FS7: Recommend a monitor

I would put up our Odyssey OLED monitor against any portable on camera monitor available at any price. It is true that these things are impossible to judge prom specs alone, and a few dealers have set up "monitor trees" as ways to compare the image quality of different models side by side. AbelCine, Band Pro, B&H and EVS are just a few where I have seen such displays. Seeing is believing and we stand behind the subtle levels of detail, dynamic range, true blacks and accurate colors of our OLED screens. We also have a host of functions built into the monitor for analyzing the image and people seem to be really happy with them. Even though it was primarily built as a recorder, you wuld be quite surprised at how significant a percentage of the Odyssey7Qs sold are being used exclusively as monitors.
 
Have to say, even though I have a Shogun on the way I used the Odyssey 7Q last week and it is a beautiful piece of kit.
 
With my FS700, I had the Odyssey 7q positioned in front and a V-mount battery in back. It was balanced and surprisingly usable. It looked a little strange, but it worked well. When I get a FS7 (and particularly when the back comes out) I plan to try the same.
 
a little off subject here, but I mentioned this in an earlier post about finding a loupe for my PIX…..so as this thread is mildly related I thought I'd throw it out again.
It would be great I think if a manufacturer of EVFs and / or onboard recorders could combine the two. A large recorder / monitor mounted on a camera is not always easy to use let alone deal with an extra thing hanging of the camera rig. Visibility can also be compromised too in bright conditions no matter how good the lcd on the recorder may be. This is why we use an EVF.
Now what about combining the two?
Surely there's recent technical advances that can make this happen? Not only for the recording side of things, the storage media too.
I for one would love to have something like this, a good EVF that can also record HD Pro Res and 4K.
Not impossible surely, ( do you want to jump in Mitch ) ?……..
 
petermullett said:
a little off subject here, but I mentioned this in an earlier post about finding a loupe for my PIX…..so as this thread is mildly related I thought I'd throw it out again.
It would be great I think if a manufacturer of EVFs and / or onboard recorders could combine the two. A large recorder / monitor mounted on a camera is not always easy to use let alone deal with an extra thing hanging of the camera rig. Visibility can also be compromised too in bright conditions no matter how good the lcd on the recorder may be. This is why we use an EVF.
Now what about combining the two?
Surely there's recent technical advances that can make this happen? Not only for the recording side of things, the storage media too.
I for one would love to have something like this, a good EVF that can also record HD Pro Res and 4K.
Not impossible surely, ( do you want to jump in Mitch ) ?……..
Click to expand...
It is something to consider, but please note these possible issues:

Screen size.
I have never been a fan of the 3-4" monitor with flip-off loupe. It's trying to have your cake and eat it too. The screen without the loupe is too small to really be useful and with the loupe it is very large and cumbersome. And if you don't want the shape of the frame to be distorted, it also means that the tube of the loupe will be very long (Sony viewfinder style). So I like to have a postage stamp sized panel so that the eyepiece can be kept to a reasonable size. It also means my other eye can see around the thing when I'm walking around shooting handheld. But then it is a dedicated EVF. ARRI's answer is the cleverest -- have a separate small LCD panel on the side when you don't want to use a loupe. That's why they're ARRI, and also why one pays ARRI prices.

Controls.
Having a recorder means a control surface. On the Odyssey7Q we use a touchscreen, but that won't fit on a viewfinder. This means some dedicated button, perhaps a jog wheel as well. That can be awkward on an EVF, especially if you need to interface with it while shooting.

Media.
You need to have room for the media. In today's market it has to be capableof high data rates to handle 4K, RAW, high frame rates or all three. It also has to be physically small to work practically in an EVF, so that means proprietary media. Not the end of the world as we like proper media that is well-specced and tested, but some take issue with it.

Expense.
The more of them we can sell the more we can spread out the development costs. How many people would buy this and at what price? Gotta make sure the formula works to make the investment.


I'm not trying to be a naysayer and indicate that we would never do such a product. I'm just trying to illustrate some of the challenges involved and why there can be significant development time in choosing to make various products. Who knows? We may just do this. Maybe we even have such a thing in the works...
 
Hi Mitch, thanks for the reply….( how the hell are you anyway? It's been a few years since our last ACT meet ups. I think then I was seriously considering the Aaton Delta, oh well….. )
Totally understand the difficulties with putting together such a device but that's what sorts the men from the boys when it comes to developing and bringing to market new products.
Of course there's technical problems to overcome, but they are probably much less daunting than they were a couple of years, ( or weeks ), back. In your game things move in a blur these days.
Screen size? Doesn't matter. It can be small, smaller than the current flip-out and lcd 3-4 inch monitors. 1"-2" probably, eyepiece only.
Controls? Right, a touch screen is out but scroll wheel and a few buttons could work just fine. It would need to be simplistic, no complicated options. But that's all to the good anyway.
Media? I am sure that's probably the easiest issue to solve. After all small still camera/4K video camera models have solved it to some degree already, i.e.: GH4.
Expense? Well you'll be killing two birds with one stone with such a combo, and the attraction of many operators to have one more thing less hanging off of the camera is a big plus I think.
However your question as to how many people would be interested in such a product is a valid one.

So I wonder, how many of us users out there would go for a recorder / EVF combo. I would, but who else?
 
petermullett said:
Hi Mitch, thanks for the reply….( how the hell are you anyway? It's been a few years since our last ACT meet ups. I think then I was seriously considering the Aaton Delta, oh well….. )
Totally understand the difficulties with putting together such a device but that's what sorts the men from the boys when it comes to developing and bringing to market new products.
Of course there's technical problems to overcome, but they are probably much less daunting than they were a couple of years, ( or weeks ), back. In your game things move in a blur these days.
Screen size? Doesn't matter. It can be small, smaller than the current flip-out and lcd 3-4 inch monitors. 1"-2" probably, eyepiece only.
Controls? Right, a touch screen is out but scroll wheel and a few buttons could work just fine. It would need to be simplistic, no complicated options. But that's all to the good anyway.
Media? I am sure that's probably the easiest issue to solve. After all small still camera/4K video camera models have solved it to some degree already, i.e.: GH4.
Expense? Well you'll be killing two birds with one stone with such a combo, and the attraction of many operators to have one more thing less hanging off of the camera is a big plus I think.
However your question as to how many people would be interested in such a product is a valid one.

So I wonder, how many of us users out there would go for a recorder / EVF combo. I would, but who else?
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm not one to shy away from challenges at all. That's what keeps life interesting. I wanted to point them out because sometimes people don't consider them and once they do they often change their thinking. For instance, there is no way we would ever use the type of recording media the GH4 does because that is very heavily compressed and we're just not into that. We like recording RAW or high quality ProRes because that gives room for control in post. 4K ProRes 422(HQ) is EIGHT times the size of the 4K recording done internally on the GH4.

I like to spell itout for people because it's a careful what you ask for type situation. Then you have to actually deal with it.

I think you're basically describing a Convergent Design version of a Zacuto Gratical with a recorder built in. Please note that the Gratical costs US$3600, considerably more than an Odyssey7Q. I don't know what it would cost for us to build one, but what price would people be willing to pay and how many would they buy? It has to be a sound business decision.
 
Mitch Gross said:
We like recording RAW or high quality ProRes because that gives room for control in post. 4K ProRes 422(HQ) is EIGHT times the size of the 4K recording done internally on the GH4.


Just out of curiosity, how does the highest quality 4K internal recording of the FS7 compare to 4K Prores?
Click to expand...
 
mainstreetprod said:
Mitch Gross said:
We like recording RAW or high quality ProRes because that gives room for control in post. 4K ProRes 422(HQ) is EIGHT times the size of the 4K recording done internally on the GH4.


Just out of curiosity, how does the highest quality 4K internal recording of the FS7 compare to 4K Prores?
Click to expand...
I did a little side-by-side... maybe I can grab a clip or a 100%/200% crop of a detail area. FS7 is definitely a little softer, due to the compression. I've grown to really like the fine noise of the 7Q ProRes, it seems pretty natural to me. Of course, the compression on the FS7 hides a bit of that noise but you lose some detail in the process. A subtle unsharp mask brings it a bit closer to what you get out of the 7Q.

It's also worth noting that the FS7 still has a little bit of that weird edge aliasing problem that the FS700 had. Not quite as bad, but it's there. The 7Q ProRes is incredibly clean in terms of moire/aliasing. Once I get the Extension Unit, I'll be interested to see how the internal 1080p ProRes compares to the 7Q's 4KtoHD.

I think in the long run, if I've got to stay really light (run-n-gun, doc work, super fast corporate shoots) the FS7 internal 4K is totally acceptable, especially when I finish at 1080p anyway.

It's strange to currently be in this middle ground where my new camera has a bunch of features I like (ergonomics, proper shutter angle, LUTs, non-stop 180fps, etc) but when it comes to 4K 24p and 1080p... I'd have to say the FS700+7Q is a step up from the FS7. Hard to beat that high bitrate ProRes. Of course, that's all because of the 7Q. That thing really pushed the FS700 to be a better camera than it really deserved to be! And we'll be able to use the 7Q on the FS7 w/ the Ext. Unit (A bit disappointing, since that will make it even bulkier than the FS700...).
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone played with the Small HD DP-7-Pro LCD? It takes LUTs and that could solve a lot of the problem of losing white balance in CINE EI.
Just shoot Custom with white balance and apply the LUT in monitor - presumably it will output SDI to a larger monitor as well.
I wonder how much heavier it will be than my TV logic though.
Price isn't bad at $1399 and through MOnday at B&H its on sale for $1259.

Lots of exposure tools - of they've done it right? I hated my small HD 4" though so its tough going back to them, but its a lot cheaper than an Odyssey and I don't need a recorder.
 
Don't forget:

Custom mode os only SLog3, but not SGamut3.cine color space.
I need to do a test, in which way these two color spaces work
and if SLog3 without SGamut3.cine is comparable to CineEI.
 
This question is addressed to Mitch ,

To solve some of the problems of monitoring the FS7 I was looking at getting a Small HD DP-7-Pro LCD, because it handles LUT's but just realized that the Odyssey 7 also does, at roughly the same price - plus of course its a recorder as well.
I have only seen the 7Q at NAB which I thought was amazing, but its out my price point for an on camera monitor right now. I'm wondering what the differences will be between the 7 and the Small HD:

A big plus on the 7 side is the OLED screen plus its actually a little lighter 1.2 lbs vs 1.6. Also as monitor only it uses less power 8W vs 12 for the Small HD, which might mean 1 battery instead of 2 - lower weight again.

- Can I power it from 1 Sony L battery? How long will it last with an FP 960? Can I use 2 batts when working as a recorder ( for safety)?

- Is the layout, touchscreen menus and tool choices the same on the 7 as the 7Q? (I was knocked out by that ohm the 7Q)

- It looks like they both have a bunch of pre-programmed LUT's - can you tell me which ones are included? are they true 3D LUT's or just contrast only?

- Will the LUT's be able to compensate for exposure variations - say if I choose to expose at 1200 or even 600 ISO instead of 2000?

- Your comparison graph shows that the 7Q will in the future have " LUT's (programmable 3D LUT library)"
Can you explain what that means ? Is it it simply that you can enter your user created LUT's into the library?
Presumably this will only be on the 7Q?

- Any chance you will in the future add the kind of further color correction tools the Small HD has?

- The most exciting thing in the 7Q to me was the possibility of recording and switching 3 cameras at once in HD. Do you have any time frame for when that will be available?

Thanks for all your input on this forum. Invaluable.

Lenny
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top