Slightly off topic, but had to share.

Just chatted about how to process the temporal motion of 1080i into high quality 1080p 60fps for YouTube audiences and the discussion immediately went to how "Why are professionals still recording interlaced?" and "Not a single modern camera should record interlaced."

As another key, another friend in the discussion still wanted 60 frames progressive temporal motion and blames 1080i as a "legacy" format and that it's obsolete and outdated...

With 4K 60 frames delayed by lack of ASIC processing logic in the energy efficent/lower cost market, and 1080p60 not a broadcast standard, how do you say as a professional why you can't record in 1080p 60 frames a second when consumer technology has leapfrogged broadcast backbones? You see the tough position I'm in where the "popular standard" is dictated by the pricing sweet spot and that is now unfortunately 4K 30p.

In a few years, you will be frowned upon for having a 4K 30p camera. Just like right now, you are frowned upon for having a 1080i camera when all the consumer tech has leapfrogged it.

$5000 is not and will never be an appropriate price point if you're limited to 30p. I said it before and I'll say it again. I hate having to explain how to de-interlace to people that expect a full progressive workflow.

We get it. You want 4k60p. This camera doesn't have it.

Jack, I feel your pain but I think you are mixing too many genres. Consumer will never be broadcast but broadcast is slowly losing its grip. My approach is why do I want to have to shoot in any given format? Match the framerate for the best end objective. The resolution is kind of secondary imho.

All of the hype up of 4k is making me nauseous, Consumers get hung up on the numbers or megapixels and resolution because the marketers make it out to be the big deal. When in the end, it really only works if the camera gets plugged directly into a TV. Outside of that there is not much throughout the delivery chain that will keep it truly "4k". Maybe someday but not yet. So trying to appease these spec-focused people is kind of a fools errand, at least from a professional point of view. Imho 1080p will be relevant for many years. I have customers that get wowed by 720p... Just tell them quality is more important than quantity.

To your post, why can't you shoot in 1080p60? If you are shooting for a broadcast show then you would not be talking to consumers for your shooting format. And the opposite applies if you were shooting a skateboard video. As professionals, we are always thinking about delivery, where consumers are thinking about acquisition and having fun. So mix the two. That is the beauty of progressive formats. Shoot in 1080p60 and deliver in another format.

There are cameras out and coming out that shoot 4k60p. I guess the Fs5 is not on the list but do you have clients that are paying you to shoot in 4k or 4k60p? If not then view this era as still in transition where these cameras are the height of 1080p acquisition with a dabble into 4k acquisition. Takes a lot of pressure off. If you do have paying 4k clients then you can charge accordingly for being on the leading edge to buy or rent a camera that fits the goals.

When I see the encoding times for 4k material I want to wait just for Intel to make some faster processors! 1080p to mp4 is long enough.

I understand Jacks point of view for 4K60P ( UHD ) if the desired picture quality is smooth motion just like 60i. Same temporal motion so the equivalent for HD or 4K(UHD) of 60i is 60P. If one wants 4K( UHD ) to crop and pan/zoom to 1080HD then to maintain that smooth motion one would need to start with 4K60p. Which is my need for acquisition with absolutely no intention of 4K ( UHD ) final export in the foreseeable future. Used this way on a 1080 timeline, it is possible to pan and zoom ( to a HD image ) in precise fashion just not possible in manual mode during the shoot. I have a FDR-AX1 and this approach works just fine but not in all lighting conditions. I too would like a camera ( with the same sort of specs ) but with a better sensor. The DVX200 is close but is handicapped by not having a good wide angle when in UHD 60P mode, the very point the camera will be used most of the time for me.

Ron Evans

To your post, why can't you shoot in 1080p60? If you are shooting for a broadcast show then you would not be talking to consumers for your shooting format. And the opposite applies if you were shooting a skateboard video. As professionals, we are always thinking about delivery, where consumers are thinking about acquisition and having fun. So mix the two. That is the beauty of progressive formats. Shoot in 1080p60 and deliver in another format.

Because my equipment was from before there was a proper broadcast quality codec for 1080p60, and was an industry powerhouse when it came out in 2009. I love XDCAM EX, but I have to restrict myself to 1080i if I want the temporal motion of 60i and still retain 1080 horizontal lines.

To solve my problems for YouTube, I process 1080i first in FFmpeg using "-vf yadif=1" This adds to encode time, but produces a really high quality result. The objection my friends have was why not have native progressive and save this hassle? Cause the camera's too old to to do it and Broadcast chose not to adopt 1080p60 in time for my camera. It's so frustrating cause it's totally not a valid excuse for broadcast not to adopt 1080p60 at this point, but they're opting to skip straight to 4K60p... So there's this gaping hole in broadcast standards that nobody is ever going to use and will be instant vaporware. What adds to the frustration is YouTube filled in that gap recently, but no professional is going to standardize a posting process for web services into something like a SMPTE or ISO standard.

Jack, you worry too much about techno-blabla almost no client understands.
I shoot 1080p25 (I'm in Europe) all the time. Depending on the project, also with an EX1R.
No client ever said to me: "Too bad it isn't as smooth as 50i."

It's sometimes easy to forget, but only people into filmmaking are pixelpeepers.
Clients don't care about such info.
They want great videos that makes them feel good, make the phone ring or sell their products.
Working on camera, editing and storytelling skills will do more for your business than dreaming and complaining about a format your camera doesn't shoot or overcomplicating your workflow while most people don't notice the difference.

I have total peace with 25fps :-)
As soon the FS5 can be rented, I'll be testing it for sure!

I've have one question (completely sidetracking the topic):
if I need a filmmaker/videographer in Canada: why should I pick you?

Okay, I know it's probably a dumb question . . . but . . . I have a shelf full of Nikon glass from the last 40 years. I've used some of it on the FS700 for several years. Works great.

Now that I have two FS5 cameras on order, I'm thinking about getting some Canon glass so I can use the autofocus (at times) option.

Question: Will the Tokina AT-X 11-16 autofocus on the FS5? Which adaptor do I need? I have one Metabones (don't have it here to check the model) we use sometimes when a freelance videographer we hire prefers to use his Canon glass. I'm just not sure what I need to get autofocus to work on the FS5.

Thanks for putting up with the basic question.

I think the official answer is that we don't know yet. Last I heard, the Metabones adapters worked pretty well with Canon glass and so-so with 3rd party glass. Until you compare your exact lens with the same Metabones and a particular camera, I do not think there is a way to tell.

Is it the end of November yet? I'm antsy.

<Is it the end of November yet? I'm antsy.>

I know what you mean! Looking forward to getting them. I did get the kit lens with both bodies. I also have adaptors for Canon and Nikon lenses, so we'll be good from the beginning. Just trying to figure out how to maximize the utility of the FS5.

<Is it the end of November yet? I'm antsy.>

I know what you mean! Looking forward to getting them. I did get the kit lens with both bodies. I also have adaptors for Canon, Nikon and Leica M lenses, so we'll be good from the beginning. Just trying to figure out how to maximize the utility of the FS5.

Hmmm. Wish there were an adaptor for using the Fuji X lenses on the E mount.

......Broadcast chose not to adopt 1080p60 in time for my camera. It's so frustrating cause it's totally not a valid excuse for broadcast not to adopt 1080p60 at this point, but they're opting to skip straight to 4K60p... So there's this gaping hole in broadcast standards ............
Jack, what you have to appreciate is that as far as broadcast is concerned, standards are not set lightly, and once they are a change is a really big issue.

It's all down to legacy issues. At any time, there will be literally millions of receivers in a country - every one of them expecting to receive a signal adhering to certain defined standards. If a broadcaster puts something out that doesn't meet the spec - it doesn't get seen. So whilst I appreciate your basic point ("it would be better if 1080p/60(50) was transmitted than 1080i/30(25)" ) - there is absolutely no point in any broadcaster doing such if no receiver on the market can make use of it.

That may seem an excuse for inertia, but advancement does happen - just don't think it can be a light decision when any broadcaster has to consider the millions of receivers any change may affect - effectively rendering them obsolete. It's also likely to lead to a period when major channels need to be simulcast on the new and old standards - as in the UK at the moment all the major channels are HD, but they are also simulcast in SD. (And it's not that long since analogue transmissions were switched off, ending the digital/analogue simulcasting.) And because a specification change has such big implications, it's sensible to not do incremental changes often.

Hence I'm in full agreement with the decision to leapfrog 1080p/50 and wait until 4K standards are set before making the next change. I actually think it's more likely to be 2160p/100(120) than 60p, and incorporate higher dynamic range and bitdepth standards as well, but that remains to be seen. (Note that setting such defines the MINIMUM requirements all receivers have to meet - a box specced to such should also be capable of decoding such as lower framerates, and resolutions such as 50p, 25p, and HD resolutions. The same as a current HD broadcast receiver will also receive SD.)

Yes, you may have a point if you say it's a shame the current spec doesn't include 1080p/50(60), and yes, I'd agree. But at some point a line had to be drawn, a standard finalised, and waiting for technology to mature sufficiently to include 50p would have meant a significant delay to the start of HD broadcasting. It wasn't simply the decoding chips in the receiver, or bandwidth issues (50p doesn't need much more bandwidth than 25p in a long-GOP system) but the availability at the time of studio equipment, and don't forget that a 50p uncompressed signal is 3Gbs, as opposed to the 1.5Gbs of 1080i/25 or 1080p/25. That has big implications for such as SDI cabling.

What am I supposed to say? Stop asking for 60p and get out?
.........................

Yes, if clients don't want to pay you tell them "get outta here!"
Zulu Alpha Kilo – Spec | #saynotospec - YouTube

If they want you to make Lord of the Rings part 4, they will have to pay for it.
If they want 60p, you tell them: "That can be done, but it will cost you this..."
If they say: "I only want to/can pay this....", you say: "In that case I would be losing money doing this job and since I can't ask the supermarket to give me money to use there products I can't afford to pay you to let me work for you." and point out was actually is possible (if there is something possible for that budget): "However, what I can do with that budget is:....."



Sorry, the "30p is fine" argument is one that really pisses me off, both in video gaming and video production.

Why does it piss you off?

In the real world it is good enough for most clients.
And I can tell you, you won't get more jobs or clients because you can shoot 60p.
Ask yourself: would my showreel look better and attract more clients if it was shot in 60p?

When "good enough" is all you can accept, some think of that as admitting of defeat.
.................................

Perfect exists in a perfect world :-p
Often 'good enough' really is good enough.
While you wait for the perfect camera, everybody else is working on their projects...

Also, keep in mind, once 60p is available in your price range, 120p (and 5k, or 6k, or 8k) will be available at 50% more than your price range, and you will covet that instead of 60p.

If you look back at the annals of history of videography, never has so much been possible at so little cost. Don't focus on the lack of an obcure technical spec. Focus on the possibilities.

Funny thing,
Last time a client requested (and I delivered) a shoot in 1080/60p it turned out that the edit system that was being used couldn't handle the 60p. So everything had to be transcoded to a format they could accept!

Walter, so you're basically telling a fresh graduate that I have to be a dick in order to get the gigs I'm supposed to get? I work with conventions that run entirely on volunteer staff, so to ask money of them is like being the biggest asshole to them and meaning I would instantly be shunned.

I tried that, I tried to swap a unnecessary VideoHub with a ATEM 1 M/E 4K by telling someone to purchase the equipment I actually need, and you know what the rest of my convention staff did? They shunned me. They're like "What a dick for trying to say what equipment someone else should buy..." and my relationship with these conventions needs to be kept cause that's my only unpaid work at the moment.

Those that can deal without networking to get gigs can find it so much easier, but ALL of my gigs are through networking. I ruin those, I have zero gigs and all the effort I took to get at least SOME work would be for not.

I HAVE NO OTHER WORK.

I think this was mentioned in another thread, but again, that's a marketing problem, not a camera issue. As a terrible networker myself, I sympathize. NONE of my gigs are from "networking" (don't really even understand what it means. . .conjures up visions of me going to industry mixers and other places and desperately handing business cards to everyone while saying "Hi. Josh Bass. Cameraographer. Please for the love of Jesus hire me."). Nope. Can't do it. All my work is from either other work (get hired one gig, different people on the crew remember you and hire you for something else), my ads on websites (many many sites out there to put up a FREE profile on with a link to your reel), or applying to (GASP) Craigslist and Mandy ads, and similar sites. Not many of those, but a few.

If the only clients you have don't pay well AND demand things you can't deliver without paying MORE? Those are bad clients for you, I would say useful only to get material for a reel to show better prospective clients, and once you have that, move on. I'm sorry that's your only work. It's better than nothing, I guess, but if you have to keep spending more and more money to get better gear to keep getting the same low-paying gigs, IS IT really better? That makes no business sense. I would think the idea is to make back the money you spend on gear as quickly as possible and then be making profit. That doesn't sound like what's happening for you.

I don't know your market or how to help but I would say that you can't continue down this road (low paying clients, buying more gear to keep working for them--paying to work, in essence) for too long before it all collapses in on itself.

Walter, so you're basically telling a fresh graduate that I have to be a dick in order to get the gigs I'm supposed to get? I work with conventions that run entirely on volunteer staff, so to ask money of them is like being the biggest asshole to them and meaning I would instantly be shunned.

No, I'm telling you you need to manage their expectations and be honest about possibilities. And guard your bounderies. You are not a dick if you say that you can't afford to do that gig, because it will cost you too much. If you say 'no' to a gig you don't want or can't do, you're not a dick, you are honest.
I saw you mention your clients always low ball you. Say no for a change and tell them why that is not reasonable. Some will go search somewhere else (and most won't make a video at all, because they want too cheap), others will respect you more and learn to understand why you are worth your price.
Doing business should be about mutual respect.

(I've said no to gigs more than once. Often they tried "but they only charge this" and my reply was "if you don't see the difference in quality you should hire them, but I can't deliver my quality and concept at their rate." Or I had to explain to them that working for 2 days and to travel abroad to shoot with multiple cameras can't be done within their budget if I only make €10,- after I pay all my gig related expences.)

If they say : "we want 60p" (I wonder where they got that idea from?) you have to explain that that is only possible if they would have the budget for it, but since they apparently don't have it, you will have to tell them what IS possible instead and that 30p (and 25p) is fine. It's being used by even the largest multinationals in the world. Companies that can easily afford 60p, but to them 30p is good enough.

Let go of that idea of subconscience temporal movement... it is at it is right now. The future will come soon enough.


I tried that, I tried to swap a unnecessary VideoHub with a ATEM 1 M/E 4K by telling someone to purchase the equipment I actually need, and you know what the rest of my convention staff did? They shunned me. They're like "What a dick for trying to say what equipment someone else should buy..."


Never tell someone to buy anything, just point out the options and give advice. "If you want this result, you'll need this..."
My question to you is: do they really want 60p? and do they really need what they want?
and do you really need 60p?
Why would you need an ATEM 1 M/E 4K if you use 1 EX1R?


and my relationship with these conventions needs to be kept cause that's my only unpaid work at the moment.

Those that can deal without networking to get gigs can find it so much easier, but ALL of my gigs are through networking. I ruin those, I have zero gigs and all the effort I took to get at least SOME work would be for not.

I HAVE NO OTHER WORK.

This is a marketing problem, not a 60fps problem or a broadcast standard problem.
Yes, you should always cherish good relationships with (potential) clients.
But since this way of networking seems to only slowly get you work, you need to change something. Network in other places and/or change the way you do the networking.
You are fresh graduate. I was once too. I graduated as an audioviual designer, learnt a lot about writing, filming, directing and editing. But then I had to learn to network and be an entrepeneur.

Let me tell you a secret:

EVERYONE gets their gigs through networking in one way or another.

How do you network on these conventions?
Show up, film, go home, edit and deliver?
Or do you actually talk to people, listen to what they do and love, exchange business cards, stay connected through Linkedin, ask if you can add them to your newsletter (which you send only a few times a year to keep it fun and interesting), etcetera? If you have connections you know pretty well, you can ask them to introduce you to people you'd like to have as a client.
Do you have a website with a portfolio?
Do you use social media to share what you are doing?
Do you have a blog to share your experiences? (You don't have to, but it is a way to showcase you are an expert. Just don't write like a dick who knows it all ;-) )

To get the work you want, it can help to create something to reflect what you want and/or can do.
It's almost christmas, so you could make a cool and funny christmas video to send to your family, friends and network. This will stand out, will show them what you can do and might trigger actual inquiries.
I made such videos for years, because it is fun to make something creative and because it put me in people's minds as the creative filmmaker to go to.
Last year and this year I don't have the time for it: paid work takes all my time now.

And there is another secret: if you go to a business network, everybody is there to meet new and known connections. This means it is not strange to talk to strangers. It's like going to the pub without the risk of a broken heart ;-)
Go there with no expections, but to meet people.
Try to connect with the people you meet, stay in touch, turn them into fans of your work and they might recommend you to others. This can take some time, because it is like farming: you'll have to plant seeds first, before you can get the fruits of your networking.

One last question:
what kind of gigs would you like to do?

I think this was mentioned in another thread, but again, that's a marketing problem, not a camera issue. As a terrible networker myself, I sympathize. NONE of my gigs are from "networking" (don't really even understand what it means. . .conjures up visions of me going to industry mixers and other places and desperately handing business cards to everyone while saying "Hi. Josh Bass. Cameraographer. Please for the love of Jesus hire me."). Nope. Can't do it. All my work is from either other work (get hired one gig, different people on the crew remember you and hire you for something else), my ads on websites (many many sites out there to put up a FREE profile on with a link to your reel), or applying to (GASP) Craigslist and Mandy ads, and similar sites. Not many of those, but a few.
.................

Except for the advertising, all the other things are networking: you are connecting to people in a way they remember you.
Just handing out business cards is not really networking: that is more like spamming.
The business card is only a small part of 'the dance' of face to face networking.

:-p

Just to try and get this thread back to focussing on the new FS5...

So far, all I can find is likely "early Dec" shipping date mentioned on some websites - I was hoping for mid-November ;-)

Anyone got any more concrete info than that?

On B&H I saw 4 december as expected shipping date.

It is not the gear, it is the creativity and the craftsmanship that is important. If a client wants specific gear then I rent it and they pay for it. If they don't have the budget, then we use something else and I have never have had a client say they won't use me because I don't have a particular camera. I am still using an EX1r and an AF100 and making very nice programs that clients like. Both cameras are not IN anymore, but still produce nice images if you use them as they were intended and understand their strengths.

The FS5 intrigues me, because I have a lot of Nikon glass I can use with it and I love how small and lightweight it is.

As for networking, that is simply enlarging your network of people who can help you get known. You don't need a lot of clients. You need a couple of good ones who will keep coming back to you. You can use them as a base and build clients slowly and methodically, making sure that you produce good work that meets your clients needs. Listen carefully to what they want and work well with them. People like to work with people they get along with, so you need to cultivate your social skills as much as you camera skills.

Walter, so you're basically telling a fresh graduate that I have to be a dick in order to get the gigs I'm supposed to get? I work with conventions that run entirely on volunteer staff, so to ask money of them is like being the biggest asshole to them and meaning I would instantly be shunned.

I tried that, I tried to swap a unnecessary VideoHub with a ATEM 1 M/E 4K by telling someone to purchase the equipment I actually need, and you know what the rest of my convention staff did? They shunned me. They're like "What a dick for trying to say what equipment someone else should buy..." and my relationship with these conventions needs to be kept cause that's my only unpaid work at the moment.

Those that can deal without networking to get gigs can find it so much easier, but ALL of my gigs are through networking. I ruin those, I have zero gigs and all the effort I took to get at least SOME work would be for not.

I HAVE NO OTHER WORK.

Through the years I have made a lot of money by saying "no."

I have made even more money by quoting a price that was above what I thought they would pay.

When someone says, "We don't have much money now, but if you work for us for free/cheap, we'll remember you when we have bigger budgets," they really mean, "When we have more money, we'll remember that you work for peanuts, and we'll go find someone who is actually good."

BTDT, too. ;)

At its core, it's a business. Making videos is but a part of the business.

Always be selling. Sell yourself. Market yourself. Promote yourself. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Just chatted about how to process the temporal motion of 1080i into high quality 1080p 60fps for YouTube audiences and the discussion immediately went to how "Why are professionals still recording interlaced?" and "Not a single modern camera should record interlaced."

And they were absolutely right!! Interlaced is a tool of the devil and needs to be exercised from this world. :-)

And they were absolutely right!! Interlaced is a tool of the devil and needs to be exercised from this world. :-)

But to support Jack if one wants the smooth motion of 60 ( 59.94 ) exposures a second then that is 60 ( 59.94 ) P. Full circle !! The equivalent of 60i in todays world is 60P not 30P. Don't get confused thinking 29.97 frames a second interlace is the same as 30P. They unfortunately have the same timecode. 60i shoots 59.94 exposures a second just like 60P they are just half the vertical resolution. Interlace sync pulse and timecode increment every 2 fields to let the CRT TV's etc now when the field sequence starts hence the timecode for 60i is 29.97 frames a second.

To support Jack 1920x1080P60 is not supported on Bluray or much else. For me too the progression to 4K or UHD should also be 60P ( 59.94 for the purists ) 30P has been adopted for much the same reason interlace was adopted. Money and technology. Needs lots of compute power to process 60p compared to 30P so the cameras etc are a lot lower cost for 30P than 60P and they don't get too hot !!! Also gives the companies differentiation opportunities even if the technology can do 60P or faster. In Sony's case they do have the technology ( FDR-AX1, PXW-Z100, FS7 etc, etc ) and it may well be in the FS5 already !!! Future firmware update or new version to sell !!

Ron Evans

All of that technical information is true, but it makes no difference in the end. Interlaced at any frame rate is outdated technology and I don't care for the look of, or see the need for, 60P.

All of that technical information is true, but it makes no difference in the end. Interlaced at any frame rate is outdated technology and I don't care for the look of, or see the need for, 60P.

I agree that interlace is out of date technology but for me frame rate is important to indicate content. Lots of early work identified that frame rates less than 48fps gave the impression of fiction hence fine for shooting stories etc. In part used to justify 24fps for film. Frame rates above 48 fps were perceived as indicating something real. An attempt to record the real thing as if the viewer were there. So one could say that documentaries and events should be shot at frames rates above 48 fps since they intend to portray what is real. So you can see my concern when commercials are shot at 24fps !! Is the content real or are we being deceived. Psychologically we are perceiving the slower frame rate as fiction !! One size does not fit all. Frame rate is part of the project. Personally I do not like slow frame rates they upset my old eyes with the judder and motion artifacts. Have my Sony 240hz TV set to smooth things out as much as possible. I shoot everything 60i or 60P and finish in 60i for DVD and Bluray. I would like it to stay 60P and look forward to the day when that is possible.

Ron Evans

Ron,

Everyone is welcome to have their own personal preferences, but let me point out that you're telling us what YOU like as a consumer. Isn't this forum really geared to professional discussions about producing and delivering content? What you personally like as a consumer should take a backseat to what the client and/or audiences prefer. And clearly your personal preferences put you in the minority. Ever see reviews of the Hobbit in 48 fps? The fact is, clients and audiences prefer the look of progressive 24P and 30P over faster frame rates. That may change someday, but not anytime soon. Whether you like it or not, high frame rates and/or interlaced video have the stigma of local news, home movies, soap operas, cheap productions, and stuff of that ilk. So as a consumer you are welcome to have whatever preferences you want, but as a professional creators of content we have to think about what will be most acceptable and financially rewarding to produce and display. I stand by my assertion that that is 24P or 30P and nothing else (right now) for all types of content -- including documentaries. Not to mention all the technical issues that come with recording 60P and editing interlaced. Life is so easy @ 24P and 30P.

Not trying to argue with you, just having a discussion. :-)

agree! so weird when people are trying to shoot in 60p for anything but that which really benefits from super smooth motion (fast moving sports?). When I see people saying they shoot all their interviews etc. in 60p, I ask (generally not out loud) WHY????

Doug, I am not wanting to alter you view which is pretty fixed !! My comments only apply to science. You need high frame rates for fast motion so all sports on TV are 60P. Because of the specs that is 720P60 in the main. Same is true for news events as camera movements cannot be controlled like a film set and rapid camera movement would lead to the audience getting sick !!! I am not arguing at all of using slow frame rates for fiction if you read my previous posts. Not something I really like as a lot of the time these days it is produced badly with video camera motion rather than film motion leading to excessive judder etc. All in the name of shooting at 24P. Pointing to the inexperience of the crew involved. As to 30P that is also not fully supported by disc specs so has to be embedded into 60i most of the time for distribution in all but internet media .

All my projects are events so in my mind dictate a fast frame rate for realism. My aim is to make it look as if the viewer is looking through a window or is sat in the audience. If your projects are shooting fiction then use whatever frame rate you want to that conveys the mood of the film. All I am wanting to point out is that there is no such thing as THE frame rate. Just depends on what you are shooting and the emotion you want to convey in the finished product. Do you want it to look "real" or "fiction". As to the Hobbit I seem to think that it was shot at 48fps so that in 3D each eye could see a 24P image. Not sure I read many viewers comments most seem to be from the industry itself. Friends who saw it thought it was great. But as to my earlier post 48 would be right on the limit of "real" so not exactly a frame rate to create the impression of fiction.

I also repeat that if you want to convince someone that what you are telling them is real then use a high frame to do it. Before you tell me most commercials are shot at 24P-----do you believe them !!


Ron Evans

........ for me frame rate is important to indicate content. Lots of early work identified that frame rates less than 48fps gave the impression of fiction hence fine for shooting stories etc. In part used to justify 24fps for film. Frame rates above 48 fps were perceived as indicating something real.
Yes, 24/25 fps has a different "look" to 50/60 fps, but I think it's a leap to then say the higher frame rates inherently indicate something is "real".

I think a lot may depend of experience (as viewer, not producer) and I'm old enough to have grown up when all the location news reports on TV were film (and 25fps). Not for a moment would I have said that didn't make them seem real. And in the UK in a similar period (70's, 80's) TV drama was as likely to be electronic (50fps) as film (so 25fps), so to me I don't have a problem with high frame rate for story telling. I appreciate it may have been different in such as the States where drama was most likely to mean film, and ENG was used for news much earlier than in the UK. What I'm saying is that it comes down to past experience - not that any particular framerate has any "magical" appeal.

As for the days even before I was born (let alone watching TV! :-) ) then in the 1930's all cinema was 24fps - stories, documentaries and newsreels - I strongly suspect audiences weren't confused by the 24 fps nature when watching newsreels to think they were fiction.

In the very early days of cinema, I believe around 40fps was considered the minimum desired initially. But film cost, wear and tear of celluloid if ran too fast ,and such factors were incentives to try to run the film as slow as possible - and the invention of the three bladed shutter meant that rates of around 16-20fps could be seen as OK for motion with the flicker problem solved. 24fps only came about with sound - the speed HAD to be standardised to avoid wow and flutter, and had to be increased to get a usable frequency response with the optical tracks of the day. The film makers would have much preferred a higher speed from day one of the talkies - 24fps was the choice of the people paying for film stock! (And with 60Hz synchronous motors, it made engineering sense to make it a simple mathematical relationship, let alone that 24 frames was exactly 1 1/2 feet of 35mm film.)

Quote: "As to 30P that is also not fully supported by disc specs so has to be embedded into 60i most of the time for distribution in all but internet media . "

I just want to address this comment. As I'm sure you know, but others may not, 30P converted to 60i still looks exactly like 30P and that is why most distribution methods don't bother with a 30P option. It's not needed. Shooting at 24P and 30P is what is important, the distribution method isn't critical.

I'm not an expert on sports broadcasting and hardly ever waste time watching sports, but I'd be surprised if you could backup your claim that . . . "all sports on TV are 60P. Because of the specs that is 720P60 in the main."

I'm pretty sure that NBC and CBS are 1080i unless they changed recently. But what about NFL films? Do you think they are shooting 720/60P or 1080i. Not a chance. And their images blow the broadcast images from the same games out of the water. And what about every action feature film you've ever seen (except for the Hobbit), didn't 24P look good enough? This idea that only 60P or 60i are good enough for action is silly.

Yes I stand corrected for sports because my mind was on progressive format and in that case it is of course only 720P60 that is available. Doesn't matter whether its 1080i or 720P60 they are both exposing 60 exposures a second ( 59.94 ) My point is the exposure rate, interlaced or progressive has the same temporal motion.

Doug you clearly think that 24 or 30 is enough , I do not and I do not think we will change each others mind on this topic. Do you not see the judder in the slow frame rate images ? Or is that what you like ?
I expect you do not like 60 because it is too real, in your face and does not have the not quite real motion of the slower frame rates.

Each to his own viewpoint.

The frame rate study was I believe, as part of the analysis to decide on film rate before talking/sound on film that eventually was economically decided at 24fps. Based I think on how close the frame rate approached reality. In today's vocabulary a set of focus groups !! To support David comment I believe the engineers wanted somewhere in the region of 40fps, audio needed at least 24fps and the economics set the rate there. So there is nothing magical about 24 it just happens to be the slowest frame rate that was economically acceptable. If film stock had been cheaper it may have been higher.

Ron Evans

...........If film stock had been cheaper it may have been higher.



I don't think so, because it would still be 24 fps that was the cheapest option...

Are you really saying you would believe commercials if they were shot at 60fps?
It may look more life-like, but the viewer will always now (s)he is watching a commercial on a screen. And the content will always be more relevant for the credebility and suspence of disbelieve than framerate.
I think 100 years of cinema has shown how believable the medium is and how much impact it has without (4K) 60fps.
(I'm not saying things can not be better: technology improves every day.)

The frame rate study was I believe, as part of the analysis to decide on film rate before talking/sound on film that eventually was economically decided at 24fps. Based I think on how close the frame rate approached reality. In today's vocabulary a set of focus groups !! To support David comment I believe the engineers wanted somewhere in the region of 40fps, audio needed at least 24fps and the economics set the rate there.
I think the early criteria were very much on a basis of "what's the minimum we can get away with?" than any pure aesthetic criteria....! ( :-) ) In the very early days the "focus group" may have just been a case of trying different rates until people no longer got headaches! So 40fps with no projector shutter is still likely to have given a flicker level that would be intolerable by todays standards. I suspect Edison's team would have preferred higher, but lines have to be drawn somewhere....

Come the three bladed shutter and the flicker problem goes away independently of frame rate. The early pioneers COULD have still used 40fps and a two bladed shutter for excellent results..... they went to 16-20fps and a three blade shutter purely because any lower ceases to look like moving images and starts to look like a succession of still images.

And come sound it was again set purely on a basis of being a minimum necessary, not because it was ever seen to give optimum aesthetics. In the 20's it was a sensible compromise between cost, performance and quality with the technology of the day. If it hadn't been for the problems, it's almost certain it would have been higher - 24fps needs to be seen for what it was, a very sensible compromise of the 1920's between quality and cost and practicality.
So there is nothing magical about 24 it just happens to be the slowest frame rate that was economically acceptable. If film stock had been cheaper it may have been higher.
Yes, but not just cost of film stock, you have to think of factors such as the amount of wear on the film the faster it has to go through the gate, and the mechanics of around 100 years ago. And if that wasn't enough, if 60fps had been settled on, it would mean each film would need 2 1/2 times as many cans of film - with all the extra transport, storage issues that would bring. (And if 1,000ft reels had still been the standard, the poor projectionist having to do a reel change roughly every 4 minutes!! :-) )

All that said, I'm not denying that now many people do indeed feel the 24fps "look" aids a story telling narrative, but any debate then becomes one of nature versus nurture. Do they feel that way because of anything innate - or because of being conditioned to associate 24fps with a story narrative? Personally, I believe the latter. There's nothing magical about 24fps per se, but because people have grown up with it for narrative they expect it.

To get back on topic: the FS5 can shoot 24p, 30p and 60p in HD :-p

To get back on topic: the FS5 can shoot 24p, 30p and 60p in HD :-p

Absolutely. But this whole set of comments were started purely about UHD not HD and I am guilty of moving topic off to frame rates !! Started by Jack who would like the FS5 to have UHD 60P as would I . Yes I too agree with what David is saying.

For background I shoot theatre and dance. Normally 3 or 4 cameras. I have FDR-AX1 that shoots UHD60P full stage shot ( when the event has enough light ) I then crop/pan/zoom on a HD timeline and this has worked well but performance in low light is very poor so I would like a large sensor camera to do the same with in the future. Other cameras are NX5U ( which only shoots 60i ), NX30U and AX100. Would love a FS7 but by the time I get all the necessary lens and batteries a little expensive for this task. When the FS5 was rumored I was hoping for an EA50 with the same sort of spec as my FDR-AX1. Maybe that will come.

Ron Evans

Updated info on FS5 shipping date and a few other things...

Sony FS5 Update – Shipping this month, new firmware in January, and new video gives designer?s insights (http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/11/13/sony-fs5-update-shipping-this-month-new-firmware-in-january-and-new-video-gives-designers-insights/)

This update makes me wonder: when shooting HD: can the screen be used together with the HDMI/SDI?
That is quite handy for live purposes and to record with a Ninja.
I like the see camera info on the camera screen while outputting a clean signal.

I wondered that as well. The way it is written it is specifically referring to what happens when recording 4K internally - but no mention of HD (which I expect I will be using mostly, at least initially). So let's hope for the best!

Otherwise I think Sony are going to get a lot of flack about this restriction.

Adorama says (on their FS5 product page), "Manufacturer will start shipping this item on 11/15/2015. Orders will be filled on a first come first serve basis."

Absolutely. But this whole set of comments were started purely about UHD not HD and I am guilty of moving topic off to frame rates !! Started by Jack who would like the FS5 to have UHD 60P as would I . Yes I too agree with what David is saying.
Ron Evans

Well I guess these are commercial decisions made by Sony. If they can implement it in this camera and they see some kind of demand for that that won't rob from the FS7/700 market they might. But it probably is a product differentiator as much as a technical limitation.


For background I shoot theatre and dance. Normally 3 or 4 cameras. I have FDR-AX1 that shoots UHD60P full stage shot ( when the event has enough light ) I then crop/pan/zoom on a HD timeline and this has worked well but performance in low light is very poor so I would like a large sensor camera to do the same with in the future. Other cameras are NX5U ( which only shoots 60i ), NX30U and AX100. Would love a FS7 but by the time I get all the necessary lens and batteries a little expensive for this task. When the FS5 was rumored I was hoping for an EA50 with the same sort of spec as my FDR-AX1. Maybe that will come.

Ron Evans

You can generally intercut 1080i and 1080P (or resized UHD progressive) footage without too many dramas. Especially a lock off where you're not panning etc. Motion blur will normally take care of most judder artifacts in that situation. YMMV

Okay, I know it's probably a dumb question . . . but . . . I have a shelf full of Nikon glass from the last 40 years. I've used some of it on the FS700 for several years. Works great.

Now that I have two FS5 cameras on order, I'm thinking about getting some Canon glass so I can use the autofocus (at times) option.

Question: Will the Tokina AT-X 11-16 autofocus on the FS5? Which adaptor do I need? I have one Metabones (don't have it here to check the model) we use sometimes when a freelance videographer we hire prefers to use his Canon glass. I'm just not sure what I need to get autofocus to work on the FS5.

Thanks for putting up with the basic question.

Terribly hit and miss, and too many issues that pop up. I'd skip Canon EF mount lenses completely.

Like you I have done the sensible thing and focused on my Nikon F mount collection! :-D Which is very fine indeed now. ;)

Also, why on earth would you want auto focus for the Tokina 11-16mm ??? I have that lens as well, it is so ultra wide angle it is one of the easiest lenses ever to keep everything in focus!

Get a few Sony E mount lenses instead if you really want AF. Such as the 18-105mm f/4 which comes with it. I've been shooting with that myself on the FS7, as I own a Sony 18-105mm f/4 (is a fantastic value lens!).

Thanks, David. I'm glad to hear that the Sony 18-105mm is doing well for you. I did by the package with that lens on both F5s.

It may well be that adding a couple of Sony E-mount lenses will take care of what we need. I recently bought Zeiss glass (21mm and 100 macro) in Nikon mount. Mostly for the still photography, but also for occasional use on the FS700. Other Nikon glass on the shelf here runs from 20mm to 300, with tilt-shift, 50mm f/1.2, 200mm f/2, as well as more mundane, but good, glass.

For most of our work, I think the 18-105 will do, and I'll need to add a macro and probably something wider than 18.

Here's hoping the F5s ship real soon. I can put them to work the moment they arrive.

im getting ready to shoot with this on friday,for anyone that has shot this camera, what sdxc cards do you recommend?

im getting ready to shoot with this on friday,for anyone that has shot this camera, what sdxc cards do you recommend?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MCJPSUO?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007NDL54C?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00

Hi Jim,

Both these work great...

I've been using the Transcend cards. I've used them in my Canon DSLR's, I use them in my Panasonic GH4 and now I've been using them with the FS5. I haven't had any issues yet, but like all media, I'm sure it will happen at some point.

http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Speed-UHS-3-Memory-TS128GSDU3/dp/B00J3KA8JG/ref=sr_1_6?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1449686782&sr=1-6&keywords=transcend+sd