F5: Why is the F5 more expensive than the FS7?

See MARKETPLACE listing:http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...n-)-package-2-500&p=1986592332#post1986592332


Just a feeler, but if anyone is interested I'll be putting my F3 that I've had since new up for sale very soon. I had a two year, two camera gig just end that I was using it on next to my F5. Using my first generation Samurai with it the files matched up great using custom Hypergammas on F5 and Cine on F3.

The sale will include the following but there will be more little stuff added when I write up the official sale:
F3 (with all original accessories) no batt. charger, can get a new Dual Watson for $70
Paid S-log upgrade with RGB (32GB Sony SxS card included)
Atomos Samurai (first gen with mini-SDI) plus 500GB drive and 225GB SSD (sometimes it takes a couple tries for the HD to mount/be recognized by the Samurai but once it does it's NEVER failed me when recording)
Berkey top plate for F3
Batteries
Misc SxS cards
Adaptimax Nikon to Sony FZ lens adapter
Zacuto mini base-plate
Hard case
No AC power supply -Can buy a IndiPro Tools 12V 4-pin XLR supply for $80

$2,500

Camera works perfect but.. Like a idiot, I went to shake a client's hand on set while standing next to the camera and basically punched the LCD screen hyperextending it. The LCD screen still works perfectly but will not 100% click shut for storage, only 98%.

Pm me for more details as I don't want to clog up this thread.

IMG_3695.jpg
 
Last edited:
How would some of you guys compare the A7SI/II to the F3?

I owned an A7RII for a bit, but I still feel the F3 is more cinematic. I feel the mirrorless cameras have a very nice image, but are more digital-looking.

Am I tricking myself into thinking that?

If the F3 is "similar" to the Alexa then shouldn't some of the mirrorless cameras be too?
 
NorBro said:
How would some of you guys compare the A7SI/II to the F3?

I owned an A7RII for a bit, but I still feel the F3 is more cinematic. I feel the mirrorless cameras have a very nice image, but are more digital-looking.

Am I tricking myself into thinking that?

If the F3 is "similar" to the Alexa then shouldn't some of the mirrorless cameras be too?
Click to expand...

Moving from 8-bit tonality to 10-16 bit tonality is a big deal for a whole number of reasons. The A7 cameras produce lovely images, but being grounded by 8-bit colour (just 256 shades of red, green and blue) is never going to allow them to compete with cameras like the F3/F5(5)/FS7.
 
NorBro said:
How would some of you guys compare the A7SI/II to the F3?

I owned an A7RII for a bit, but I still feel the F3 is more cinematic. I feel the mirrorless cameras have a very nice image, but are more digital-looking.

Am I tricking myself into thinking that?

If the F3 is "similar" to the Alexa then shouldn't some of the mirrorless cameras be too?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how you can compare the two really. The A7s(II) and F3 aren't even in the same product category. The F3 is (was?) the base model of the Cinealta series of Sony's digital cinema cameras and the A7s is a mirrorless camera that happens to shoot very good video....

Maybe another 8bit camera like the C100 is a closer comparison.
 
Just in terms of image quality. There are videos shot with the A7R/S that blow the F3 away, and yet there are some F3 videos that look really different and more like the other F#s.
 
NorBro said:
Just in terms of image quality. There are videos shot with the A7R/S that blow the F3 away, and yet there are some F3 videos that look really different and more like the other F#s.
Click to expand...

The A7s will outperform almost anything out there in low or no light, but the problem its that even when you are shooting to an Odyssey7 your getting an image that is 8bit 422. The F3 will shoot uncompressed 10bit RGB 444 to the Odyssey. That's 256 vs 1024 steps and you will see that difference in the tonality, especially in the highlight roll off or with areas of subtle shading. The 10bit files will also be a lot more flexible in the grade.

I think that there are many factors that determine the total image quality of a camera. It's not just basic numbers like HD vs UHD etc. Bit depth and dynamic range have to balance each other. You can have a camera that captures 14 stops, but if it is trying to describe that in only 8bits you're going to hit the wall sooner rather than later. There are other factors like how bad is the rolling shutter effect? Or how good is the OLPF? Will the camera alias and moire? How strong is the lens mount? Will it flex with an adapter and heavy PL lenses and throw the image out of focus?
 
NorBro said:
Just in terms of image quality. There are videos shot with the A7R/S that blow the F3 away, and yet there are some F3 videos that look really different and more like the other F#s.
Click to expand...

That'll be because the F3 started out with only 8-bit 35mbps internal recording and Sony Hypergammas (which have the dreaded 'Sony Look'). It wasn't until later that Sony released SLOG as an upgrade for the camera, and it became a baby-Alexa. That's why you see such varying looks from the same camera.
 
Grug said:
That'll be because the F3 started out with only 8-bit 35mbps internal recording and Sony Hypergammas (which have the dreaded 'Sony Look'). It wasn't until later that Sony released SLOG as an upgrade for the camera, and it became a baby-Alexa. That's why you see such varying looks from the same camera.
Click to expand...

TBH there wasn't a lot going for the F3 when it came out and didn't offer much difference in quality over the FS100 apart from build quality for the considerable extra cost.

Today that's a very different matter and picking up a cheap F3 and Odyssey and shooting 444 is a completely different kettle of fish and would make a killer combination. The footage I've seen out of this combination looks stunning as you would expect from 10bit 444 and for me the colour sampling resolution trumps resolution any day.

I'm amazed that the A7sII actually works because SLog3 + 8 bits + low bit rate XAVC = a nightmare. I've shot low contrast scenes in SLog3 on my FS7 that barely work in 10 bits and wished I'd just burned a LUT so I take my hat off to those making the A7sII work in SLog.
 
Thanks! I am definitely hearing you all.

Would you see a difference between 10bit 422 vs. 10bit 444?

I am tempted to pick one up, but would then have to pick up a recorder for the 10b/444 if it's truly, absolutely necessary to shoot in 444. I have one that does 10b/422 now.
 
NorBro said:
Thanks! I am definitely hearing you all.

Would you see a difference between 10bit 422 vs. 10bit 444?

I am tempted to pick one up, but would then have to pick up a recorder for the 10b/444 if it's truly, absolutely necessary to shoot in 444. I have one that does 10b/422 now.
Click to expand...


There is a difference if you really look for it. You may notice it of you are doing GS work or a very heavy duty grade. But uncompressed 10bit 422 still is way ahead of 8bit 422.

That said there is almost no true single chip 444 camera on the market. As far as I know only the F35 and F65 (@4k) can lay claim to that spec. For full 444 you need a corresponding R, G, B receptor in the Bayer pattern for every pixel in the final image. The F35 actually is a 12MP camera that outputs a 444 1920x1080 image. The F65 samples down from an 8k capture to 444 4k output. So, both cameras produce true 444.

I'm not counting RED Dragon / Weapon since they only offers compressed output (Redcode / Cineform) and technically speaking the color depth is compromised.

The F3 sensor has a resolution of 2468 x 1398 that is downscaled to 1920x1080. So, technically speaking it falls somewhere in-between 422 and true 444 (as do most other single chip cameras out there). Even if it isn't true 444 it is advantageous to record in 444 mode. Mitch Gross gave a good explanation as to why you want to do this, but I can't repeat it verbatim. But it's akin to processing a 16bit sound sample in a 24bit space etc. And in the case of the F3 you actually are getting more than 422, just not quite full 444.

Look at it like this. There is what you want and what is the best and what you can have and what will get the job done within the limitations of your budget.

If you can't afford uncompressed 10bit 444, then uncompressed 10bit 422 is only a small step down and will still look better than 8bit 422.
 
Last edited:
Harry - thank you.

In my current case, it would be 10-bit 422, but compressed via a Blackmagic Video Assist recording in ProRes 422 HQ.

I am pulling hairs now, but major difference to uncompressed 10-bit 422 via something like a Shuttle 2?
 
NorBro said:
Harry - thank you.

In my current case, it would be 10-bit 422, but compressed via a Blackmagic Video Assist recording in ProRes 422 HQ.

I am pulling hairs now, but major difference to uncompressed 10-bit 422 via something like a Shuttle 2?
Click to expand...

Uncompressed 10bit 422 is a lot richer than QT422HQ. There used to be a bunch of clips on the Pix 240 website that allowed you to compare QT422 vs QT444. Uncompressed 10bit 422 should have less artifacts and better tonality than either.

Maybe you can find a real cheap used Shuttle 2. They weren't that expensive to being with...


Just keep in minds that your lighting is far more important than all of this technical mumbo jumbo and that is what you will be judged on. A good DoP with a good set of lights can make almost any camera look good.
 
Harry Lime said:
Uncompressed 10bit 422 is a lot richer than QT422HQ. There used to be a bunch of clips on the Pix 240 website that allowed you to compare QT422 vs QT444. Uncompressed 10bit 422 should have less artifacts and better tonality than either.

Maybe you can find a real cheap used Shuttle 2. They weren't that expensive to being with...


Just keep in minds that your lighting is far more important than all of this technical mumbo jumbo and that is what you will be judged on. A good DoP with a good set of lights can make almost any camera look good.
Click to expand...


Far too much time is spent worrying about this stuff. I know, I'm as guilty as anyone. But after several features that only went to DVD, I took Shane Hurlbut's lighting / cinematography course, implemented what I learned, "only" shot it with an FS7, and got the latest one into theaters. The gatekeepers could care less about 4:4:4, DR, or 4K. They want reasonably good production values, good sound, a solid marketing plan, and a great story.
 
Harry Lime said:
That said there is almost no true single chip 444 camera on the market. As far as I know only the F35 and F65 (@4k) can lay claim to that spec. For full 444 you need a corresponding R, G, B receptor in the Bayer pattern for every pixel in the final image. The F35 actually is a 12MP camera that outputs a 444 1920x1080 image. The F65 samples down from an 8k capture to 444 4k output. So, both cameras produce true 444...
Click to expand...
F65 is Q67, according to Sony (17.6 MPX into 4K or a true 4:2:2)
 
Harry Lime said:
Any F65 owners care to chime in? I'm pretty certain that I remember Sony making a big deal out of the F65 being true 444 at 4k.

Got a link? I'd be curious to read up on that.
Click to expand...
Dennis (starcentral) posted it on a ... F5/55/65 comparison thread ... I think ... which he started.

In any case, 444 in 4K is 8.8 + 8.8 + 8.8 for 26.4 MPX. F65 is 8.8 + 4.4 + 4.4 = 17.6 (4:2:2) off a 20 MPX sensor.

At the moment, there are no RGB (444) 4K models out there. Even Alexa65 is the same Q67 (really, a Sony nomenclature, likely denoting the 67% quality/quantity of full RGB) off the 20 MPX sensor. It's just Alexa65 sensor is considerably larger than F65's.

PS. I assume the next generation F65 (i.e., its replacement) will have at least an RGB 4K sensor and likely more.
 
Harry Lime said:
I just read a Sony white paper and you're right. It's not 444 at 4k. Very close but no cigar.

thx
Click to expand...
There's no visual difference, really. Maybe, if one blows up some charts, he can tell. Alexa65 is a $300,000 camera and it's still 17.6.
 
Doing a job a the moment with pl glass TC jam with lokit box and teradek to director - my fs7 rig is a mess - I feel we would be better with f5 cameras

with a booster and cheap glass on single cam shoots my fs7 would be lighter - and therefore better than the 5

horses for courses

is the 5 actually more expensive than an fs7 and back box and a few other additions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top