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

BeeHop said:
I'm sure 50mbps XAVC-I would solve a lot of problems and could be implemented (if it could be recorded to fast SD cards?) and the FS5 would still sit far behind the FS7.
Click to expand...

That would be a more compressed codec than 50 Mbps XAVC-L. Each I frame would have to be heavily compressed and would look inferior to XAVC-L.
 
In analogy:
A random car manufacturer releases a new model. In general it is a fantastic car, have engine of much more expensive model but without turbocharger so it can drive on cheaper petrol. Everything works fine with normal speeds but when you cross a red line on revs per minute besides usual engine becoming noisy your steering wheel starts to wobble and some squeaky noises are coming from under the hood. A lot of people report that problem on forums but few people are saying: "You should never cross red line on your engine!!! You shouldn't drive your car like that!!! Anything is to be expected at those engine revolutions!!".
After few weeks from the release car manufacturer recognises a problem and says they'll investigate that more.
Even after that statement some people still says: "You should NEVER push your engine that far!! Everything is all right with this car, there's a problem with YOU, how YOU drive a car!!".

That's how I see it :)
 
I'm tired. Sony get it right and quick just like u released the cam.

I was able to replicate artefacts etc in a Sony store with various FS5's at base ISO so this user error is getting old.

Fix the damn thing Sony and you will sell more than u did the Z1's :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
 
EidolonFilms said:
No particular situation would preclude me from using an on-camera light in a technical sense (i.e. can't fit it on the camera rig, no power, etc.), so in theory that could have been used in any situation needing more light. However, my visual preference and filmmaking style would be not to use such a light in any case where it might be needed. I don't like the look an on-camera light creates. Here's an example - I was shooting an intimate scene in a dark church in rural Mexico on Christmas eve. The ambient light was coming from candles and strangely enough, tacky flashing christmas lights above. It was a pretty dark scene, and a stretch for the AF100 to capture without bumping up the gain. However, using an on-camera light in this situation would have affected the look of the scene negatively, as well as potentially bother the people I was filming. I can think of many more examples like this. But in the end I think the scene is much more authentic and beutiful because it was only lit with candles and flashing Christmas lights, ultimately creating a more immersive experience.
Click to expand...


You can always bounce it/diffuse it/dim it etc. If it saves you some gain/noise. That said if you love your shot then of course don't mess with it, but that is an artistic choice. I was talking purely about times when lack of exposure risks ruining the shot.
 
Ben Scott said:
You can always bounce it/diffuse it/dim it etc. If it saves you some gain/noise. That said if you love your shot then of course don't mess with it, but that is an artistic choice. I was talking purely about times when lack of exposure risks ruining the shot.
Click to expand...

You make a good point, and I agree most of the time it's possible to save a shot with a simple light.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Use s-log and ISO rating takes on a different nuance - it's wrong to directly compare ISO at s-log with other modes.

As illustration, then for many scenes and s-log use, it's recommended to "expose to the right" (ie open up the iris) by a couple of stops. That's equivalent to saying "rate it at an ISO rating about 2 stops less" - around ISO1000.

BeeHop said:
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...
But as you infer - then you wouldn't be able to use SD cards. It starts to become a different camera, and others may feel the opposite. If the codec really is an issue to you, then I'd suggest you should be looking to the FS7? Camera design must inevitably be a compromise.

As far as the comments about needing to use gain or not, then whilst I agree it's best to not use gain, then there are absolutely some situations where lights are not practicable. Wildlife? Filming criminal activity from a distance at night? Distant views? Can you light a whole landscape?

From what I've seen, the "issue" being talked about with gain is minor. Which is not to say it shouldn't be dealt with if possible. It's unfortunate that original reports seem to have (wrongly) implied it was a codec issue, when over aggressive noise reduction seems a far more likely culprit. But that does mean a "cure" is likely soon by allowing the noise reduction to be switchable on/off. That may make an image at (say) ISO5000 more noisy - but may well be that such is preferable to a less noisy image with this slight artefact.
 
yoclay said:
No. Apparently the camera also exhibits these problems even at 0db gain in SLOG (3200 ISO) in 4K. So it is not wrong to make this comparison.
Click to expand...
Point I was making was that slog ISO ratings cannot be directly equated to ISO ratings in other modes. So yes, it's 0dB, and s-log ISO 3200 equates to ISO 1000 if you expose-to-the-right by a stop or two. I'm not disagreeing with that.

At the risk of repeating my last post, from what I've seen the "problems" are minor, certainly at low gain. That's not to dispute whether or not "something" is happening, but I think much perspective is being lost - the "problems" are really minor.

That said (and again at the risk of repetition) then if anything can be made better, then let's do it. It still seems most likely to be noise reduction related, and that may well be being in circuit even at 0dB. So a "cure" is still to make it switchable in/out.
 
mainstreetprod said:
OK, I know I'm going to sound like the old codger that I'm becoming, but these kids today are spoiled by being able to shoot with no light. When I started college production classes, in 1976, it took about 3K of light to even think about shooting inside with a tube camera tethered to a Umatic 3/4" deck.
Click to expand...
It's harder to drag 3/4" decks around now that we don't have dinosaurs to carry them for us.
 
Let's just bottom-line it here. If you don't want to use lights and need to shoot indoors don't buy the FS5. Do we really need to judge other people's priorities here? And by the way, guessing how young or old someone is is silly - and usually completely inaccurate.
 
These seem not to add information until we know your exposure methodology (or even camera settings)

It would seem that you have stopped down to hold those highs.. or even brought them to 60.

Recipes for noise.

I would be 'bracket testing' a scene like this using different exposures which I would then equalise in post - you results may then vary hugely.

Some scenes (say actually looking out of the window) you would of course hit some pretty harsh trade offs unless you lit the int.

S
 
Nirv said:
FS7 CineEI no noise reduction, in the FS7 it's pretty ineffective anyway. I'd have been meaning to upload these for a while.

If the FS5 is as noisy as the FS7 then the FS5's NR is doing an epic job to make high ISO shooting anything like possible.

12 dB

http://wearenirv.tumblr.com/image/138006797107

6 dB

http://wearenirv.tumblr.com/image/138006868152
Click to expand...

That 12db one is simply underexposed. Were these shot in EI?? In Cine EI, you can't add gain. It's always recorded ISO2000. Cine EI is just a trick of the viewfinder. If exposing via EI when faced with an underexposed scene you need to lower your EI forcing you to add more light to your exposure; raising ISO (db) simply starves the sensor of light and causes noise.
 
Liam Hall said:
That 12db one is simply underexposed. Were these shot in EI?? In Cine EI, you can't add gain. It's always recorded ISO2000. Cine EI is just a trick of the viewfinder. If exposing via EI when faced with an underexposed scene you need to lower your EI forcing you to add more light to your exposure; raising ISO (db) simply starves the sensor of light and causes noise.
Click to expand...

In know how CIneEI works, not under exposed on purpose that was wide open with SB. It was a very dark afternoon and I was interested to see how the noise changed across different luma levels and shooting the corner of the office was the easiest thing to do.

Baked in a LUT in CineEI and raised the ISO which does add gain in this circumstance as the 1D LUT is baked in too. Please correct me if I'm wrong?

I used Gain instead of ISO because once you burn a LUT you aren't really at the ISO you think you are, at least that's what I understand to be the case.
 
Nirv said:
In know how CIneEI works, not under exposed on purpose that was wide open with SB. It was a very dark afternoon and I was interested to see how the noise changed across different luma levels and shooting the corner of the office was the easiest thing to do.

Baked in a LUT in CineEI and raised the ISO which does add gain in this circumstance as the 1D LUT is baked in too. Please correct me if I'm wrong?

I used Gain instead of ISO because once you burn a LUT you aren't really at the ISO you think you are, at least that's what I understand to be the case.
Click to expand...

If that is what you wanted to test, you shouldn't have burned in the LUT. You should have recorded the base Slog and checked the exposure levels on an accurate waveform. Then brought those files into post to properly examine them.

It strikes me many people are trying to use Cine EI like a normal video camera. That's not what it designed to be. If that's what you want, then use Custom mode.

In Cine EI, if you are using mLUTs, and it is dark, you need to LOWER your EI. You need to add light. It's counter-intuitive to video where you would add gain to raise your exposure.

Simply, making your viewfinder bright will not improve your exposure. In fact, as you have demonstrated, when it is dark the reverse is true.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
If that is what you wanted to test, you shouldn't have burned in the LUT. You should have recorded the base Slog and checked the exposure levels on an accurate waveform. Then brought those files into post to properly examine them.

It strikes me many people are trying to use Cine EI like a normal video camera. That's not what it designed to be. If that's what you want, then use Custom mode.

In Cine EI, if you are using LUTs, and it is dark, you need to LOWER your EI. You need to add light. It's counter-intuitive to video where you would add gain to raise your exposure.

Simply, making your viewfinder bright will not improve your exposure. In fact, as you have demonstrated, when it is dark the reverse is true.
Click to expand...

Thanks Liam, I'll use my FS7 as I see fit.
 
Liam Hall said:
It strikes me many people are trying to use Cine EI like a normal video camera. That's not what it designed to be. If that's what you want, then use Custom mode.
Click to expand...
+1
I would say 90% of FS7 shooters don't understand CineEI mode at all, that's where awful footage is coming from and all the complains that FS7 is noisy. Take CineEI mode as working with a film camera and a film stock rated by manufacturer as a 2000 ISO. You find it noisy? Rate it yourself at 1000 and set your exposure accordingly.
 
alohype said:
+1
I would say 90% of FS7 shooters don't understand CineEI mode at all, that's where awful footage is coming from and all the complains that FS7 is noisy. Take CineEI mode as working with a film camera and a film stock rated by manufacturer as a 2000 ISO. You find it noisy? Rate it yourself at 1000 and set your exposure accordingly.
Click to expand...

90% of statistics are made up on the spot.

It looks like I have a rather better understanding of how the FS7 works than those suggesting I don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top