FS5: Sony make official statement on ‘perceived’ FS5 image quality issues

One cannot claim that high ISO is to blame in the situation while at the same time it is a requirement by Sony themselves for their SLOG settings for example.
That would mean that they have created a camera at cross purposes with their intentions. This is a Sony issue, not a user one.
No room for apologists when it comes to stuff like this.
 
I have no dog in the fight at all.. just trying to see why some have big problems and others dont.. usually a big camera problem is pretty universal..

The higher ISO in Slog is not more gain though .. its 0 db for that log curve.. this is one of things that A Chapman bought up .. and still seems to be some misunderstanding about..
 
yoclay said:
One cannot claim that high ISO is to blame in the situation while at the same time it is a requirement by Sony themselves for their SLOG settings for example.
That would mean that they have created a camera at cross purposes with their intentions. This is a Sony issue, not a user one.
No room for apologists when it comes to stuff like this.
Click to expand...

You're another one who thinks all ISOs are created equal.

3200 ISO (approx 10 dB Gain) in the Cinegammas is not the same as 3200 ISO (o dB Gain) when shooting Slog. There's no room in this argument for lack of knowledge and blaming it on a perfectly serviceable camera or apologists for poor craft skills. If someone has bough the FS5 thinking it should emulate the A7S for high gain levels then they didn't do the appropriate research before buying.

I doubt there's a single FS7 user who would expect to get a usable image with 10dB gain most wouldn't bother going much above base ISO of 2000.
 
Donny 123 said:
But what is accounting for A. Chapman, The Doug,and other.." non Sony Expert types.. " to have totally fine pictures and no problems .. compared to these horrible images others have shown..
Click to expand...

It's about expectations, there's a group of users who don't expect to use gain to expose an image and are ecstatic when you can click a few dBs in an emergency and there's another group of users who expect to ride the gain like a secondary aperture, have never bought or used lighting in their life and are surprised when they buy a camera that can't be worked like that.
 
NEW STATEMENT & Finding a solution :) Source: http://www.redsharknews.com/busines...orted-issues-sony-americas-issues-a-statement

Here's the short statement, from Sony's Juan Martinez, Senior Product Manager, Professional Solutions, Americas, Sony Electronics:
“Sony is aware of this reported issue with the PXW-FS5’s performance. Our engineers are working to understand the specific issue that users are facing, and then we will determine the root cause and provide a solution.”


​
 
[h=3]Phil Rhodes - Cinematographer, Technologist, contributor to RedShark says the FS5 should be seen as an affordable lightweight large sensor camera that you can "pick up and go" [/h]
I feel a "pick up and go" should be a more robust codec. I think Sony messed up with its 50mbps and should have implemented 100mbps at HD 10bit 422, with maybe faster cards.

But i'm just an 18 year old kid what would i know.
 
Nirv said:
I doubt there's a single FS7 user who would expect to get a usable image with 10dB gain most wouldn't bother going much above base ISO of 2000.
Click to expand...
Actually, put me on a sunny beach or a snowy hill, and I might do exactly that. But that really just proves that every setting will perform well in some specific situation.
 
I guess depending on what they do will determine if people are 'using it incorrectly' or not, heh.
Good on Sony for addressing the debate people were having at least! They can be the final judge!
 
Nirv said:
It's about expectations, there's a group of users who don't expect to use gain to expose an image and are ecstatic when you can click a few dBs in an emergency and there's another group of users who expect to ride the gain like a secondary aperture, have never bought or used lighting in their life and are surprised when they buy a camera that can't be worked like that.
Click to expand...

Then Sony in their marketing materials should state that the FS5 should not be used for documentaries. I don't appreciate the condescension here. I've used plenty of lights in my day. But I prefer not to because they interrupt the flow of filming when I'm trying to capture what is happening. I'm guessing you do mostly fictional, Hollywood-style shooting. That is a completely different animal.

No worries. My C300 Mark I works perfectly for me at high-ISOs. I might consider the FS5 as a replacement sometime, but not unless you can shoot high-ISOs with it.
 
brettsherman said:
Then Sony in their marketing materials should state that the FS5 should not be used for documentaries. I don't appreciate the condescension here. I've used plenty of lights in my day. But I prefer not to because they interrupt the flow of filming when I'm trying to capture what is happening. I'm guessing you do mostly fictional, Hollywood-style shooting. That is a completely different animal.

No worries. My C300 Mark I works perfectly for me at high-ISOs. I might consider the FS5 as a replacement sometime, but not unless you can shoot high-ISOs with it.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that humans have evolved to live during daylight hours yet there are all these documentaries being filmed in the dark, sorry I don't buy the run n gun, no tripod, no lights BS. How do you think we managed years ago?

I'm mid forties and I've been filming on and off for 25 years and in all that time I've only ever had to resort to high gain once while filming on a National Trust property where there was a mural so precious that natural light was kept out with blackout curtains and artificial lighting was verboten. We worked round the limitations with slow shutter and limited camera movement.

Your C300 may be be OK at high gain but is it as good as my FS7 at its base ISO?
 
BeeHop said:
Phil Rhodes - Cinematographer, Technologist, contributor to RedShark says the FS5 should be seen as an affordable lightweight large sensor camera that you can "pick up and go"


I feel a "pick up and go" should be a more robust codec. I think Sony messed up with its 50mbps and should have implemented 100mbps at HD 10bit 422, with maybe faster cards.

But i'm just an 18 year old kid what would i know.
Click to expand...

Design of any product is a compromise. I don't think Sony offer 100 Mbps XAVC-L in HD so that would break their codec guidelines and probably mean NLEs wouldn't support straight off the bat. If they were to offer 100 Mbps XAVC-I then that would likely mean more power, more heat i.e. a bigger FS5 which wouldn't that different to the FS7 which would be a rather strange thing for Sony to do.
 
Nirv said:
It's amazing that humans have evolved to live during daylight hours yet there are all these documentaries being filmed in the dark, sorry I don't buy the run n gun, no tripod, no lights BS. How do you think we managed years ago?

I'm mid forties and I've been filming on and off for 25 years and in all that time I've only ever had to resort to high gain once while filming on a National Trust property where there was a mural so precious that natural light was kept out with blackout curtains and artificial lighting was verboten. We worked round the limitations with slow shutter and limited camera movement.

Your C300 may be be OK at high gain but is it as good as my FS7 at its base ISO?
Click to expand...

On my F3 I shoot up to 3200 all the time for documentery work. To light everything in docu really goes against a strength in documentary workflows that allows the photographer to work faster and closer to the subjects. The cameras ability to give a nice output even when pushed is therefor important to me. To deny this is like saying that there is no room for diversity in the field of documentary production.

Unlike the F3 the FS5 seems to handle gain in the worst way, applying damaging NR even resulting in artifacts. Still, the camera seems great for a lot of things.
 
stokstad said:
On my F3 I shoot up to 3200 all the time for documentery work. To light everything in docu really goes against a strength in documentary workflows that allows the photographer to work faster and closer to the subjects.

Unlike the F3 the FS5 seems to handle gain in the worst way, applying damaging NR even resulting in artifacts. Still, the camera seems great for a lot of things.
Click to expand...

Is the image on the F3 with all that gain brighter than the FS5 at 0dB?

When we ran out of light we used a camera light to carry on filming why is that an alien concept today? Is a noisy image less intrusive to the audience than the uncouth camera light?
 
Nirv.

I think there is a cultural shift away from lighting in that todays cameras are faster and todays shoots faster too, I find the old style 3 point to look fake today and minimal lighting more natural.

I still use everything from a bit of newspaper for reflected fill, my LED dedo and of course full lights on occasion! And fast glass. Most productions Ive been on have at least a couple of litepanels.

S
 
morgan_moore said:
Most productions Ive been on have at least a couple of litepanels.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Even el cheapo local news production is single Op or journo + Op and this is precisely what they're doing.

I used the camera light as an example because it's the single most simple solution when you're following a subject who takes you somewhere dark and you have to keep rolling. Personally, I find that less intrusive than a noisy image.

I have reasonably decent though cheap Light panels and I usually get away with one and bounce and I don't have a lot of time to fanny about. I am not shooting Hollywood Epics LOL.
 
Nirv said:
Is the image on the F3 with all that gain brighter than the FS5 at 0dB?

When we ran out of light we used a camera light to carry on filming why is that an alien concept today? Is a noisy image less intrusive to the audience than the uncouth camera light?
Click to expand...

My point was just that there is a bunch of reasons for someone to want gain, and you cant discard them because you work differently. So if we're arguing about the usability of the fs5 ofcourse it could be a legitimate drawback for some people.
 
Nirv said:
Is the image on the F3 with all that gain brighter than the FS5 at 0dB?

When we ran out of light we used a camera light to carry on filming why is that an alien concept today? Is a noisy image less intrusive to the audience than the uncouth camera light?
Click to expand...

Yes. It is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top