Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: F5  (Read 17776 times)
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
F5
« on: July 13, 2013, 06:41:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone played with the F5. (Mr Cooter??)

Coming from the FS100 and disliking the image (but loving most everything else about the cam) and also some use of the Scarlet and disliking everything but the image, a "Sony Scarlet" could be just the thing?

I know everyone else is going canon but they just dont float my boat (bad form factor and C300 has the raw feed broken off)

My goal - sharp gradable wide DR images and XLR sound in a practical shooting package that will survive vandalism of many miles a year travelled.

One other thing, I need to NOT shoot 1TB a day for 90% of my work

S

« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 06:43:40 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2013, 06:51:20 AM »
ReplyReply

My other option is the BMC4k but..

-No slomo.
-needs XLR box
-needs for me HDMI/SDI converter or new monitor
-canikon adapters are janky

A BMC would cost me maybe 60% of a f5 once 'built'

Im suspicious that unlike a sony it could drop frames, clunk out, go fan mental, corrupt media and all the other stuff that these nerd cameras do.

I hold high regard for Sony in that my EX1 and FS100 (and NEX5n) have never missed a beat.

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1167


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2013, 08:22:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeez Morgan,

For 1/4 of the price of the fs100 you can buy a GH3 and box of lenses, for the full price you can buy multiple GH3's that focus better, have a much, much, much, much prettier file than the fs100 and fit in a carry on.

Check it out.

IMO

BC
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2013, 10:30:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I just don't buy using a photo camera for A camera - nothing to do with pretty pictures - all about everything else - for example I do not own a mini HDMI camera where the connection is not wonko.

A recent job we rolled more than 2 hours of interviews (I dont have a post crew to sort it). Another I left the FS100 going for 45mins at the back of the venue while I was operating another camera.

And as you said on another thread the GH image is not really there compared to RED

The 5 might offer many things, a clever thin codec, proper connections, sony unique ability to turn on every day, and raw and 2k raw could be a flexible file that is not a data killer.

Im gonna spend a day testing it just like I did with Scarlet which I did not buy.










Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2013, 10:36:55 AM »
ReplyReply

In the other thread you said this..

I don't suggest anyone finance a camera with all the changes going on, but I'd definatley stay away from the F5 for a year until it all shakes loose.

25k for a camera and viewfinder, that shoots an mpeg 2 codec and is waiting for a firmware upgrade, a module and somway to convert it and grade it (to come).

You don't need the viewfinder (unlike red) so I can use my existing monitors

The base 5 is $15k and it is a 10bit 100mbs codec that is very clever, for another $5k you can get the raw recorder that will shoot up to 240 at 2k or 4k at less FPS - the raw 4k drops straght into davinci or premier and plays back on a laptop

Going beyond the FS100 we have options of;

The C300 with 8bit50mbs and no upgrade path, no overcranking, dodgy formfactor.
The F5 with 10bit100mbs and an upgrade path to 4k raw, an upgrade path that you can buy today. good formfactor.
The Scarlet.. with raw only and other 'issues'
The BMC with no overcranking and all sorts of bits to make it 'work'

The 5 seems a no brainer in that lot.

As it happens Im shooting on the C300 on tuesday so that will be interesting.

S
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 11:11:14 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695


« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2013, 10:56:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Great thread. Keep this discussion alive, please.

After decades shooting Sony, I'm a huge fan of their reliability - as good as Arri.  I'd be going there first.

What's bad about the FS100 picture?  Never used one in anger.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2013, 11:01:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Id keep like to keep it on the F5 if poss.

Simply the FS100 is very sony looking with problematic highlights
(wade through tests at vimeo/sammorganmoore)
All 8bit cams are IMO a bit limited but the 23mbs and early architecture of the FS100 probably make it the worst (and cheapest of the S35/XLR cameras)

An FS100 makes a 5d2 look like total wool though and ive been very well served by it considering the price point.

S

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1167


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2013, 12:32:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Great thread. Keep this discussion alive, please.

After decades shooting Sony, I'm a huge fan of their reliability - as good as Arri.  I'd be going there first.

What's bad about the FS100 picture?  Never used one in anger.

The fs100, as far as a camera goes is good, or pretty good.

Dual sound channels and xlr inputs, nice autofocus with the few e mount lenses that are available, with good is.  A mount lenses have a locked down f stop I think 3.5 or something like that and though sharp do not offer IS.

That snorkel focus thing is in the center, instead of the side and is too heavy for the lcd and droops and drops as you try to move.

The lcd is small, though you can add a larger one.

The controls are very sensitive and very fiddley.  (is fiddley a word?)

The file, with studio lighting is good, though must be underexposed 1/2 stop minimum.   Outside the file is a different story. Shoot sun flar and then back to the subject and everything is pink.  In fact you get a lot of pink cast on the sony with high key backgrounds.

It also has a avchd wrapper which must be unwrapped with clipwrap until transcoded.

It is a sturdy camera, looks professional and works, but everytime I shoot with it my stomach tightens.  Then again it does some things really well.

The look of the file to me is challanged.  Even in studio light.   Yes I can grade it, but it's not easy.  

We did one shot in Italy on a semi cloudy backlit day with minimal fill of a group walking in green grass.  Their faces were totally green and it took days to correct the footage.

I've also seen tons of moire on the fs100.   Buildings, sweaters, window blinds, cause it to go nuts.

Honestly look at the file in color/tone/smoothness next to a pana gh3 and the difference is really night and day.

The Pana gh3 is not a real video camera, shoots a very good file, but the menu section takes days and days to learn and you really have to learn it, not just plug it in and think you got it because it'll throw you for a loop if you don't have it down.

I really don't understand sony, don't understand why they hobble their cameras until you get into RED range or beyond.

They could capture a lot of market with a real dot mov file, at least 12 bits and over 50mbs.  If they allowed prorezz without going into a third party box it would be killer.

Just for clarification the Sony file to me looks like video, the gh3's almost like film, the RED 1's, just like film.

All IMO

BC
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 12:37:16 PM by bcooter » Logged

Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2013, 01:10:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Also consider the FS700. That's Sony giving everybody what they want.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2013, 02:51:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The Fs700has a weak inboard codec, huge latency on monitoring slo mo

I don't really want to be trailing a recorder

And with the bits it is not that cheap!

To me I pretty much prefer shooting in the fs100 - apart from Nd and slo mo the 100 actually feels like a better camera

The fs100 is a Toyota yaris - very fine - in it's class - the fs700 is the same with wide wheels and a turbo - kind of stupid - I'm looking for a BMW now
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 03:02:14 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2013, 12:22:15 AM »
ReplyReply


The fs100 is a Toyota yaris - very fine - in it's class - the fs700 is the same with wide wheels and a turbo - kind of stupid - I'm looking for a BMW now

Of course sir...may I present the forgotten but extremely capable Sony F3? Smiley

The F5 firmware upgrade plan is looking good. By the end of the year it will be a really powerful camera. But I don't think it is worth it, because once you buy a BMW 3 series, you immediately pine for the 5 series or a 7 series. Why not try to finance an F55?
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2013, 02:21:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Ive always thought the F3 was a bit of a donkey - Id consider a really cheap used one but it would just be another stop gap awaiting the next gen or used 55s/C500 hitting the market.

Ive always known the FS100 was a stopgap and with tech advances we are going to have to stick or twist at some point. Like with stills I thought the D2x was a donkey for the money and scraped by using a D100 instead until the D3 happened.

As for the 5/55 saga..

Well my position is that i CAN afford a BMC4k and my thoughts had slid to pushing my budget to a naked F5 instead - to then slide into an F55 really kind of changes the game from getting that BMC4k

As a naked F5 owner I would be across the system (a certified shooter if you want) and could push clients towards rental of the 55 or recorder where required.

As for constant upgrade desires - I actually dont really have them - Ive been happy shooting stills (for adequate money) on my D3 for years now because it works.

When I got the D3 (from the kodak14n) I knew that we now had a DSLR that worked

Im looking for the same in a video camera.. something as good as a roll of film!

As for BMWs - I had a 750il never a 318 Smiley






 



« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 02:28:43 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2013, 03:01:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Morgan,
Why don't you just consider a Red One?

There not easy to find but the price is just
Right for what you get.

The Red workflows are really adaptable
To different styles and film look.

Each time I got Red material in the editing
I smile.

I could write an entire essay here about
Why I thing Red workflow is IMO the most
Flexible and robust. You can have a fast
Straighforward approach, or a not so fast
Elaborate one. The level of flexibility is
Incredible. It's really good stuff to work with
In post.
Gosh, if I was operating cameras (i don't any more,
Thank god)
I'd get one of those R1 right now.

Coot was selling one no? S....t, it was the Scarlet...
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 03:19:47 AM by fredjeang2 » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2013, 03:25:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Simply and this is my needs..

The R1 is too heavy.
The Scarlet is too slow (ISO)

I know the image from them both and given enough light it is indeed great - all you could want

Actually I prefer Resolve to RedCiniX cos you can do secondaries.

Also they dont have an onboard data thin codec, and the reality is Im more likely to shoot thin for 90%

I could not DIT 3hours of RedRaw rushes easily on a low $ job.

Also with scarlet you are forced to buy thier monitor to control it.

I would need zero new accs. to run an F5

..and ND and XLR included - ND is quite a big deal to me there are a lot of IR issues floating around unless you have $3g of filters with the high ISO cams.

If however coots will take $4k for his (built) Scarly Im in Smiley

S





« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 03:39:46 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2013, 07:18:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Simply and this is my needs..

The R1 is too heavy.
The Scarlet is too slow (ISO)

I know the image from them both and given enough light it is indeed great - all you could want

Actually I prefer Resolve to RedCiniX cos you can do secondaries.

Also they dont have an onboard data thin codec, and the reality is Im more likely to shoot thin for 90%

I could not DIT 3hours of RedRaw rushes easily on a low $ job.

Also with scarlet you are forced to buy thier monitor to control it.

I would need zero new accs. to run an F5

..and ND and XLR included - ND is quite a big deal to me there are a lot of IR issues floating around unless you have $3g of filters with the high ISO cams.

If however coots will take $4k for his (built) Scarly Im in Smiley

S







True. DIT comfortably hours of R3D means
The Red card yes or yes.

A note: rcx doesn't replace a proper
Grading app like Resolve as youmentionned.
I use it to generate the RMD i need to
Create the base looks so the time spent
On an external app is only for secondaries.

And yeah....ND, this is a big thing.

 


Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2013, 08:04:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Create the base looks so the time spent
On an external app is only for secondaries.

I really dont get that because to me shooting raw would (for example) about getting the ND grad effect on a sky and you are going to have to do that using the full raw space (exposure -2 maybe) - once you come out of the raw space that info is lost

unless you output a dark and a light and blend them later.

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
smthopr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2013, 01:17:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I really dont get that because to me shooting raw would (for example) about getting the ND grad effect on a sky and you are going to have to do that using the full raw space (exposure -2 maybe) - once you come out of the raw space that info is lost

unless you output a dark and a light and blend them later.

S

RCx or in grading software, conversion from RAW should not involve loosing picture information. If it does, you are not using proper settings. It should be no
Logged

Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com
smthopr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2013, 01:20:41 PM »
ReplyReply

No problem to make a grad in grading software if your original clip is not clipped.
Logged

Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2013, 04:37:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Twoddle. Of course you discard information when leaving the raw space.

Put the temp slider to 2000k and try to get that back to 5000k from a baked export
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 04:41:19 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
smthopr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 239


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2013, 06:39:59 PM »
ReplyReply

If you exposed in 5000k light, leave the slider at 5000k. Then nothing should be lost. The RAW file is not a limitless bucket of data. And all can be preserved transcoding at the optimal settings. And one can not add a grad to RAW data. It must be transcoded first.

I'm just trying to clear up some misconceptions about working with RAW files. Not trying to have an argument.

If one exposes film with light that does not match the color that the film is optimized for, there is a limit to the corrections that are possible. Most digital sensors are optimized at about 4300k. Expose at 2000k and your corrections will be limited also. The transcode does not change this, nor limit the correction as long as one doesn't set the transcoding software (Raw converter) to clip. Hope this makes sense to someone here Smiley
Logged

Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad