It's 50 Mb/s, NOT MB/s - a very big difference! :-)

Well, I'd be happy to take your bet! Of course, it depends on what the trial is, but on straightforward shooting/viewing - even on a very high quality monitor - I would be very, very surprised if anyone could tell the difference without extreme pixel peeping.

And to an extent depends what the format is. The whole rationale behind the existence of 4:2:2 stems from interlace, and in such a system there are indeed valid reasons for not subsampling vertically, at least at the acquisition end of the chain.

For a progressive system all that goes away and it is far more sensible to have a symmetrical system - 4:2:0 or 4:4:4.

Ah, now 10 bit is a different matter. For most material 8 bit is fine, but it's when you get into the world of log curves and such that 10 bit really gets important. ----agreed, but I can still find I can push around the x70 XAVC-L 10-bit image much more, even in "standard" settings, with less chance of it falling apart.

It's also worth saying that 4:2:2/10 bit codecs have traditionally gone hand in hand with higher end codecs with higher bitrates, so less overall compression - and the latter can make a huge difference to how material may stand up in post. But such doesn't have the "headline" nature of "4:2:2", even though practically it may be the compression factor that is really making most difference.



It's 50 Mb/s, NOT MB/s - a very big difference! :-)

---I actually know this, so hold my head in shame, and thanks for the correction; see what occurs when typing something late into the evening after a couple of glasses of merlot.

Well, I'd be happy to take your bet! Of course, it depends on what the trial is, but on straightforward shooting/viewing - even on a very high quality monitor - I would be very, very surprised if anyone could tell the difference without extreme pixel peeping.

----Well, if there is ever a world tournament :-)

And to an extent depends what the format is. The whole rationale behind the existence of 4:2:2 stems from interlace, and in such a system there are indeed valid reasons for not subsampling vertically, at least at the acquisition end of the chain.

For a progressive system all that goes away and it is far more sensible to have a symmetrical system - 4:2:0 or 4:4:4.

----I don't pretend understand much of that in any depth (but promise to educate myself accordingly) - and with respect, I do trust what my eyes tell me; whenever I have seen footage 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0 even crushed somewhat on Vimeo, it positively pokes me in the eye. Or I could be seriously deluded. I do intend to do a series of blind comparisons on myself, since I respect your expertise. (I also have perfect pitch apparently, and a slightly mistuned piano causes much pain while every one else merrily bobs along oblivious to any discord.)

Ah, now 10 bit is a different matter. For most material 8 bit is fine, but it's when you get into the world of log curves and such that 10 bit really gets important. ---agreed, but I can still find I can push around the x70 XAVC-L 10-bit image much more, even in "standard" settings, with less chance of it falling apart.

It's also worth saying that 4:2:2/10 bit codecs have traditionally gone hand in hand with higher end codecs with higher bitrates, so less overall compression - and the latter can make a huge difference to how material may stand up in post. But such doesn't have the "headline" nature of "4:2:2", even though practically it may be the compression factor that is really making most difference.

----Thank you for your guidance. I have relied on DVinfo so much in the past to set me right, including your good self David, but I think I would to enjoy this camera, if only for the super 35mm sensor, 240 FPS slo-mo and swappable lenses. Fool and his money etc etc.

This was posted yesterday on Vimeo by someone in Italy. Sony FS5 on a Ronin M. He says it was shot in SLog2 (not yet sure if it was 1080p 10-bit or QFHD 8-bit).

Sony PXW-FS5 very quick test with Ronin M on Vimeo

I see this has now become a private video.

----I don't pretend understand much of that in any depth (but promise to educate myself accordingly) - and with respect, I do trust what my eyes tell me; whenever I have seen footage 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0 even crushed somewhat on Vimeo, it positively pokes me in the eye.

But the question I have to ask is have you ever seen a 4:2:0 v 4:2:2 comparison *with all else equal*? Same compression factors, obviously same camera ( :-) ), same everything else? Because if the answer is "no", then whilst you may indeed have seen a difference, then how can you definitively say it was due to colour space and not one of the other factors?

This is relevant as typically 4:2:2 may be more likely to come with lower overall compression and other "good" factors. So that codec may well show a real benefit, but not necessarily down to colour space. It's a bit like going to my favourite restaurant, who (unknown to me) buys all his lamb from a local high quality source which he has a good deal with, and all his beef from a more anonymous source. I don't eat meat anywhere else, so my conclusion is that "beef is a better meat than lamb". It's valid on the basis of my experience....... but.... :-)

And - was what you saw interlace or progressive? It is undoubtedly true that 4:2:2 is more suitable in the interlace world, though I'd expect that to be more the case further down a chain than on source material.

You have to ask yourself why, if it's OK to halve chroma resolution horizontally, then why is it not OK to halve it vertically? Because that's what is implied by demanding 4:2:2. And the answer, quite simply is interlace. Halving the samples is a bad idea when you think of the line structure of interleaving lines of the alternate fields. Move to progressive imagery and all that goes away.

........ but I think I would to enjoy this camera, if only for the super 35mm sensor, 240 FPS slo-mo and swappable lenses. Fool and his money etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put you off this camera, I've seen it and basically was pretty impressed by it. But the 4:2:2 aspect is pretty well down my list of reasons for thinking that....... It's certainly good if you're thinking of shooting HD interlace, but I can think of many more important factors to buy it for.

(Actually, I think I'd still overall go for the FS7 personally, but it's horses for courses and I do like the variable ND of the FS5. Very impressive. But if sheer small size and the ability to strip it down even smaller is of key importance then yes, it has to be the FS5.)

David - You have given me a lot to think about. I do appreciate you taking time to enlighten green-horns such as myself. There is probably some definitive Digital Video Engineer's Handbook I should be consulting, although Wikipedia is pretty good for most things. Anyway, I foresee an interesting learning curve ahead. The bottom line is, no, I haven't done a controlled comparison with all parameters being equal, as best as that may be possible to achieve. And I had not even factored in interlaced vs progressive, but I see your point in light of the way horizontal rastering works. Hmm...

Thanks again,
Terence

It's 50 Mb/s, NOT MB/s - a very big difference! :-)


----I don't pretend understand much of that in any depth (but promise to educate myself accordingly) - and with respect, I do trust what my eyes tell me; whenever I have seen footage 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0 even crushed somewhat on Vimeo, it positively pokes me in the eye.

Everything on Vimeo / Youtube / TV / Everywhere is 4:2:0. So even if someone shoots 4:4:4, by the time it reaches Vimeo, it will look exactly as anything shot in 4:2:0.

4:2:2 only really affects color edges and outlines (especially in animation).

Vimeo / YouTube / TV is < 8 mbps. So by that logic, we should abandon these 50 and 100 mbps codecs in favor of something that's 8 mbps because there's no sense in delivering more than that.

In reality, the latitude of color correcting and editing in a more generous color space is what we're after. Even if you compress it when you're done, you had it when you needed it.

Vimeo / YouTube / TV is < 8 mbps. So by that logic, we should abandon these 50 and 100 mbps codecs in favor of something that's 8 mbps because there's no sense in delivering more than that.
Two things. First, it's wrong to equate colour space with bitrate compression. Colour space is a very defined one thing or another matter. You either have chroma resolution equal to luminance or you don't. And if you don't, it's a defined ratio to it, end of story - bitrate compression is far more complex.

And as far as bitrate goes, then simple numbers don't tell anything like the whole story. What's the codec? Long-GOP or I-frame only? If long-GOP, what's the GOP length? How complex is the encoder, and is it able to do any sort of 2-pass encoding? Take all that into account, and it's PLAUSIBLE that something around 8Mbs COULD rival in quality terms the same material encoded at much higher bitrate. Plausible if the encoding used had access to a high level encoder, and could make use of tricks like 2-pass encoding, or the complexities found in a broadcast level hardware transmission coder.

But such is not likely to be found in a camcorder capable of working in near real time with power consumption limits, and yes, in principle you want acquisition to be capable of allowing for concatenation through the post and transmission process.
In reality, the latitude of color correcting and editing in a more generous color space is what we're after. Even if you compress it when you're done, you had it when you needed it.
Again, I agree with the broad sentiment, but where do you draw the line? Ideally, you don't want anything less than 4:4:4 uncompressed, if we take the argument to the limit? In practice, that's normally not feasible, and the datarate has to be drastically reduced.

So we're into the land of compromise. And if we decide to accept a degree of subsampling, then why 4:2:2? For a fixed datarate 4:2:0 will mean less samples - so a lower degree of data compression. And - arguably - the lower compression will make more difference than a higher colour space. Maybe. It comes back to the original point. 4:2:2 colour subsampling came about because of interlace TV, when it's usage is highly sensible. For progressive systems it's an anachronism. For most (progressive) use 4:2:0 is the best compromise, when the very best is needed it makes sense to go to 4:4:4. What's the point of accepting horizontal subsampling, but not vertical!?

Terence - to give you a little something else to think about, then the early digital component systems were 4:2:2, but it's interesting to think what happened when cheaper (digital) formats first came out. And the DV variants are the most obvious. They wanted to reduce the chroma sampling by 50% - but how to do it? Two obvious possibilities, either further reduce it by 50% horizontally, have one chroma sample per four luminance (which is 4:1:1) or halve the vertical chroma resolution (which is 4:2:0).

Initially, the decision was to do the former, and in the NTSC system all the DV formats are 4:1:1. The reason is that this can withstand repeated analogue-digital conversions much better than 4:2:0 (the latter tends to eventually give vertical chroma smearing) - and initially the recorders were seen as digital "islands" in an analogue world.

But that didn't last very long, and in the all-digital world 4:2:0 was rapidly seen as the better compromise. And because PAL equipment always came after NTSC equivalents, this enabled the spec for PAL DV and DVCAM to be set at 4:2:0 - not 4:1:1. (Sometimes it's better to be a little behind...... :-) ) This became even more significant as regarding all the delivery methods (DVD, digital broadcast etc) were specced to be 4:2:0. Start off with DV and 4:1:1, and the final result will be a worst case scenario approximating to "4:1:0". Not good! But in the PAL world, start off with DV, and it's 4:2:0 all the way.

What this meant was in NTSC territories, "4:2:2" was rightly seen as important - but because it gave a final true 4:2:0 and not "4:1:0"! Does that make sense? 4:2:2 was desired not because of what it was/is - but because it's NOT 4:1:1 ! :-)

Yes, that's all in the past, but with 4K, so is the whole concept of interlace, and so too should be 4:2:2. But old habits die hard.

I may have remembered it wrong...but I am sure I saw a video where someone (from Sony, I think) said that the FS5 does two-pass encoding. It got my interest as I thought this unusual in a camera - but if true highly desirable!

No, I remember something like that as well. I'd like to know the detail behind it, because two-pass encoding normally means having the entire material available to analyse before the actual encode - so bits get allocated to scenes which most need them. Easy enough if you're encoding such as a DVD and all the file is available - but on a camera, working in real time.......?

I can only think it must be using a buffer, and delaying encoding by the duration of the buffer, which would give a chance for limited forward analysis before the encode? But normally, I'd think two pass and real time coding to be exclusive?

David,

Found it! Watch from just after the 6-minute mark in this video, about 6 min 20 secs to be exact.

In this video Juan Martinez, Senior Product Manager of Sony clearly says that the Sony PXW-FS5 "uses dual-pass encoding so the quality is incredibly high...none of our competitors use this same technology...so even though it's still H.264 we can achieve a different level of performance."

I was very excited to hear this when I first watched this video some time ago. :-)

Newsshooter at IBC 2015 - Sony PXW-FS5 briefing on Vimeo

Roll call - to see how many FS5's we have on order in this forum. I have one on order, and as we creep closer to the end of October, I get antsier every day!

Ordered mine the day of the announcement.

Some new video today:

Sony PXW-FS5 very quick test with Ronin M on Vimeo

Nice colors, nice footage! Dynamic range seems to be pretty good in the corridors. Overall a good look.

It sold me as much on the Ronin M as it did the FS5. ;-)

Yes, the footage of the Ronin M was very impressive. The wide angle lens, less so, but the quality of the footage was very nice. Camera appears to mate well with the Ronin. It is a very versatile camera for its size and price.

Roll call - to see how many FS5's we have on order in this forum. I have one on order, and as we creep closer to the end of October, I get antsier every day!

I have two on order. Placed the order the first day possible. Wish I had them now -- on a week-long shoot in Arizona, and they sure would come in handy here.

Roll call - to see how many FS5's we have on order in this forum. I have one on order, and as we creep closer to the end of October, I get antsier every day!

I have one on order going to use it as a B camera to my FS7.

New FS5 Footage (it starts at 10:28 minutes to the end of the clip, while before, when the guy speaks there are just few seconds of footage) : SONY pxw-fs5 필드리뷰 (4K Ver.) - YouTube
Part Two: 소니 PXW-FS5 핸즈온 리뷰 (4K Ver.) - YouTube

Best Regards,

Danilo Del Tufo

Terrible footage - we all know this cam will be capable of far greater things than this...

Oh pshaw. We already know the pretty pictures will be beautiful. It's important to see what it'll look like with crappy lighting while hunting for focus. :-)

I will say that it seems to confirm what I already thought, which is that the 18-105 kit lens in 4K will leave something to be desired.

This will be my first WiFi camera. For those of you who have had something similar before... my hope is that I'll be able to hand an android tablet to the client, who can watch everything I'm shooting. From what I can tell, the app you run also has camera controls on it. Is there a way to disable those, so my bumbling client doesn't stop recording an interview in the middle?

I'm going to a workshop/presentation on the FS5 on friday, hosted by Alistair Chapman.

Any questions you'd like to be answered?

Yes please!

Despite at least two separate reports that the FS5 has a Wave Form Monitor, there have been other reports that there is no WFM - including by Alister (note the spelling) on his blog when he was reviewing an early pre-production FS5.

I use the WFM option on my C100 and/or Ninja Blade all the time and sure would miss it!

So will the production versions of the PXW-FS5 have a WFM...or not?

why is this one not posted on YouTube from sony
VideON | First Look At What The PXW-FS5K Can Do | XDCAM HD Products (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/video/channels-xdcam_hd_products/video-FirstLookAtWhatThePXWFS5KCanDo/)

Image looks pretty non video-like, same as the fs700, but i see some noice in the blacks...

Despite at least two separate reports that the FS5 has a Wave Form Monitor, there have been other reports that there is no WFM - including by Alister (note the spelling) on his blog when he was reviewing an early pre-production FS5.
Andy, I think I may have been guilty of misleading you on that one, as with hindsight I think I may have seen a histogram display rather than waveform. To be honest, I didn't pay it too much attention at the time (I normally rely on a dual zebra mode so wasn't very interested) - I just remembered a display being present. (To be honest I found it an irritation - blocking out some of the image - which is why I don't normally use a histogram or w/f display in the viewfinder.)

My apologies if I've created confusion.

What I would say is that at the time I was looking at it's low light behaviour in a very dark part of the room and (even with the kit lens, f4) although it was only on the LCD screen it seemed pretty stunning. I'd be interested to try it again in comparison with another camera and quality monitoring. It made me wonder just what it would be like with a fast prime...... :-)

I know it cannot do 4K 60P internally... :)

What are the high frame rates that it can do continuous? And in burst? And what is the burst duration?

I know it cannot do 4K 60P internally... :)What are the high frame rates that it can do continuous? And in burst? And what is the burst duration? Hi David, the frame rates are:
continuos 60fps in HD only, 120fps using full sensor full HD for 16 seconds, 240fps using full sensor full HD for 8 seconds.

Thank you, Danilo Del Tufo. Very helpful :)

Andy, I think I may have been guilty of misleading you on that one, as with hindsight I think I may have seen a histogram display rather than waveform. To be honest, I didn't pay it too much attention at the time (I normally rely on a dual zebra mode so wasn't very interested) - I just remembered a display being present. (To be honest I found it an irritation - blocking out some of the image - which is why I don't normally use a histogram or w/f display in the viewfinder.)

My apologies if I've created confusion.

What I would say is that at the time I was looking at it's low light behaviour in a very dark part of the room and (even with the kit lens, f4) although it was only on the LCD screen it seemed pretty stunning. I'd be interested to try it again in comparison with another camera and quality monitoring. It made me wonder just what it would be like with a fast prime...... :-)

No worries David. I will put it on my list to badger Sony about as a feature for inclusion in that future firmware upgrade (DCI, 12-bit Raw out, etc.).

Get some popcorn and say goodbye to your family. This one's a deep dive.

FS5 Livestream | VOCAS (http://www.vocas.nl/FS5)

Two and a half hours? I'll wait for the Reader's Digest version.

Two and a half hours? I'll wait for the Reader's Digest version.

That would be mine. No waveform monitor.

Very informative morning with Alister Chapman.

One very 'enlightening' example: I always thought a great dynamic range was good for low light shooting. It's actually the opposite. Shoot rec 709 when in low light! But for a high contrast low light scene (like a city street at night) shoot cinegamma for nice highlight rolloff. For scenes with a great dynamic range, shoot s-log.

I also understand you should probably not buy this camera if you want to do shoot a lot of S-Log. It is hard to work with s-log on the FS5 because you don't have the proper assistance tools to help judge what you're doing. (like a LUT-emulator for the monitor, for instance) The FS7 is much better equipped for that.

This is my simple understanding of a very elaborate and scientific explanation of the underlying principles of different gamma profiles by Alister. Correct me if I misunderstood!

My personal conclusion: I like this camera even more than before. Cinegamma and rec 709 will fulfill all my needs as a documentary maker, events filmer and whatever other projects come my way. (I don't do drama)

Watch the livestream- it will tell you a lot more- and better.

So does it have a waveform function or not? Seems like a strange thing to remove.

And is it really true that you can live stream your shooting via the WiFi functionality? If so, that's pretty huge, as adding a Teradek transmitter to the camera nearly doubles the weight. To be able to shoot without it is awesome. But do you have to transmit to a Teradek receiver, or what other devices can you stream directly to?

Also, is the built in focus magnification able to be used while recording?

I mentioned it a few posts ago: no waveform monitor! (Alister said it would probably become too fidgety on the small screen) It does have an extra function on the histogram whereby if you reach 70% zebra's (for instance) a marker appears like a straight line cutting through the histogram.

You need the Teradek receiver to livestream, as I understood it.

Focus magnification can not only be used during recording but can also be moved around! Very nice feature if you're doing a locked down interview, for instance, and want to see the face of your interviewee magnified.

Ah ok, sorry I missed your previous post about the waveform. That's a big disappointment though. I don't understand why they would not include one, as cameras of this size and price have had it for years.

Thanks for the additional info on the streaming and focus magnification.

Was there any discussion about the variable ND and iris control? From what I can tell, the same scroll wheel controls both. So if you are engaging the variable ND, does that mean you cannot change the iris and vice versa?

There's a toggle switch that controls that scroll wheel - Iris or ND. You can control one or the other at a time. It seems that with a quick flick of the finger, you could then modify the other.

BH has updated their website... "Expected availability: December 04 2015". For what that's worth. Perhaps Eric from Pro Video and Tape can tell us if that means the first units will ship on 12/4, or if pre-orders are expected to come before then.

And you can assign the ND function to the iris control on the handle.

New Sony PXW-FS5 Footage : A day with the FS5... - YouTube

Not much to learn there. What lens? What settings? Looks really flat (low contrast) to me. Creates more questions than answers.

I do like the dog, though. ;)

There's a toggle switch that controls that scroll wheel - Iris or ND. You can control one or the other at a time. It seems that with a quick flick of the finger, you could then modify the other.

BH has updated their website... "Expected availability: December 04 2015". For what that's worth. Perhaps Eric from Pro Video and Tape can tell us if that means the first units will ship on 12/4, or if pre-orders are expected to come before then.

Ok so switching from variND to iris control doesn't disengage the variND does it? Thanks for the info.

The video is pretty informative and it answers pretty much all of the questions I had. Looks like a great run and gun camera. I normally run with an external monitor with a Waveform built-in, so not having one in the camera is not a big deal. Its light weight and the variable ND are its biggest assets. The 4-2-0, 8 bit 4K are its biggest negatives; it is NOT a cinema camera, but for what I do, it will be great!

It doesn't mention this anywhere, but I think all cameras should have a tripod mounting plate..something that you can instantly click on or off.

Isn't that the 1/4-20 thread on the base?

Yes, all cameras have 1/4 20 tap on the base. What I was talking about is a tripod mounting plate like the VCT-14. You mount the plate on the tripod. To mount the camera on the plate, simply insert the front under the dovetail and click on. To remove the camera, pull one lever and lift. Simple as that. I wish all cameras had a similar option.

Is the FS-5 even long enough to use a VCT-14 and not look ridiculous?

Why not put a VCT-14 base on your FS-5 for $100 and not force it on everyone else?

Canon makes a TA-100 that is only the front dovetail on the VCT14. It is much lighter and works very well.
You can get VCT-14 front wedges to go on any camera for $59.00.

I used to use the VCT14 on all my cameras even the 5DmkII. Now I have switched to AcraSwiss style on all my cameras and I intend on using that on my FS5 as well. My Jibs, Sliders, all my tripods and my StediCam all use the same system now. So I have a whole bunch of used VCT-14 base plates leftover, I sold a couple already. Some users with full FS7 kits using the brick systems really still like the very quick and positive lock mechanism.

The Acra system is lighter and does not have the irritating slight rock that you only notice when using light cameras, the old ENG 20+ lb cams sat on there really solidly, that is what the VCT14 was designed for.

I switched when I started using FS700 and FS7 cameras. The weight saving on the tripod even over the smaller TA-100 base is quite amazing, and it grips your camera very tightly.