providing an off switch so the operator could see what a mess the NR was clearing up.

If your work is important enough to shoot then it's important enough to light even if it's only a camera mounted light like we did out of necessity in the old days. I used to carry a back breaking coffin with Arri redheads, stands and miles of extension cablesaround with me, today it's so much easier, cheaper and less painful to lug lightweight battery powered LED panels. The yoof don't know they're born...

If you throw noisy video into NeatVideo it's not necessarily artefact free and that is not working in realtime and has all the power of your PC to work with so how can anyone expect a camera to be doing a flawless job at 10,000 ISO on the fly?
Click to expand...

Is it not conceivable to shoot at night where you can't light the entire scene? Like a street/city shot? Or a wedding where you have no control? Fact is my $1800 GH4 could have been ramped up to 6400 ISO with no additional artefacts besides grain.

People blame the codec, but it has northing to do with that. People blame the price of the camera or its "prosumer nature" but it isn't a cheap camera and older/ cheaper 4K cameras can do high ISO without becoming completely unusable.

SLOG is not really a work around because of the 8bit nature, I want to shoot with Cine gamma profiles that require minimal grading while shooting 4K with this camera.

Don't get me wrong, I am loving this camera. The internal 10 bit 1080 and even 4k (with lower ISO) look phenomenal, and ergonomics make it a joy to use, but there is a problem with the camera and there is nothing wrong with us asking for a fix from Sony.
 
I know it's boring to beat a drum but increased sensor sensitivity is no substitute for proper lighting/exposure.

It is the fundamental core of our work to mange/wrestle photons and a greater understanding of that would improve the image quality of new cameras a lot more than anything else.

That said, Sony are seemingly very slapdash these days in terms of releasing cameras still in beta.
 
Josh-Glover said:
Is it not conceivable to shoot at night where you can't light the entire scene? Like a street/city shot? Or a wedding where you have no control? Fact is my $1800 GH4 could have been ramped up to 6400 ISO with no additional artefacts besides grain.

People blame the codec, but it has northing to do with that. People blame the price of the camera or its "prosumer nature" but it isn't a cheap camera and older/ cheaper 4K cameras can do high ISO without becoming completely unusable.

SLOG is not really a work around because of the 8bit nature, I want to shoot with Cine gamma profiles that require minimal grading while shooting 4K with this camera.

Don't get me wrong, I am loving this camera. The internal 10 bit 1080 and even 4k (with lower ISO) look phenomenal, and ergonomics make it a joy to use, but there is a problem with the camera and there is nothing wrong with us asking for a fix from Sony.
Click to expand...


FS5 shot at night, Seems not to bad to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WCpSkUcr0o
 
Josh-Glover said:
Fact is my $1800 GH4 could have been ramped up to 6400 ISO with no additional artefacts besides grain.
Click to expand...

You cannot compare cameras like this let alone cameras from different manufacturers and ranges. An ISO figure does not indicate how much gain is applied unless you also give the base ISO of the camera.

My FS7 can be very noisy above its base ISO of 2000. Go much above this at your peril otherwise you'll have ugly multicoloured blotches in your dark tones and the footage is unusable. I wonder how these hyper gain heroes would cope with an FS7?
 
Nirv said:
To move the discussion forward there has to be some acceptance that adding huge amounts of gain has consequences be that straight forward noise or in the case of the FS5 NR circuit smearing. You say the artefacts are a flaw, I would say adding so much gain the you drive the NR circuit into submission is a consequence of bad practice. I'd agree the tearing was a flaw if the camera did it without gain but it doesn't, it is as a consequence of some quite high levels of gain.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. And I consider it a non-issue for my style of shooting. But the fact is, the tearing appears at ISOs as low as 1600. If you really, really, really pixel peep, you can see it at the base 1000 ISO also.
 
Nirv said:
You cannot compare cameras like this let alone cameras from different manufacturers and ranges. An ISO figure does not indicate how much gain is applied unless you also give the base ISO of the camera.

My FS7 can be very noisy above its base ISO of 2000. Go much above this at your peril otherwise you'll have ugly multicoloured blotches in your dark tones and the footage is unusable. I wonder how these hyper gain heroes would cope with an FS7?
Click to expand...


Sure I can. Besides, that should really be said from the other side when comparing a camera to another one that costs over 3 times as much, and not the other way around. Sony's own lower end cameras are not exhibiting this either. The base ISO is apparently 800 on the GH4 so we are not that far off in terms of gain.


Morton Molyneux said:
FS5 shot at night, Seems not to bad to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WCpSkUcr0o
Click to expand...

Look at the tops of the buildings starting at 22 seconds. I didn't even watch past that as I own the camera. Someone I work with wanted to see the issue so I plugged my FS5 it into a tv via HDMI and was able to show him the issue instantly.
 
Ben, Nirv,

I have nothing to add except noise. But some of your posts nearly made me spit coffee over my keyboard :)

thanks for brightening up a grey morning...

cheers
Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top