Good news. Firmware version 3.0 has just been released for the PXW-FS7. This is a major update for the FS7 and adds some important new features such as a 2K center scan mode that can be used to allow you to use super16 lenses or more importantly eliminate aliasing and moire when shooting above 60fps.
For users of the Cine-EI mode there are major improvements to the usability of the waveform display as this now works with most LUT combinations (but not in S&Q or when outputting 4K). In addition you can now enable noise reduction in Cine EI, although be aware that this may introduce banding artefacts in some situations.
Zebras now go all the way down to 0% so if you want you can use zebras to measure white or grey cards when shooting log or to measure the recommended skin tone levels for S-log (40-55%) and hypergamma (55-60%) recordings.
Also there is a proper time-lapse mode and some improvements to the quality of the raw recordings when using an external recorder raw such as the 7Q.
I love my Convergent Design Odyssey 7Q! It’s a fantastic piece of kit. A first rate monitor, highly capable video recorder and a toolbox full of useful tools for the digital cinematographer. I can use it simply as a high grade OLED monitor to check my pictures or I can use it to record at higher quality levels than many internal recorders and then add LUT’s, cross convert from HDMI/SDI, down convert, superimpose a waveform display or zebras on the output and much more. One of my favourite functions is being able to connect it to both the A & B SDI outputs on the FS7 or F5/F55 and view BOTH the LUT’d output from the camera as well as the clean S-Log signal via the picture in picture function.
Right now Convergent Design are offering $500 off the base price and throwing in a free 256GB SSD. Thats really an impressive deal for a really great piece of kit.
UPDATE: Following much debate and discussion in the comments section and on my Facebook feed I think one thing that has become clear is an important factor in this subject is the required end contrast. If you take S-Log3 which has a raised shadow range and shoot with it in low light you will gain a low contrast image. If you choose to keep the image low contrast then there is no accentuation of the recorded noise in post and this can bring an acceptable and useable result. However if you need to grade the S-log3 to gain the same contrast as a dedicated high contrast gamma such as 709, then the lack of recorded data can make the image become coarser than it would be if recorded by a narrow range gamma. Furthermore many other factors come into play such as how noisy the camera is, the codec used, bit depth etc. So at the end of the day my recommendation is to not assume log will be better, but to test both log and standard gammas in similar conditions to those you will be shooting in.
Log gamma curves are designed for one thing and one thing only, to extend the dynamic range that can be recorded. In order to be able to record that greater dynamic range all kinds of compromises are being made.
Lets look at a few facts.
Amount of picture information: The amount of picture information that you can record, i.e. the amount of image samples, shades or data points is not determined by the gamma curve. It is determined by the recording format or recording codec. For example a 10 bit codec can store up to 1023 shades or code values while an 8 bit codec can record up to 255 shades or code values (in practice this is a maximum of 235 shades as 16 are used for sync). It doesn’t matter which gamma curve you use, the 10 bit codec will contain more usable picture information than the 8 bit codec. The 10 bit picture will have over 1000 shades while the 8 bit one less than 255. For low light more “bits” is always going to be better than less as noise can be recorded more faithfully. If noise is recorded with only a few shades or code values it will look coarse and ugly compared to noise recorded with lots more levels which will look smoother.
Bottom line though is that no matter what gamma curve, the maximum amount of picture information is determined by the codec or recording format. It’s a bit of a myth that log gives you more data for post, it does not, it gives you a broader range.
Log extends the dynamic range: This is the one thing that log is best know for. Extending the dynamic range, but this does not mean we have more picture information, all it means is we have a broader range. So instead of say a 6 or 7 stop range we have a 14 stop range. That range increase is not just an increase in highlight range but also a corresponding increase in shadow range. A typical rec-709 camera can “see” about 3 or 4 stops below middle grey before the image is deemed to be too noisy and any shades or tone blend into one. An S-log2 or S-log3 camera can see about 8 stops below middle grey before there is nothing else to see but noise. However the lower 2 or 3 stops of this extended range really are very noisy and it’s questionable as to how useful they really are.
Imagine you are shooting a row of buildings (each building representing a few stops of dynamic range). Think of standard gammas as a standard 50mm lens. It will give you a great image but it won’t be very wide, you might only get one or two buildings into the shot, but you will have a ton of detail of those buildings.
Shot of buildings taken with standard lens, think “standard gamma”
Think of a wide dynamic range gamma such as S-log as a wide angle lens. It will give you a much wider image taking in several buildings and assuming the lens is of similar quality to the 50mm lens, the captured pictures will appear to be of similar quality. But although you have a wider view the level of detail for each building will be reduced. You have a wider range, but each individual building has less detail
Buildings shot with 20 mm wide lens. Think “wide gamma” or log gamma.
But what if in your final scene you are only going to show one or two buildings and they need to fill the frame? If you shoot with the wide lens you will need to blow the image up in post to the show just the buildings you want. Blowing an image up like this results in a lower quality image. The standard lens image however won’t need to be blown up, so it will look better. Log is just the same. While you do start off with a wider range (which may indeed be highly beneficial) each element or range of shades within that range has less data than if we had shot with a narrower gamma.
Wide lens (think wide gamma) cropped to match standard lens (think standard gamma). Note the loss of quality compared to starting with standard.
Using log in low light is the equivalent of using a wide angle lens to shoot a row of buildings where you can actually only see a few of the buildings, the others being invisible and then blowing up that image to fill the frame. The reality is you would be better off using the standard lens and filing the frame with the few visible building, thus saving the need to blow up the image.
Shooting a scene where most of it is dark with wide lens (wide gamma/log) wastes a lot of data.Using a narrower lens (narrow or standard gamma) wastes less data and the information that is captured is of higher quality.
S-Log2/3 has a higher base ISO: On a Sony camera this higher ISO value is actually very miss-leading because the camera isn’t actually any more sensitive in log. The camera is still at 0dB gain, even though it is being rated at a higher ISO. The higher ISO rating is there to offset an external light meter to give you the darker recording levels normally used for log. Remember a white card is recorded at 90% with standard gammas, but only 60% with log. When you change the ISO setting upwards on a light meter it will tell you to close down the aperture on the camera, that then results in the correct darker log exposure.
S-Log3 may appear at first brighter than standard gammas when you switch to it. This is because it raises the very bottom of the log curve and puts more data into the shadows. But the brighter parts of the image will be no brighter than with a camera with standard gammas at 0db gain. This extra shadow data may be beneficial for some low light situations, so if you are going to use log in low light S-Log3 is superior to S-Log2.
If you can’t get the correct exposure with log, don’t use it! Basically if you can’t get the correct exposure without adding gain or increasing the ISO don’t use log. If you can’t get your midrange up where it’s supposed to be then you are wasting data. You are not filling your codec or recording format so a lot of data available for picture information is being wasted. Also consider that because each stop is recorded with less data with log not only is the picture information a bit coarser but so too is any noise. If you really are struggling for light, your image is likely to be a bit dark and thus have a lot of noisy and coarse noise is not nice. Log has very little data allocated to the shadows in order to free up data for the highlights because one of the key features of log is the excellent way it handles highlights as a result an under exposed log image is going to lack even more data. So never under expose log.
Chart showing S-Log2 and S-Log3 plotted against f-stops and code values. Note how little data there is for each of the darker stops, the best data is above middle grey.
Think of log as the opposite of standard gammas. With standard gammas you always try never to over expose and often being very slightly under exposed is good. But log must never be under exposed, there is not enough data in the shadows to cope with under exposure. Meanwhile log has more data in the highlights, so is very happy to be a little over exposed.
My rule of thumb is quite simple. If I can’t fully expose log at the base sensitivity I don’t use it. I will drop down to a cinegamma or hypergamma. If I can’t correctly expose the hypergamma or cinegamma then I drop down to standard gamma, rec-709.
Native ISO: The Sony PXW-FS5’s native ISO for the standard gammas and cinegammas is 1000 ISO. It is NOT 3200 ISO. If you shoot with standard or cinegammas at 3200 ISO then you are adding +10dB to +12dB of gain.
+10dB gain = noisy picture. If you add +10db of gain to most cameras the picture will get noisy and grainy, the FS5 is no exception to this. Adding +10db gain also means you will have a +10db noise increase (roughly 300% more noise, a significant increase) or have an increase in noise plus a significant increase in other artefacts as the cameras built in noise reduction has to work much harder. The FS5 does incorporate noise reduction processes and these do introduce a degree of smear when you add more than +6db of gain. At +12db or higher the smear and other artefacts (including a tendency towards banding) becomes quite noticeable, this is a typical artefact of this type of noise reduction and one of the reason why on more advanced cameras like the PMW-F5/F55 you are able to turn it off.
Ultra Compressed: In UHD the XAVC-L codec has a bit rate of 100Mb/s. Uncompressed UHD requires over 3.5Gb/s for decent quality, so you’re looking at a camera with a compression ratio of around 35:1. Is it really all that surprising that there are some compression artefacts? Consider that 35Mb/s is considered the minimum for broadcast quality H264 based HD work and that’s a compression ratio of only 25:1. So we are some way below the normal minimums for broadcast.
8 bit in UHD. UHD XAVC-L is an 8 bit codec. 8 bit codecs don’t deal with noise terribly well as the limited number of shades/steps mean that noise cannot be reproduced with small steps and as a result any noise or grain will often appear quite coarse. So is it any surprise that in UHD the camera exhibits a lot more artefacts than in HD where the codec is 10 bit and much less compressed?
S-log at high ISO’s. Oh come on people, please understand that S-log only does one thing well and that’s maximise dynamic range. If you can’t get a correct exposure or better still a 1 to 2 stop over exposed exposure at the native ISO you really, really shouldn’t be using log. It will be noisy, it will be grainy, it won’t look good and if you record it with XAVC-L in UHD it will look like rubbish as the excessive noise will stress the codec, introduce more artefacts and your exposure mid range will only represented by approx 17 code values or shades. you will have very little data to play with in post and noise and grain will look awful.
External Recorder. Adding an external recorder can really improve the UHD image quality. Again, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. If you use an external ProRes recorder running at 880Mb/s (ProRes HQ) compared to the 100 Mb/s of XAVC-L is it really any surprise that it’s possible to record a better quality image? The FS5 has been designed as a grab and go camera recording on to cheap media. Sure adding an external recorder can increase the image quality, but your media costs go through the roof and most of the grab and go benefits are lost.
So when you see a test of XAVC-L with a standard gamma at 3200 ISO being recorded using an 8 bit, 35:1 codec don’t be surprised to see a noisy, grainy image with compression artefacts from all the extra work the codec is having to do to deal with the noise that comes from adding +10db gain. The same for low light log footage at 6400 ISO. This is not the best way to use a camera like this. It’s not clever and anyone can make even a straight forward scene look like rubbish by shooting this way. I don’t know what people are trying to say or achieve when they post a bunch of high gain clips with headline titles like “The FS5 codec is broken” or “FS5 un-usable in UHD” without even considering what it is that they are actually looking at. AT 3200 ISO with standard gammas the camera noise reduction circuits are working overtime to try and clean up the image. This results in the introduction of other artefacts such as edge tearing or smear. Stick that into a super compressed codec and it is not going to be a perfect image. 50Mb/s HD at 60fps is also very highly compressed and will also exhibit artefacts.
As I have written in other articles, the use of ISO with video cameras appears to be miss-leading many people into thinking that a camera will produce a noise free image at all kinds of ridiculous sensitivities as they often focus on the wrong ISO rating or simply believe that it’s possible to have very high sensitivities without noise. Sadly this is not the case. I don’t think people would be surprised to see noise and grain at +10dB gain, but sadly dB’s of gain isn’t hip, cool or make you sound like a film cameraman. No, ISO is much cooler sounding, but is confusing the c**p out of people that don’t really understand how it works in relation to a video camera. Also the use of log for low light is just nuts, it’s entirely the wrong type of gamma to use, especially with a sub optimum codec.
The FS5 is not simply a shrunk down FS7. It is a very different camera. You should not be expecting FS7 performance in UHD, the UHD version of XAVC-L codec is very different to the XAVC-I available in the FS7. The image processing is also different (do remember the FS5 consumes 1/2 the power of an FS7).
It is possible that over future firmware updates Sony may be able to fine tune the codec and noise reduction circuits to work a little better. It’s also possible that we may see improvements in the decoders used to decode the codec (remember the decoder is just as important as the encoder), so possibly things may get improved a little. But don’t expect miracles. Squeezing UHD into a highly compressed 8 bit codec and recording it 100% reliably on off the shelf SD cards will always be a challenge. Even at the correct native ISO’s, at 0dB gain, there will be some artefacts. But start adding in gain and yes, you will start to see more noise and more artefacts.
The FS5 is a great little camera, I really enjoy shooting with mine and I think the results I am getting are great. I know that I can get a technically better 4K/UHD image from my FS7 or F5, but sometimes it’s not just about getting the best technical quality. The FS5 allows me to shoot more freely, it’s a breeze to carry around or travel with, I can throw it on a gimbal, on the end of a microphone boom pole, chuck it and a bunch of lenses in a small back-pack, it’s fun to use! As a result I’m getting shots that I just can’t get with the FS7 or F5.
Just how terrible is the FS5’s image quality? Take a look at my Falcon video and judge for yourself.
Northern Lights 2016: I still have 2 places left on my February expedition to Norway to the Finnmarksvidda, land of the Sami people and the Northern Lights. Full details here.
I started writing this as an explanation of why I often choose not to use log for low light. But instead it’s ended up as an experiment you can try for yourself if you have a waveform monitor that will hopefully allow you to better understand the differences between log and standard gamma. Get a waveform display hooked up to your log camera and try this for yourself.
S-Log and other log gammas are wonderful things, but they are not the be-all and end-all of video gammas. They are designed for one specific purpose and that is to give cameras using conventional YCbCr or RGB recording methods the ability to record the greatest possible dynamic range with a limited amount of data, as a result there are some compromises made when using log. Unlike conventional gammas with a knee or gammas such as hypergammas and cinegammas, log gammas do not normally have any highlight roll off, but do have a shadow roll-off. Once you get above middle grey log gammas normally record every stop with almost exactly the same amount of data, right up to the clipping point where they hard clip. Below middle grey there is a roll off of data per stop as you go down towards the black clip point (as there is naturally less information in the shadows this is expected). So in many respects log gammas are almost the reverse of standard gammas. The highlight roll off that you may believe that you see with log is often just the natural way that real world highlights roll off anyway, after all there isn’t an infinite amount of light floating around (thank goodness). Or that apparent roll off is simply a display or LUT limitation.
An experiment for you to try.
Click on the chart to go to larger versions that you can download. Display it full screen on your computer and use it as a test chart. You may need to de-focus the camera slightly to avoid aliasing from the screens pixels.
If you have a waveform display and a grey scale chart you can actually see this behaviour. If you don’t have a chart use the grey scale posted here full screen on your computer monitor. Start with a conventional gamma, preferably REC-709. Point the camera at the chart and gradually open up the aperture. With normal gammas as you open the aperture you will see the steps between each grey bar open up and the steps spread apart until you reach the knee point, typically at 90% (assuming the knee is ON which is the default for most cameras). Once you hit the knee all those steps rapidly squash back together again.
What you are seeing on the waveform is conventional gamma behaviour where for each stop you go up in exposure you almost double the amount of data recorded, thus capturing the real world very accurately (although only within a limited range). Once you hit the knee everything is compressed together to increase the dynamic range using only a very small recording range, leaving the shadows and all important mid range well recorded. It’s this highlight compression that gives video the “video look”, washed out highlights with no contrast that look electronic.
If you repeat the same exercise with a hypergamma or cinegamma once again in the lower and mid range you will see the steps stretch apart on the waveform as you increase the exposure. But once you get to about 65-70% they stop stretching apart and now start to squeeze together. This is the highlight roll off of the hypergamma/cinegamma doing it’s thing. Once again compressing the highlights to get a greater dynamic range but doing this in a progressive gradual manner that tends to look much nicer than the hard knee. Even though this does look better than 709 + Knee in the vast majority of cases, we are still compressing the highlights, still throwing away a lot of data or highlight picture information that can never be recovered in post production no matter what you do.
Conventional video = Protect Your Highlights.
So in the conventional video world we are taught as cameramen to “protect the highlights”. Never overexpose because it looks bad and even grading won’t help a lot. If anything we will often err on the side of caution and expose a little low to avoid highlight issues. If you are using a Hypergamma or Cinegamma you really need to be careful with skin tones to keep them below that 65-70% beginning of the highlight roll off.
Now repeat the same experiment with Slog2 or S-log3. S-log2 is best for the experiment as it shows what is going on most clearly. Before you do it though mark middle grey on your waveform display with a piece of tape or similar. Middle grey for S-log2 is 32% (41% for S-log3).
Now open up the aperture and watch those steps between the grey scale bars. Below middle grey, as with the standard gammas you will see the gap between each bar open up. But take careful note of what happens above middle grey. Once you get above middle grey and all the way to the clip point the gap between each step remains the same.
So what’s happening now?
Well this is the S-log curve recording each stop above middle grey with the same amount of data. In addition there is NO highlight roll off. Even the very brightest step just below clipping will be same size as the one just above middle grey. In practice what this means is that it doesn’t make a great deal of difference where you expose for example skin tones, provided they are above middle grey and below clipping. After grading it will look more or less the same. In addition it means that that very brightest stop contains a lot of great, useable picture information. Compare that to Rec-709 or the Cinegammas/Hypergammas where the brightest stops are all squashed together and contain almost no contrast or picture information.
Now add in to the equation what is going on in the shadows. Log has less data in the shadows than standard gammas because you are recording a greater overall dynamic range, so each stop is recorded with overall less data.
Standard Gammas = More shadow data per stop, much less highlight data = Need to protect highlights.
Log= Less shadow data per stop, much more highlight data = Need to protect shadows.
Hopefully now you can see that with S-log we need to flip the way we shoot from protecting highlights to protecting shadows. When you shoot with conventional gammas most people expose so the mid range is OK, then take a look at the highlights to make sure they are not too bright and largely ignore whats going on in the shadows. With Log you need to do the opposite. Expose the mid range and then check the shadows to make sure they are not too dark. You can ignore the highlights.
Yes, thats’ right, when shooting log: IGNORE the highlights!
Cinegamma highlight roll off. Note how the tree branches in the highlights look strangled and ugly due to the lack of highlight data, hence “protect your highlights”.Graded S-Log2. Note how nice the same tree branches look because there is a lot of data in the highlights, but the shadows are a little crunchy. Hence: protect your shadows.
For a start you monitor or viewfinder isn’t going to be able to accurately reproduce the highlights as bright as they are . So typically they will look a lot more over exposed than they really are. In addition there is a ton of data in those highlights that you will be able to extract in the grade. But most importantly if you do underexpose your mid range will suffer, it will get noisy and your shadows will look terrible because there will be no data to work with.
When I shoot with log I always over expose by at least 1 stop above the manufacturer recommended levels. If you are using S-log2 or S-log3 that can be achieved by setting zebras to 70% and then checking that you are JUST starting to see zebras on something white in your shot such as a white shirt or piece of paper. If your camera has CineEI use an EI that is half of the cameras native ISO (I use 1000 or 800 EI for my FS7 or F5).
I hope these experiments with a grey scale and waveform help you understand what is going on with you gamma curves. One thing I will add is that while controlled over exposure is beneficial it can lead to some issues with grading. That’s because most LUT’s are designed for “correct” exposure so will typically look over exposed. Another issue is that if you simply reduce the gain level in post to compensate than the graded footage looks flat and washed out. This is because you are applying a linear correction to log footage. Fo a long tome I struggled to get pleasing results from over exposed log footage. The secret is to either use LUT’s that are offset to compensate for over exposure or to de-log the footage prior to grading using an S-Curve. I’ll cover both of these in a later article.
Chart showing S-Log2 and S-Log3 plotted against f-stops and code values.
What about shooting in low light?
OK, now lets imagine we are shooting a dark or low light scene. It’s dark enough that even if we open the aperture all the way the brightest parts of the scene (ignoring things like street lights) do not reach clipping (92% with S-Log3 or 109% with S-Log2). This means two things. 1: The scene has a dynamic range less than 14 stops and 2: We are not utilising all of the recording data available to us. We are wasting data.
Log exposed so that the scene fills the entire curve puts around 100 code values (or luma shades) per stop above middle grey for S-log2 and 75 code values for S-Log3 with a 10 bit codec. If your codec is only 8 bit then that becomes 25 for S-log2 and 19 code values for S-Log3. And that’s ONLY if you are recording a signal that fills the full range from black clip to white clip.
3 stops below middle grey there is very little data, about thirty 10 bit code values for S-Log2 and about 45 for S-log3. Once again if the codec is 8 bit you have much less, about 7 for S-Log2 and about 11 for S-log2. As a result the darker parts of your recorded scene will be recorded with very little data and very few shades. This impacts how much you can grade the image in post as there is very little picture information in the darker parts of the shot and noise tends to look quite coarse as it is only recorded with a limited number of steps or levels (this is particularly true of 8 bit codecs and an area where 8 bit recordings can be problematic).
So what happens if we use a standard gamma curve?
Lets say we now shoot the same scene with a standard gamma curve, perhaps REC-709. One point to note with Sony cameras like the FS5, FS7, F5/F55 etc is that the standard gammas normally have a native ISO one to two stops lower than S-Log. That’s because the standard gammas ignore the darkest couple of stops that are recorded when in log. After all there is very little really useable picture information down there in all the noise.
Now our limited dynamic range scene will be filling much more of our recording range. So straight away we have more data per stop because we are utilising a bigger portion of the recording range. In addition because our recorded levels will be higher in our recording range there will be more data per stop, typically double the data especially in the darker parts of the recorded image. This means than any noise is recorded more accurately which results in smoother looking noise. It also means there is more data available for any post production manipulation.
But what about those dark scenes with problem highlights such as street lights?
This an area where Cinegammas or Hypergammas are very useful. The problem highlights like strret lights normally only make up a very small part of your your overall scene. So unless you are shooting for HDR display it’s a huge waste to use S-log just to bring some highlights into range as you make big compromises to the rest of the image and you’ll never be able to show them accurately in the finished image anyway as they will exceed the dynamic range of the TV display. Instead for these situations a Hypergamma or Cinegamma works well because below about 70% exposure Hypergammas and cinegammas are very similar to Rec-709 so you will have lots of data in the shadows and mid range where you really need it. The highlights will be up in the highlight roll off area where the data levels or number of recorded shades are rolled off. So the highlights still get recorded, perhaps without clipping, but you are only giving away a small amount of data to do this. The highlights possibly won’t look quite as nice as if recorded with log, but they are typically only a small part of the scene and the rest of the scene especially the shadows and mid tones will end up looking much better as the noise will be smoother and there will be more data in that all important mid-range.
If you have a modern camera that can record log or raw and has 13 stops or more of dynamic range you need to stop thinking “video” and think “film”.
A big mistake most traditional video camera operators make with these big DR cameras is to treat them as they would a typical limited dynamic range video camera and constantly worry and obsess about protecting highlights. Why do we do this? Well probably because that’s what you do with cameras with a very limited range and that’s probably what you have had drummed into you for years. But now with modern large sensor cameras everything changes. When you get to a 14 stop range camera, even if you choose to shoot 2 stops over exposed (perhaps by using 500 EI on an FS7 or F5) you still have as much or more over exposure range as a conventional video camera and the highlight range that you do have is not subject to a knee or other similar acute highlight compression. So any highlights will contain a ton of high quality, usable picture information. By shooting over exposed by a controlled amount (1 to 2 stops), perhaps by using a low EI you gain very big improvements in the signal to noise ratio and get better saturated colors (opening the aperture lets more light onto the sensor, your colors will be better recorded). This allows you to pull a lot more information out of the data thin shadows and mid range. Most cameras that use log have very little data in the shadows. If you are recording with a 10 bit codec cameras that use variations of the Cineon log curve (Arri LogC, Sony S-Log3, Panasonic V-Log) only have about 80 luma shades covering the first 4 stops of exposure in total. Above the 4th stop the amount of data per stop increases rapidly so a little bit of deliberate over exposure really helps lift your darkest shadows up out of the noise and mire. Up in the highlights each stop has exactly the same amount of data, so over exposing a bit doesn’t compress the highlights as it would with a conventional camera, so a bit of mild over exposure is normally not noticeable.
Really with a 14 stop log camera you want to treat it like film, not video. Just like film, a 14 stop log camera will almost always benefit from a controlled amount of over exposure, highlights will rarely suffer or look bad just because you’re one stop hot, but he shadows and midtones will be significantly improved. And just like film, if you under expose log you will take a big hit. You will loose a lot of shadow information very quickly, have less color, it will be noisy and the highlight benefit will be marginal.
I’m only going to look at these 3 cameras in this article. Of course there are also many others to choose from these days, so do remember to look at other options from other manufacturers too.
I like Sony cameras and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But I have to say that I really think Sony are on a roll right now. The PMW-F55, F5, FS7 and the FS5 are all great cameras. Sure there are cameras with more pixels and maybe more resolution that may or may not need full frame lenses. There are cheaper cameras and all kinds of other options, but these cameras are all good workhorse cameras that should prove reliable in the field and give years of good service (although with technology moving so fast you might not keep it for that many years).
So which to choose?
First of all YOU need to decided exactly what you need or want from your camera. It’s also good to separate out “What You Need” from “What You Would Like”. For example if you are on an extrmely tight budget you will need affordable media while you might also like the idea of being able to shoot continuously at 180fps. Sometimes the two are not compatible with each other, so you should go with the need rather than the like.
If you’re running a business then you should also ask yourself that all important question: Will the more expensive camera make me more money?
Yeah, yeah, I know…. for some of us they are our babies, our toys and it is nice to have the best toys. But don’t bankrupt yourself buying something you can’t afford or don’t really need.
I’ve included a table of differences between these cameras below which I suggest you take a look at.
The FS5 is clearly exceptional value for the money. It does 80-90% of what the other cameras can do. If you’re only ever going to shoot in HD and don’t want to use Cine EI or LUT’s then really the FS5 is probably all you’ll ever need. It’s small, compact, lightweight and has some great features for shooting on the move like the variable ND filter and face tracking autofocus (with a Sony lens). What it lacks however is 10 bit 422 recording in UHD (even the output is only 8 bit in 4K). So if you want to shoot in UHD (3840 x 2160 TV type 4K) then the amount of grading you can do will be a little restricted. It’s also unlikely to meet broadcast standards as a main camera for UHD production. Further more it also lacks a proper CineEI mode for S-log2/S-Log3 with LUT’s on the outputs. This isn’t the end of the world for occasional log shoots but if you plan on shooting a lot of log then all of the other cameras will be easier to use and it will be easier to get the best results without having to mess about with external monitors with LUT’s, grey cards or light meters. It’s not so much the lack of LUT’s (there are viewfinder only gamma LUT’s) but the inability to monitor at anything other than the native ISO which makes it tougher to offset your exposure in the way you can with CineEI. One final and very important note about the PXW-FS5 is that the XAVC-L codec is very processor intensive. You will need a really good computer to do anything more than cuts only editing. The XAVC-I codec in the FS7, F5 and F55 is much easier to work with, but the files are bigger. SO while the FS5 may save you a lot in terms of media costs, you will need to spend money on a high spec, up to date PC or Mac if you don’t already have one.
The FS5 can be upgraded with a raw option that outputs 12 bit linear raw. This raw output can be recorded on an external recorder and in doing so bypasses many of the FS5’s internal limitations such as only being able to have a single video out OR monitoring signal when recording internally. The raw files are very, very big but you can convert the raw to 10 bit ProRes before recording on the external recorder and this does provide image quality close to the 10 bit internal recordings of the other cameras. But, by the time you add on the cost of the raw option, a raw recorder plus mounting, batteries and media, the price difference between the FS5 and FS7 is very small.
The FS7 really does sit in the middle of this bunch, both in terms of cost and features. It’s a bigger camera that’s tough to hand hold for long, really it’s a shoulder camera. It can do 95% of what the F5 and F55 can do and some things the F5 and F55 can’t. The use of the Sony E-Mount means you can add low cost Sony power zoom lenses or control Canon lens apertures via low cost and compact adapters, this is much harder (and more expensive) on the F5 and F55. Adapters for Canon lenses for the FS5 and FS7 start at $50 while for an F5/F55 adapter prices start at $800. In addition on the E-Mount cameras you can add speedbooster adapters for use with full frame lenses giving a wider field of view and 1 stop faster aperture.
The FS7 has a true CineEI mode for log shooting and can take custom LUT’s. It’s even possible to add the XDCA-FS7 adapter to get internal ProRes recording and a 12 bit raw output, but it is only 12 bit raw which although very nice, is a lot different to the far superior 16 bit raw from the F5 and F55. When using the XDCA-FS7 extension unit it’s also worth remembering that you need to use bulkier and generally more expensive V-Mount batteries.
The FS7 II adds an improved locking E-Mount for greater lens security and stability. The locking mount is also stronger than the standard mount so it will cope better with heavier lenses. In addition the FS7 II also has a variable ND filter. The variable ND allows you to do your fine exposure adjustments with the ND filter allowing the aperture to be used as a depth of field control.
The FS7 is great for short film production, it offers image quality that is good enough for a feature film (I don’t think a movie viewer would detect any deficiency in the pictures from a well setup and well used FS7, even on a big screen). The XQD media while not as cheap as the SDXC cards used by the FS5 is reasonably affordable. There are a few things that might frustrate some users, in particular it is a very sophisticated camera with lots of options and there is no easy way to see exactly how the camera is configured without interrupting the live image in the viewfinder either by going into the menus or using the status pages. If you do use a lot of the cameras features and modes, you will spend a lot of time in the menu system.
One of the great things about the F5 or the more expensive PMW-F55 is the side display panel as this allows you to see how the camera is setup, which LUT you’re using, frame rates, audio levels and so much more without having to resort to the menus. You can also control most of the day to day functions that you will use from this side panel using the option menu and that makes the camera far easier and faster to use than the FS7. The F5/F55 lens mount is much stronger than the E-mount on the other cameras, so it’s better suited to heavy cinema lenses and large super 35mm zoom lenses. You can also adjust the back focus so that it works well with large cinema zooms. For exceptionally good HD images you have the extremely high quality SStP (HDCAM SR) codec. On top of that there is also a higher quality version of XAVC called XAVC Class 480. This brings some respectable improvements in image quality with only a small increase in file size, whether shooting in HD, UHD or 4K. For the very best 4K you have a full 16 bit linear raw option when you dock the R5 raw recorder or with the R7 raw recorder you can choose between raw or 16 bit linear X-OCN. The R7 can shoot record in 4K at upto 120fps with the F55 for amazing slow motion. X-OCN offers images with quality comparable to 16 bit raw but with file sizes smaller than ProRes and not much bigger than XAVC.
Because the recorder docks directly to the camera it is much easier to use than the external cabled option for the FS7 or FS5. In addition the R5 and R7 recorders use special visually loss less processes to considerably reduce the file sizes and make the files very easy to handle. So if you want to shoot a lot of raw for the ultimate in post production flexibility the the F5/F55 are the obvious choice, although this comes at a price.
So, in summary I would suggest:
Buy the PXW-FS5, unless:
You need to shoot 4K DCI (4096×2160). You are going to shoot primarily using S-Log2/3 or do a lot of grading to your UHD footage or are planning to make broadcast ready UHD programs. Unless you need to shoot continuously in UHD faster than 30fps or faster than 60fps in HD. Need timecode in/out or genlock (needs XDCA-FS7 adapter on FS7). In this case I suggest you buy the FS7 unless:
You are going to shoot primarily in raw or need the convenience of the side status display (don’t underestimate how useful this can be). Unless you need to shoot anamorphic, with SStP (HDCAM SR) or need a 4K HDSDI output. Want integrated Genlock and Timecode In/Out. In this case buy the PMW-F5 (with 4K option?) unless:
You need an extra wide colour gamut and a global shutter, in which case the PMW-F55 is king of the hill.
I got the chance to check out the Sony PXW-X200 while I was in Iceland for Sony. The video and written review are now online on the Sony web site. If you have any comments or questions please feel free to post them here.
Cameras with bayer CMOS sensors can in certain circumstances suffer from an image artefact that appears as a grid pattern across the image. The actual artefact is normally the result of red and blue pixels that are brighter than they should be which gives a magenta type flare effect. However sometimes re-scaling an image containing this artefact can result in what looks like a grid type pattern as some pixels may be dropped or added together during the re scaling and this makes the artefact show up as a grip superimposed over the image.
Grid type artefact.
The cause of this artefact is most likely off-axis light somehow falling on the sensor. This off axis light could come from an internal reflection within the camera or the lens. It’s known that with the F5/F55 and FS7 cameras that a very strong light source that is just out of shot, just above or below the image frame can in some circumstances with some lenses result in this artefact. But this problem can occur with almost any CMOS Bayer camera, it’s not just a Sony problem.
The cure is actually very simple, use a flag or lens hood to prevent off axis light from entering the lens. This is best practice anyway.
So what’s going on, why does it happen?
When white light falls on a bayer sensor it passes through color filters before hitting the pixel that measures the light level. The color filters are slightly above the pixels. For white light the amount of light that passes through each color filter is different. I don’t know the actual ratios of the different colors, it will vary from sensor to sensor, but green is the predominant color with red and blue being considerably lower, I’ve used some made up values to illustrate what is going on, these are not the true values, but should illustrate the point.
In the illustration above when the blue pixel see’s 10%, green see 70% and red 20%, after processing the output would be white. If the light falling on the sensor is on axis, ie coming directly, straight through the lens then everything is fine.
But if somehow the light falls on the sensor off axis at an oblique angle then it is possible that the light that passes through the blue filter may fall on the green pixel, or the light from the green filter may fall on the red pixel etc. So instead of nice white light the sensor pixels would think they are seeing light with an unusually high red and blue component. If you viewed the image pixel for pixel it would have very bright red pixels, bright blue pixels and dark green pixels. When combined together instead of white you would get Pink or Blue. This is the kind of pattern that can result in the grid type artefact seen on many CMOS bayer sensors when there are problems with off axis light.
This is a very rare problem and only occurs in certain circumstances. But when it does occur it can spoil an otherwise good shot. It happens more with full frame lenses than with lenses designed for super 35mm or APSC and wide angles tend to be the biggest offenders as their wide Field of View (FoV) allows light to enter the optical path at acute angles. It’s a problem with DSLR lenses designed for large 4:3 shaped sensors rather than the various wide screen format that we shoot video in today. All that extra light above and below the desired widescreen frame, if it isn’t prevented from entering the lens has to go somewhere. Unfortunately once it enters the cameras optical path it can be reflected off things like the very edge of the optical low pass filter, the ND filters or the face of the sensor itself.
The cure is very simple and should be standard practice anyway. Use a sun shade, matte box or other flag to prevent light from out of the frame entering the lens. This will prevent this problem from happening and it will also reduce flare and maximise contrast. Those expensive matte boxes that we all like to dress up our cameras with really can help when used and adjusted correctly.
I have found that adding a simple mask in front of the lens or using a matte box such as any of the Vocas matte boxes with eyebrows will eliminate the issue. Many matte boxes will have the ability to be fitted with a 16:9 or 2.40:1 mask ( also know as Mattes hence the name Matte Box) ahead of the filter trays. It’s one of the key reason why Matte Boxes were developed.
Note the clamp inside the hood for holding a mask in front of the filters on this Vocas MB216 Matte Box. Not also how the Matte Box’s aperture is 16:9 rather than square to help cut out of frame light.Arri Matte Box with Matte selection.
You should also try to make sure the size of the matte box you use is appropriate to the FOV of the lenses that you are using. An excessively large Matte Box isn’t going to cut as much light as a correctly sized one. I made a number of screw on masks for my lenses by taking a clear glass or UV filter and adding a couple of strips of black electrical tape to the rear of the filter to produce a mask for the top and bottom of the lens. With zoom lenses if you make this mask such that it can’t be seen in the shot at the wide end the mask is effective throughout the entire zoom range.
Many cinema lenses include a mask for 17:9 or a similar wide screen aperture inside the lens.
Manage your privacy
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Good news. Firmware version 3.0 has just been released for the PXW-FS7. This is a major update for the FS7 and adds some important new features such as a 2K center scan mode that can be used to allow you to use super16 lenses or more importantly eliminate aliasing and moire when shooting above 60fps.
