Sony FS5 firmware update version 2.0 - FS RAW costs $600 / 500 euros

[Don Kotlos]

1 hour ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Yikes, man. I think you're missing the point.

The only machines--THE ONLY ONES--that lack ProRes support are Windows 10. How much of the industry do you imagine has gone to Windows 10? No, I do not have hard numbers in front of me (can't imagine how you interpret a percentage with "like" in front of it as "with great confidence"), but my educated guess would be very few. 

From the data that I linked before ~30% of operating systems is windows 8,8.1 &10 all of which are unsupported. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Just now, Don Kotlos said:

From the data that I linked before ~30% of operating systems is windows 8,8.1 &10 all of which are unsupported. 

In the filmmaking industry, or in general? 

[Don Kotlos]

8 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

In the filmmaking industry, or in general? 

I talked about the whole video/NLE market not the just the filmmaking industry. And that is general percentage but it is an educated guess based on actual data. 

9 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

You have no way of backing up your claim that any percentage of Premiere users are on a PC. Nor do you have any figures for Mac usage. 'Yeah right' doesn't constitute factual evidence. 

Funny thing I am the only one providing actual data. 

To both of you, you missed my point that's fine but I am done participating in this silly discussion. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

I ask because Windows tends to be used more in office/home use/programming settings, and would therefore skew the percentage as applied to video editing use. 

The conversation has veered in an unpleasant direction, though, so I'm happy to drop it there. 

[jax_rox]

11 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

To both of you, you missed my point that's fine but I am done participating in this silly discussion. 

Your point was that 'ProRes is defunct for the majority of the market'.

Firstly, you're assuming that the 'majority' of the market are running Windows 10+, which logic would attest to that not being true.

Secondly, you assume that all of those people, including those running business based around support for ProRes, will immediately uninstall and tell their clients 'bad luck, go somewhere else,' or sucking up the inefficiencies in transcoding; instead of just avoiding malicious files. Again, logic would assume that won't happen.

Thirdly, it ignores all the major camera systems that shoot to ProRes. Some exclusively to ProRes. Surely basic logic assumes that if major camera systems continue to shoot into ProRes at least into the near future, it cannot be defunct.

It's a sensationalist claim with little basis in the reality of the situation, and instead of accepting that it was a little OTT, you've defended your claim.

Makes no difference to me what you use. But I'll continue using ProRes, and you can keep telling me it's defunct if you like? 

[IronFilm]

13 hours ago, cpc said:

You don't need an interface unit with the fs700, only with the fs7.

Fot whatever reason there is different processing on the FS7 raw. FS700 raw is denser. FS5 raw better be similar to the FS700.

 FS700 raw is "denser" because there is a smaller dynamic range being put into that 12bits, or rather to say its has more bits available per stop. Which is why FS7 raw was initially a flop (less than one bit per stop of dynamic range).

[cpc]

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 FS700 raw is "denser" because there is a smaller dynamic range being put into that 12bits, or rather to say its has more bits available per stop. Which is why FS7 raw was initially a flop (less than one bit per stop of dynamic range).

Raw DR is more or less the same. Let's just say that FS7 raw is processed in such a way that it uses around 1 bit less than a FS700.

[MattH]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 FS700 raw is "denser" because there is a smaller dynamic range being put into that 12bits, or rather to say its has more bits available per stop. Which is why FS7 raw was initially a flop (less than one bit per stop of dynamic range).

12 bits has 16 times the number of values per sample as 8 bit. So I doubt the raw issue with the fs7 was due to that reason.

And haven't the raw issues with the fs7 been fixed? This article seems to think so, although it doesnt show details of a re-test.

https://***URL not allowed***/sony-fs7-firmware-update-30-released-fixes-raw-issues/

[IronFilm]

When you have over 12 stops of dynamic range you're going to have issues squeezing all that info into only 12 bits of linear raw.

[Andy Zou]

On 4/19/2016 at 9:59 AM, IronFilm said:

When you have over 12 stops of dynamic range you're going to have issues squeezing all that info into only 12 bits of linear raw.

How many bit values do you need?

Assuming 12 stops...

8bits: (2^8)/12 = 21.3 values per stop. RGB is then 64 shades per stop.

10bits: (2^10)/12 = 85.3 values per stop.  RGB is then 256 shades per stop.

12bits: (2^12)/12 = 341.3 values per stop  RGB is then 1024 shades per stop.

I mean, ARRIRAW is 12 bits.  If it's good enough for them, probably good enough for the rest of us, but I don't do enough grading to know what will band and when.  Don't know off the top of my head what video does more; I think 5D Magic lantern allows 14-bit raw.

 

[IronFilm]

But FS7 raw is linear raw which is the key problem. Those bits are not spread out equally over all the stops. If you did then you wouldn't have a problem.

 

This is why shooting slog with a compressed codec makes more sense with the FS7 than shooting raw.

[Jonesy Jones]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But FS7 raw is linear raw which is the key problem. Those bits are not spread out equally over all the stops. If you did then you wouldn't have a problem.

 

This is why shooting slog with a compressed codec makes more sense with the FS7 than shooting raw.

Why does its codec look so bad and it's raw look so much better?

[Don Kotlos]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But FS7 raw is linear raw which is the key problem. Those bits are not spread out equally over all the stops. If you did then you wouldn't have a problem.

This is why shooting slog with a compressed codec makes more sense with the FS7 than shooting raw.

12 bits should be enough for 14 stops even when spread linearly. Most photography cameras in the past had 12bit files and even my a7rii shoots 12bits in continuous mode.

From what I read the problem with FS7 was putting a 10 bit signal in a 12 bit container.  I guess that's why they could fix it in the first place. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

12-bit linear RAW is exactly the problem. That's why Blackmagic encodes in 12-bit logarithmic RAW, which unpacks to 16-bit linear in Resolve. 

[nomadicanuk]

So what would be the better purchase now - Sony FS5 with firmware upgrades & Odyssey 7Q+, or just the Sony FS7?

[BrorSvensson]

2 hours ago, nomadicanuk said:

So what would be the better purchase now - Sony FS5 with firmware upgrades & Odyssey 7Q+, or just the Sony FS7?

it really depends what features you need, the fs5 does 240fps and bursts, fs7 does 180fps contionous. The fs5 has an internal variable nd, the fs7 has 4k 60fps. 
 

[Nick Hughes]

6 hours ago, BrorSvensson said:

it really depends what features you need, the fs5 does 240fps and bursts, fs7 does 180fps contionous. The fs5 has an internal variable nd, the fs7 has 4k 60fps. 
 

With the upgrade it will be 240 continuous. 

With the FS5 + upgrades, you have a greater flexibility of shooting styles, from super slimmed down and discrete, to fully kitted-out RAW beauty.

With the FS7, you don't have quite the same versatility, but the baseline IQ in any shooting configuration is going to be higher.

 

I've personally been greatly enjoying using the FS5 in all kinds of situations and look forward to getting the upgrade paired with a Shogun Flame.

[Paolo]

I don't know...

I looked at the specs of this cam and is basically an A7sII on steroids....yes with the RAW option it would make it more appealing but I am not sure for the money...

[GeorgeN]

thought id post in this topic instead of starting a new one.

I was testing the fs5 with ronin-m ealier today using 240fps and once i got home a looked at the footage on my computer noticed quite a lots of artefacts in the footage.

I know you get more aliasing and moire in s&q mode but this looks pretty bad.

I uploaded the clip straight from the card onto vimeo so if you want you can download to see it more clearly. Fast foward to around 22 seconds and on the cars lights and rear left you can see some wierd blue blocky artifacts.

Is this normal for 240fps slomo?

 

 

[Nick Hughes]

Are you on the newest firmware? That looks somewhat similar to the artifacting that was happening before the fix. 

Regardless of the FW, there's definitely going to be aliasing happening at 240, especially on vehicles and buildings. 120 seems better. Bummer there's no middle ground.