I love my FS5 and don't have much to complain about. However, when I compare it's image to other Sony cameras like the X70, RX10-II, A7s-II and Z150, it's image is noticeably softer and renders significantly less detail.

I was thinking about this earlier and I suppose it's sensor numbers completely explain the situation. All these other Sony cameras start with a pixel count that is considerably higher than a 1:1 readout ratio. Many Sony cameras today take a 6k image sample and artfully scale it down to a very detailed 4k image. (It's probably so high that it approaches 4K's maximum Nyquist frequency) Unfortunately, the FS5 cant do this because of it's 1:1 Bayer pattern read out. Let's look at the numbers:

A typical 1080 3 chip ENG camera like the Sony EX1 or EX3 and a dozen other shoulder models all have 3 full rater sensors for each color channel:

Red = roughly 2 million pixels.
Green = roughly 2 million pixels.
Blue = roughly 2 million pixels.

As we all know, this produces a very nice HD (1080) FULL RASTER image. but what about the FS5 or any other single Bayer pattern 4k sensor with a 1:1 RGGB pixel read out? The numbers now don't look so good. A 4k (UHD) 8 million pixel RGGB sensor delivers:

Red = roughly 2 million pixels (1080 resolution or equal to one quarter 4k raster)
Blue = roughly 2 million pixels (1080 resolution or equal to one quarter 4k raster)
Green = roughly 4 million piles (Only HALF raster 4k resolution)

So yeah, I guess this easily explains why the FS5 just doesn't have the same resolving power that other Sony Bayer sensors do that heavily over sample their image. So the FS5 gives you basically a 1080 image with "double HD" on the green pixels.

Some might not care and some might. For me, the FS5 is a nice camera overall, I just wish it had a 10-12 megapixel (or more) sensor and over sampled like other Sony 4k cameras do.

What do you think? Anybody care? I think this is an interesting topic to toss around.

CT

I know you like to talk numbers but have you actually placed the 4 camera's you mentioned next to your FS5 and shot the exact same scene at comparable settings and then visually compared the footage?

Cliff,

All I know is that I had an EX3, and still have a PMW-300 and C100 (3 chip HD and 1 chip 4K resolution downscaled in cam to HD respectively). By comparison (and I've done it) my FS5 produces FAR more detailed images than either if I shoot in 4K with a well set up pictute profile, obviously. But it is my only 4K cam so I have not got the ones you seem to have to compare.

It may just come down to camera picture profile set-up, especially edge enhancing "detail" settings in the various models you list.

But also, unless you deliberately shoot with a huge depth of field with a large sensor cam then, by default, there will be less of the image throught the frame that is in tack sharp resolution than on smaller chip/multi-chip cams that typically have a much greater DOF for reasons you will well understand.

I recently tested this huge depth of field approach on my FS5 to see exactly how sharp it could be with the lowly, but growing on me, kit lens. So typically a high F-stop, static shots in high contrast light conditions to eliminate motion blur etc.

Looked pretty sharp to me in the highest resolution (sub 4K) I am able to watch it on, see my 'North Norfolk in Spring' 4K Test Video in this recent thread here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-pxw-fs7-fs5/531032-picture-profiles-fs5-2.html#post1913994

So I challenge you in your statement that the FS5 4K image is soft - watch the film (especially the Vimeo version) and tell me it's soft!!!

Yes, did it this weekend. That's why I got the idea about this topic.

It's not that I like "numbers". It's that the "numbers" explain actually explain the results.

Take a look at 4k from and A7R-II or A6000. The detail is downright striking. You will never see that on an FS5. But yes, the FS5 has other fantastic qualities like great ergonomics, wonderful highlight handling, high dynamic range and 12 bit raw sensor data output. (soon)

CT

Why don't you show some framegrabs to illustrate the difference and also list the exact camerasettings of each camera, including all profile settings for each camera like for detail etc? That would say a lot more then the earlier calculations you made. Once you have done that you can talk numbers that "might" explain the differences you see.

All I know is that I had an EX3, and still have a PMW-300 and C100 (3 chip HD and 1 chip 4K resolution downscaled in cam to HD respectively). By comparison (and I've done it) my FS5 produces FAR more detailed images than either if I shoot in 4K with a well set up pictute profile. But it is my only 4K cam so I have not got the ones you seem to have to compare.

It may just come down to camera set-up, especially edge enhancing "detail" settings in the various models you list.

But also, unless you deliberately shoot with a huge depth of field with a large sensor cam then, by default, there will be less of the image throught the frame that is in tack sharp resolution than on smaller chip/multi-chip cams that typically have a much greater DOF.

I recently tested this huge depth of field approach on my FS5 just to see how sharp it could be with the lowly, but growing on me, kit lens. So typically a high F-stop, static shots in high contrast light conditions to eliminate motion blur etc. Looked pretty sharp to me in the highest resolution (sub 4K) I am able to watch it on, see here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-pxw-fs7-fs5/531032-picture-profiles-fs5-2.html#post1913994

Yes, my FS5 has more detail than any other HD camera I have ever used. I'm simply saying that Sony 4k cameras that 6k over sample do capture significantly more eye popping detail. Even Sony will tell us this and it certainly should not be a shock to anyone.

CT

Why don't you show some framegrabs to illustrate the difference and also list the exact camerasettings of each camera, including all profile settings for each camera like for detail etc? That would say a lot more then the earlier calculations you made. Once you have done that you can talk numbers that "might" explain the differences you see.

I'll setup some "formal" tests to post here this weekend. You can easily see it. In the mean time, just Google "Sony 6K over sample". You can see it on Sony's official YouTube Chanel. They talk about it.

α6300 -Ultimate resolution 4K movie in Super 35mm | α | Sony - YouTube

Again, anyone that understands how RGGB Bayer pattern sensors work, this is simple pixel math.

CT

I'll setup some "formal" tests
That's all we should need to see if the fs5 produces a very soft 4k image with significantly less detail then the camera's you mention, all other references to a video from another camera with no actual comparison or talk from Sony is of no use until you lay the images side by side and tell the exact settings and picture profile settings of each camera.
It's not that I don't believe you but you know a image says more then a thousand words :)

Agreed. Will do a real world resolution shootout on Saturday. The results are easy to see.

It is generally understood that higher resolution sensors will produce higher resolution images. No?

A 16 million pixel Bayer image consisting of 8 million green, 4 million blue and 4 million red pixels will have more resolution than an 8 million pixel Bayer image consisting of 4 million green, 2 million red and 2 million blue pixels. (8:4:4 vs. 4:2:2 RGB million samples)

You do understand how Bayer's RGGB color filter layout works, right? It's hard physics and there is pretty much no way around it on a single sensor design. (A single 8Mp vs. 16Mp Bayer Sensor resolution shootout)

CT

And of course to confuse matters even more, different cameras will have different OLPF's (optical low pass/anti-aliasing filtration.) So when zooming into those pixels, take a look and see how the 'jagged edges' are on those fine detail angular lines. (Presumably a high megapixel stills camera such as the A7R would have a significantly different approach to anti-aliasing than the FS5.)

No doubt!

Yeah, the optical low pass filter on a photo camera is set right at it's highest megapixel rating. So for a Sony A7R-II, that's 42 megapixels. If they optimize that filter for 4K video to filter out moire, that would kill the higher resolution photographs. So they need to open up the filter for higher frequency detail to help 42mp photos but that, in turn, will allow aliasing to pass thru in the lower frequency 4k video.

Me personally, I'll take the higher detail/resolution and suffer the moire problems that brings. In post, you can always soften an image and blur out detail. However, you can never "add" detail in post. You can only "sharpen" and that's not true "detail" at all.

The FS5 does video only. So, they can set the low pass filter right at the exact resolution of the sensor in 4k video.

The sensor column read out clock speed is much faster than any Sony Alpha camera too. So, the FS5 has no real skew (rolling shutter) problem either.

CT

You do understand how Bayer's RGGB color filter layout works, right?

Ofcourse I do, that was the first thing they thought us in school.

Actually, and I"m probably not the only one, I only care about what I can see with my own eyes, I don't feel the need to break it down into little digits to know why camera "a" is less sensitive or has a less sharper image then camera "b". If I like what I see I buy it and go out and shoot with it and enjoy actually creating something instead of worrying if my camera reaches maximum Nyquist frequency.

lol. Yes, to each his own.

I'm the EXTREMELY curious type. When I was a kid, our VHS player had problems. I, or course HAD to open it up to see how it worked. Same thing with all of my cars and trucks. I'm the guy that grabs the tools, jacks it up and takes it all apart to see how its built.

I'm a fan of the science of imaging. Guilty as charged.

You don't have to know the inner workings of a transmission to be a great race car driver. You don't have to know ANY of the science behind image sensors to make great videos. But knowing the science behind things doesn't hurt you one bit either. ;-)

CT

There is nothing wrong with digging very deep into camera characteristics but I only find that when you come out with your findings stating they are just facts because it's pixel math and that the numbers explain the results but on the other hand use vague terms like "very soft 4k" or "significantly less detail" then at least add a visual comparison so we can see how bad it really is because you make it sound that way.

So I challenge you in your statement that the FS5 4K image is soft - watch the film (especially the Vimeo version) and tell me it's soft!!!

Can you pls explain what was in the film, It's so soft I cannot make anything out of it, am I right I see boats? ;)
Your video is a nice sample of why I am confused about Cliffs statement that the fs5 produces very soft 4K, to my eyes that doesn't look like very soft 4K, can't imagine a RX10II would be "that" better.

Cliff,

Sounds like you're one of Ken Rockwell's "Measurators". I suffer from that also. I find that there are a lot of well-intentioned, yet miss-informed people in this field, so I tend to try to find out for myself about some stuff, but not at the level you're going into. I try to follow along with some of David Heath's tech talk, but most of that is way over my head, and googling sensor specs doesn't help me much, even with the diagrams. I'm with Noa on this one.

Mark

I placed a question mark in the title not to make a factual statement but to make it more of a debatable "question".

"Soft" is very relative. Does it resolve more detail than any HD camera? Hell yes. Does it resolve more detail than other Sony UHD cameras that take in WAY more pixels and down sample? In my opinion, no. Should you care? There is no right or wrong answer, that's totally up to you.

This topic is also NOT about the "art" of film making. Can you make a spectacular film with the FS5? OF COURSE YOU CAN! This topic is about the "science" of image sensors and specifically about resolving power. It is intended for people that care about this "geeky", "pixel peeper" subject.

I'll upload some samples on Saturday. I want to show the difference in grass and foliage and fine textures in bright daylight. I cant do that until Saturday because when I get home on the week days its dark out.

Look,....this is a subject that I personally care about. But other's might not, and that's OK! The subject of Bayer pattern removal, Nyquist frequency, aliasing, sampling and low pass filters IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY. It's tedious and terribly NERDY! If you don't dig it and find it boring.....that's TOTALLY cool!

Again, transmission engineeres, piston designers and aerodynamics technicians don't necessarily make great race car drivers. AND VICE VERSA!

Again, this is a SCIENCE topic, not a artistic FILM MAKING topic.

CT

So I did a very quick and dirty test on Saturday between my FS5 and Z150. I think the results are pretty interesting. It appears I'm right about the FS5 image being "soft" but wrong about it having less resolution that the Z150.

At first look, the Z150's image has allot of "pop" and is very sharp. The FS5's tone is clearly smoother and renders shadows much better but it doesn't "appear" to resolve the same detail on a quick glance.

However!....when post sharpening is applied to the FS5's image, it appears to have about the about same "effective" resolution as the Z150. Notice the dog treat bag and the lettering on it. Notice the blades of grass on the second set.

VERY INTERESTING!

I really wish Sony would enable all the DETAIL settings on the FS5. (as some might know, they are all disabled today in the FS5 version 2.0 software) In some cases, I'd rather do this in camera instead of doing it in post.

What do you guys think?

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_6rlVR2jPsqZzZnZkpaRkYycVE&usp=sharing

I am no a technical guy like some people here, my take is the FSF allows for a lower sharpness setting than the previous cameras allowed (FS100, FS700, Ea50...) strange at first to turn it all the way down like I always of and find it looked rather "soft"

Thanks for the heads up on the latest firmware changing the sharpness options, haven't had any time and do not think I would have bothered to check that.


Not sure sure what you are saying about the sharpness being disabled in the FW 2.0, setting options look to be the same as the before to me. I also like a bit of sharpening set in camera.

In this comparison, both the Z150 and the FS5 were placed in their detail "neutral" positions. DETAIL set at 0 and all MAUNAL SET parameters off.

IMPORTANT - There is no sharpness added and no sharpness removed. They are both NEUTRAL.

On the Z150 (as well any other Sony camera) you can go into the DETAIL and MANUAL SET options and swing all the settings wildly and create extreme over sharpening results. However, the FS5's MANUAL SET options dont work. You can grab any parameter you want and move them any which way (even to crazy extremes) and they are literally disabled form the picture control.

This seems to be an FS5 software bug. Maybe Sony is aware of this, maybe they are not?

I'd love for more FS5 owners to try it out and post here.

CT

It is generally understood that higher resolution sensors will produce higher resolution images. No?

A 16 million pixel Bayer image consisting of 8 million green, 4 million blue and 4 million red pixels will have more resolution than an 8 million pixel Bayer image consisting of 4 million green, 2 million red and 2 million blue pixels. (8:4:4 vs. 4:2:2 RGB million samples)
To your first sentence, then no - it's not necessarily true.

It will depend on a lot of factors, and obviously a big one is how the sensor gets read!

You're no doubt talking about "conventional" deBayering, (where the output image has the same dimensions as the sensor) but that need not be the case. Obvious example is early DSLR video with quite crude pixel skipping, but whilst (hopefully) that is in the past a big step forward came with the techniques as used in the AF100, which basically took a 4x4 block to form a single output pixel. It started off with a 16 million pixel chip - but output a 1 million pixel res image (albeit R,G,B) - so close to 720p resolution. (It actually did a 16:9 crop of the 16 megapixel sensor, so in reality was 12 million down to 0.75 million output, but you get the idea. That corresponded to the measured resolution of about 650lpph.)

Next step up may have been processing as the C300 used. Here using 2x2 blocks to form each output pixel - so a 8 megapixel sensor giving 2 megapixel output resolution.

OK, you may argue that all that was in the past, and now the whole sensor gets read, properly deBayered, and downconverted to the desired eventual resolution. But there's downconversion and downconversion....... It's dangerous to generalise but unless it's done really well, the high resolution off the chip can be more of a hindrance than a help - lead to aliasing rather than truly better resolution. Not necessarily.... but a sweeping statement such as "It is generally understood that higher resolution sensors will produce higher resolution images. No?" just is not necessarily true.

Practically, the FS5 sensor dimensions are the same as most of the "real" 4K cameras on the market today, going way up in price - the F5, F55, Varicam etc. Let's keep that firmly in mind. There's a lot to be said for the OPTIMUM number (and hence size) of photosites on a chip - more certainly does not necessarily mean better.

From the last post, then a "detail neutral" setting may not mean no sharpness added or removed - it may rather be the position that the manufacturer considers "best" - which may not be the same thing! :-)

What you describe (regarding the FS5's MANUAL SET options dont work) seems too fundamental to be a bug. I'm left wondering if another setting is inhibiting their operation in your particular case? Just a thought.........

Yes, higher density sensors produce more photosite voltage readings than lower density sensors. Certainly, if a company reads only 1 out of every 3 or 5 lines off those sensors, they are only using a partial surface area and the image resolution goes down hill very fast. You are right, a company can waste a high density sensor on how they read it out. You are right about artifacts too. RGGB Bayer pattern by it's very nature will generate aliasing and moire and any image scaling up or down will also add to the problem. All digital sampling of any wave type, no mater what frequency or bit depth will have it's mathematical limits. Binning and summing those values just compounds everything. No argument there.

On DeBayering: I talked to Mitch Gross from Convergent Design at NAB 2016 and I specifically asked him about DebBayering Sony's raw sensor protocol. (As we know, "true" raw sensor is nothing more than individual pixel voltage reading, its position address on the sensor and the RGGB optical color filter metadata flag it sits under...remember all photosites are actually just grey scale) Mitch told me there are many ways to DeBayer an image and some vary significantly. I asked him if Sony has a "recommended" way and do they use it. He grinned at me and said "Well, not necessarily,...sometimes there are better ways" Mitch also told me that no manufacturer "really" gives out true raw sensor data. It's always processed to an approved final output and then sent out of the camera. He did NOT say this next part, but I suspect he was "hinting" that Sony can "dumb down" it's raw data output on it's FS5 if they don't want it to compete with it's FS7 raw data. Again,...he did NOT actually say that and it's just me interpreting the "wink" that I got from him. Still, I thought that was pretty cool. Sony just doesn't give you "untouched" data from their beautiful sensors, they add "conditions" to keep a tight control on things. You get only what they are willing to allow for that model even though it's supposed to be "raw". ;-)

For those that might not know, if your camera says "24 megapixel" image sensor. It does NOT produce 24 million full color pixels. It's only based on 12 million green and only 6 million red and 6 million blue. No single Bayer sensor ever produces the full color pixel density that it's box says it does. It just writes image files that match those frame sizes. The true, full color pixel density is much less. ;-)

I agree with David that more pixels does not necessarily mean a better image. Image quality is not just one factor. The FS5's ability to handle highlights and reach into the shadows is fantastic in my opinion. I think that FS700, FS5, FS7, FS5 sensor was designed for that task specifically.

On "DETAIL" being "neutral on both cameras. I only meant to say they are "factory neutral". However, Sony programmed them in that setting is their thing.

On the FS5's unresponsiveness to DETAIL and MANUAL SET options: These same options existed on my AS7, A7S-II, RX10, RX10-II, X70 and Z150 and nothing was stopping these cameras from allowing you coursen the crap out their image. (not that I ever want to do that) I just find the FS5 to be particularly "flat" compared to every other Sony UHD camera I own.

So why is the FS5 not responding to DETAIL or MANUAL SET?

Doug Jenson has already somewhat confirmed this, can any other FS5 owner try it out?

David, have you seen the FS5 vs.Z150 samples in the post above?

CT

Just for the record, I only confirmed that the Detail settings do not make a very big difference. But they do make a difference. As I point out in chapter 12 of my FS5 training video, with the right combination of Detail sub-menu settings the sharpness can be increased to a point that I find perfectly acceptable . . . but the change is very subtle.

Hi Doug,

On your FS5, do any of the "MANUAL SET" options have even the slightest detectable image affect? There are many parameters there that do nothing today. My FS5 does not register anything. Not even on scopes.

Yes, on my FS5 too, the DETAIL settings at +7 have a very, very, very slight effect. I can only see the change on scopes but are not really visible on a 4k monitor.

Again, this is unlike all other Sony cameras I have used where these same settings are capable of easily causing extreme sharpening affects.

CT

Cliff,
I've been on the road for almost two months and I don't have my FS5 with me -- so not only is it not running the latest firmware I can't pull out the camera and examine the settings again even if I wanted to. I'm going off my observations and notes that I made a few months ago when I spent 8 weeks under the hood of the camera producing my FS5 training video series. At that time, I could detect visible changes to the picture when the details settings were adjusted. They do function -- but we are in total agreement that the changes are very very slight. Also, this is not the first Sony camera to have this issue. I can't remember which camera it was, but a few years ago I was producing a training video or doing beta testing for another camera and it had the same issue where changes to Detail could barely be seen. I can't remember which camera it was, but the FS5 is not the first. I contacted Sony about it and they said that was the way it was, so I didn't even bother to bring this issue up to them on the FS5. It is what it is. And I don't think it is something that will be "fixed" because I don't think it is something anyone at Sony thinks is broken.

Wow. I do find that fascinating.

For me, of all the Sony cameras I have owned, I haven't had a model that had a problem like this. On Sony cameras that I have purchased in just the last two years, A7s-II, (v1 &2) RX10-II, (v1&2), X70 and Z150, all which have a similar sharpening set, you can use those same parameters to go CRAZY on an image. They certainly work very strongly, we can all believe that.

On my FS5, DETAIL controls are barely visable and "MANUAL SET" otptions are completely dysfunctional. I dont use DETAIL or MANUAL SET on any other Sony camera that I have ever owned. Those cameras are all plenty detailed and sharp and just don't need it. The FS5 is the only Sony UHD camera that I have ever owned that I actually feel NEEDS in camera sharpening. And, ironically, it's the only Sony camera that cant do it...lol

Looking for more FS5 owners to chime in here!

CT

Cliff, look at the list of cameras you have mentioned. Those are nearly prosumer cameras compared to the higher-end XDCAM and Cine Alta lines. And the higher-end you go, the less people want to do a lot of in-camera sharpening. That is a fact. The FS5 kinda has its feet in both Sony product lines, and apparently Sony doesn't feel sharpening is a priority anymore. But with that said, even compared to the other high-end cameras, the FS5 doesn't allow very much detail control.

The concept of a "pro" image being "sharp" or not compared to a "consumer" image,...I literally have no opinion one way or the other on that. I think the terms "sharp" or "soft" are matter of style and artistic expression and who am to say that one is more "pro" and the other is more "consumer". I'm totally neutral on that idea.

I'm of the opinion that if there are settings on a camera, they should work to "reasonable" levels. If it has DETAIL and MANUAL SET parameters, allow them to operate in the manner that other Sony cameras do.

If s shooter likes them "soft" then turn them down. If a shooter likes them higher, then turn them up. Let the shooter decide, just like he/she can with other Sony cameras.

In Sony marketing materials, Sony, does market the A7s-II, FS5 and FS7 on the same advertisements.

I dont know, I'm a believe of: "Put the control there and let the shooter decide to use it or not"

I'm NOT a big fan of: "Put the control there but disable it anyway, for the good of he customer" If that's the case, just remove it from the menu system. No?

Who knows? Maybe I'm way out of line here. Maybe Sony is doing the right thing and I'm the one that is wrong?

CT

Most turn back sharpness in camera to add it again or not in post, from what I understand that is to minimize artifacts that incamera sharpening can cause, like maybe aliasing, so the user can decide in post what the end result should be.
I don't see a big deal in doing it this way, if you want to sharpen your footage, like you did in your comparison test, you can do that for your entire project in a few seconds, it's not that you need to visually check clip by clip, once you have determined the correct settings it's quickly changed.

All valid ideas Noa.

Other ideas to consider are: You are shooting to deliver the raw files to a friend or a client and they say "Hey, why are your FS5 files softer than my A7S-R/S files?"

What is my answer supposed to be? "Sorry, the FS5 sharpening controls are crippled by Sony because they don't want them being used by anybody"

Another thing is that sharpening plugins slow down renders. If the FS5 is "soft", I'd rather get it to match my other Sony models "in-camera" first and not have to touch that later in post.

Again.....If the parameters are there, (The many features inside MANUAL SET) they need to work. If it's true that Sony really, REALLY doesn't want those settings being used, they should just remove them. No?

Could you imagine if Sony had knee and slope controls that did nothing because they didn't want people to use them? They just left them there but disabled them?

Maybe that is not weird to some people but it seems strange to me.

CT

For anybody that hasn't seen it yet, here is the "soft" problem I'm talking about earlier: FS5 vs Z150 I think these image samples speak loud and clear. Next, I'll try an FS5 vs. A7s-II test. ("soft vs.sharp" test)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_6rlVR2jPsqZzZnZkpaRkYycVE&usp=sharing

You are shooting to deliver the raw files to a friend or a client and they say"Hey, why are your FS5 files softer that my A7S-R/S files?"

That means that whoever is responsible for the shoot did it wrong as they had to lower the detail settings in A7S-R/S files so it matched the fs5.

Another thing is that sharpening plugins slow down renders.

That might depend on the NLE used, in Edius adding sharpening to a 100mbs 4K file takes max 1 second longer to render per minute footage with sharpening vs without sharpening, that's hardly a problem.

Right, very true.

After reading all this, I'm starting to believe now that a softer image is a more "pro" image after all. It's also very intelligent and very well calculated for Sony to heavily cripple it's DETAIL adjustment control. And, completely disabling the entire MANUAL SET parameters list was a sheer stroke of genius on Sony's part.

Sorry folks, I was kind off my rocker there for a while by expecting camera sliders and values to actually "work".

I love the logic:

"Hey, my knee and slope controls do nothing in my camera"....

"So what, dont worry about it, throw a gamma curve in post and make your own knee there."

"Hey, my in camera saturation doesn't work"

"So what if it doesn't work, just adjust your saturation in post"

Sorry for living on planet Mars there for a short while. On Mars, if those people see a product feature, they get shocked if they see it does nothing.

I'm better now.

CT ;-)

That means that whoever is responsible for the shoot did it wrong as they had to lower the detail settings in A7S-R/S files so it matched the fs5.

Seriously Noa?

Five camera guys: "Hey guys!,...which one of you has the softest, dullest, haziest image?....camera three, the FS5 guy? Ok guys, muddy down all your profiles to match the camera three guy"

C'mon man....LOL

CT

Yes, that's how it works if you mix different type of camera's, you first test if the camera's match and do what is needed in camera to minimize post work. You don't mix black magic camera raw with a panasonic gh4, a Sony A7s and a canon 5D all with standard settings in one shoot and then hand it over to a editor and say, have fun...

which one of you has the softest, dullest, haziest image?....camera three, the FS5 guy?

It looks like you are the only fs5 owner here who thinks the fs5 produces a crap image, I think you are better off selling it and get a, what you would consider, better camera, but you better do the math before you buy it ;)

I never said the FS5 produces a "crap" image. My post about making every camera operator turn down their image sharpness to match the dullest camera is just irreverent humor. (my attempt at it anyway) ;-)

The FS5 image is NOT "crap". I like the FS5 and I'm keeping it. I'm merely asking for a simple and fundamental consumer request. The FS5 has a "DETAIL" and a "MANUAL SET" function option. Today, the DETAIL adjustment is so weak that it's virtually unnoticeable. And, the "MANUAL SET" options,...all 5 of them...are completely dysfunctional in the cameras firmware. (v/h balance, b/w balance, limit, crispening and hi-light detail). This is not like any other Sony camera I know.

If you bought a brand new car and the radio didn't work, wouldn't you want the radio to work?....or would you say, "ehh...that's OK, at least the .mp3 player works".

By me stating this, does that mean I must not like my camera?

People, am I asking for way too much here? To me it's something simple and fundamental. I like my FS5, it just needs to have functioning DETAIL and MANUAL SET options like any other Sony camera.

CT

Cliff, I totally agree with you that if a product has adjustable settings -- those settings ought to make a tangible difference or else they shouldn't even be included on the product. And the Detail settings of the FS5 certainly fall into that category. I agree,

However, on the other hand, I will also say that I find the Detail/Sharpness of the FS5 to be sufficient and I wouldn't recommend anyone go stronger than that even if they could. Cranking up the detail to match lower-end cameras is a mistake. But if Sony is going to give someone a gun, they should at least put bullets in the gun so someone can shoot themselves in the foot if they want to. :-)

The FS5 has a "DETAIL" and a "MANUAL SET" function option. Today, the DETAIL adjustment is so weak that it's virtually unnoticeable. And, the "MANUAL SET" options,...all 5 of them...are completely dysfunctional in the cameras firmware. (v/h balance, b/w balance, limit, crispening and hi-light detail). This is not like any other Sony camera I know.

I don't have the FS5 so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I respectfully disagree with the last sentence of the above Cliff's statement. In all Sony camera's I've ever owned (including my EX1 workhorse and my new FS7 which I'm still only learning), all those controls are very, very subtle - in fact, you hardly see their effect using the smallish camera's monitor. But they do work - just connect the camera to some good scopes, or simply to a larger monitor (like my 50" flat screen) - and you will see those subtle changes to your picture. Perhaps for some reason the changes are even less pronounced on the FS5 - that I couldn't know - but that's the way it is with "any other Sony camera I know...

Piotr

PS. Oh, and the FS7 4K/UHD picture is not very sharp, either - but being a "digital cine camera", that is good and expectable. After all, on a cinema screen - have you ever seen a picture as sharp as those little prosumer camcorders are set for? Film is not like that...Neither is it supposed to look too contrasty - perhaps your impression of detail lacking is augmented by applying too much contrast in post, Cliff? High contrast and artificially added detail edges look so video-ish to me... Try using less contrast, avoid crushing black too much - and you will see details are there, after all!

Doug - Agreed! Sony should give us the gun AND the bullets to shoot ourselves in the foot if we want to with the FS5. They already do this with most of their other cameras. If Sony is determined to not allow these 5 MANUAL SET controls to work, they should remove them from the camera. If they still want them displayed in the menu system, they should at least have a clause in the user manual that states:

*"The above 5 MANUAL SET options have been disabled as it is determined that sharpening is unwarranted and not necessary for this particular Sony camera model. This is not a malfunction."

This would give the instruction manual reader peace of mind that everything is working fine. :-)

Piotr - On my EX1r, "crispening" can be messed with so much that it can permanently destroy an image. I have found the EX1r''s profiles settings in regards to sharpness to be very powerfull. Actually, all my Sony cameras have decent flexibility. The FS700 too. I have honestly never needed to in-camera sharpen any Sony camera until now.

I have zero experience with an FS7. However, it has beautiful tone, like the FS700 and FS5 but the few bare files I have seen are slightly soft to my eyes like the FS5 too. This is NOT a Knock on that camera. I just gravitate to high detail sometimes.

I like "soft" for interviews, or lectures, and for people's skin tones in general. I like sharp detail for animals, forest trees and rocks at the grand canyon. I'm taking my FS5 to Yellowstone and I want to capture as much fine texture as I can for this project. I'm thinking of bringing my A7s-Ii rig too now.

Anyhoo....I don't this FS5 menu problem is intentional. I think it's a bug?

CT

Cliff,

It's true that Crispening can be extremely effective on the EX1, but some other controls - like e.g. horizontal/vertical frequency or coring - are very difficult to see effect of unless one knows well what to look for. I really am not implying anything about FS5 as I don't know the camera at all, but since you agree the FS7 picture is also on the soft side for you I guess it might be matter of taste (again - notwithstanding controls that apparently do not have any effect at all on the FS5, as you and Doug imply).

Cheers

Piotr