Anyone heard of a release date for the XDCAM firmware update? it was supposed to be released in June.

I'm also interested in knowing when this is going to be released. Anyone have any info?

Anyone heard of a release date for the XDCAM firmware update? it was supposed to be released in June.

Sorry, I don't understand your question. What update? Are you saying that Sony announced they were putting XDCAM codecs on the FS5? If so that is so, I missed it. What is your source?

Doug, Sony announced this at the same time as the version 2 firmware update (auto ND etc.) and the paid raw update.

Like the raw update it requires purchase of another (i.e. separate) software key that unlocks just this feature and it was indicated it will cost a similar amount to the raw one...but it has yet to appear on the Sony Pro sites for purchase and download yet. They still have 10 days though!

Personally, I won't be buying this feature, but I can see how it would be great for some - and of course now we know why they put the XDCAM monica on the FS5 body!

Can you give us a link to a web page where this was announced by Sony or a credible source? Thanks in advance.

Doug, Sony announced this at the same time as the version 2 firmware update (auto ND etc.) and the paid raw update.


Pretty sure they didn't.

HD Warrior makes a reference to the update here:

HD Warrior » Blog Archiv » Sony PXW-FS5 Paid/free FW update ?500 to v.2 and FS7 Free upgrade (http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2016/04/18/sony-pxw-fs5-paid-fw-update-e500-to-v-2-and-free-version-and-fs7-free-upgrade/)

Videomaker here:

https://www.videomaker.com/videonews/2016/04/nab-2016-sony-announces-firmware-upgrades-for-fs5-and-fs7

quote: Firmware 2.0 for the FS5 adds auto variable ND filters, GPS function and zebra lever setting, and will be available for free to users beginning in May 2016. Paid upgrades include an option for a 1080p MPEG2 422 50Mbps codec and a RAW upgrade option that adds 4K RAW output as well at 4K and 2K slow motion settings.

And this graphic, which I believe is from Sony:

Here's a German reference. Not sure what it says.


Sony CBKZ-SLMP MPEG-2 Upgrade für die PXW-FS5 & PXW-X70 | Schweizer AG (http://shop.schweizervideo.ch/SchweizerAG/web/videotechnik/Diverses_Updates/CBKZ-SLMP.aspx)


I've looked for the upgrade for the FS5, but so far, I've only found it for sale for the X70.
Example:

http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/product/broadcast-products-camcorders-option-boards-modules-plug-ins/cbkz-slmp/overview/


I don't know if Sony changed their mind, or if there's still more work involved before they release an FS5 version of the firmware.

Is there still a substantial market left that demands MPEG 2 that can't edit h.264 today?

I can understand h.264 in 4k being a pain for some older work flows to deal with. But h.264 in 1080 is generally not a problem for semi-modern systems.

This is not to mention the h.264 vs MPEG 2 image quality improvements.

CT

Is there still a substantial market left that demands MPEG 2 that can't edit h.264 today?

I can understand h.264 in 4k being a pain for some older work flows to deal with. But h.264 in 1080 is generally not a problem for semi-modern systems.

This is not to mention the h.264 vs MPEG 2 image quality improvements.

CT

XDCAM is still, by far, the most requested codec for broadcast use. That, and the Canon equivalent. It's pretty much my bread and butter.
In fact, I lost a job last week because the client specifically requested XDCAM HD. They didn't want XAVC, as much as I tried to sell the codec to them.

This upgrade for the FS5 can't come soon enough.
If there won't be an upgrade, I may have to invest in a used XDCAM second camera or upgrade to the FS7. Maybe I should have held onto my PMW-300.

eta - On a positive note, I'm beginning to see more shoots using the Sony mirrorless cameras, like the A7s and 6300. The FS5 integrates into this workflow.

And this graphic, which I believe is from Sony:

500 Euros to enable a tick box in the firmware. Still this is the first mention I've heard of it.

Sony knows how to milk the cows, I can understand that they would charge extra for a raw upgrade but 500 euro for a simple mpeg2 codec is ridiculous for a camera in this price class.

Yeah, it's a lot. But I'll get it, because I have definite use for the codec, more so than the 4K RAW update.

At least the camera will live up to its XDCAM logo on the body.

I think many will have a use for this codec and will gladly pay extra for it, only the fact that the camera has "xdcam" printed on it's side makes it even more ridiculous from Sony to force this upon it's buyers as a 500 euro upgrade, it should have been offered for free, period.

Had forgotten the XDCAM logo on the side. One might argue that as the logo is on the side, the camera should be XDCAM capable out of the box.

My car has a turbo logo on the back, I would not expect my cardealer to put a regular engine inside and then a few months later tell me, if you want the turbo on your engine, this is what it will cost you extra. :)

It's the same as a camera that has a 4K logo on it, would you accept it if it only does HD and a few months later you would have to pay extra for 4k? That would piss me off, especially when I already paid over 6000 euro for a camera. This looks like a new Sony strategy to get extra money out of their buyers pockets.

Huh,.....I never looked at "XDCAM" as a "CODEC" really. I always associated the "XDCAM" logo with a professional Sony "camera" line. So when they switched CODECs, left MPEG 2 and moved to H.264, it still stayed 100% "XDCAM" in my mind.

So how does Sony market "XDCAM"? Is it a "CODEC" or is it their logo that represents their professional "CAMERA" line?

When Sony goes 6k or 8k, HEVC will be the new CODEC inside the "XDCAM" container of the future. As you know, H.264 profiles top out at 4K. So, I guess it's fair to say that "XDCAM" is not tied to one CODEC type because those CODEC's change and get replaced over time anyway???

Interesting.....

HD Warrior makes a reference to the update here:
And this graphic, which I believe is from Sony:

Thanks Glen, I appreciate the time it took to find the sources. Looks legit to me.
I agree with others that this should have been on the camera from day one and now it should be a free upgrade -- with an apology that it took so long.

Huh,.....I never looked at "XDCAM" as a "CODEC" really. I always associated the "XDCAM" logo with a professional Sony "camera" line. So when they switched CODECs, left MPEG 2 and moved to H.264, it still stayed 100% "XDCAM" in my mind.

So how does Sony market "XDCAM"? Is it a "CODEC" or is it their logo that represents their professional "CAMERA" line?

When Sony goes 6k or 8k, HEVC will be the new CODEC inside the "XDCAM" container of the future. As you know, H.264 profiles top out at 4K. So, I guess it's fair to say that "XDCAM" is not tied to one CODEC type because those CODEC's change and get replaced over time anyway???

Interesting.....

You might be right about Sony calling most any pro camera an XDCAM. Not sure.
XDCAM has always been an MPEG 2 codec. It comes in the broadcast friendly XDCAM HD 50mbps, 4:2;2, 8-bit variety and the lesser XDCAM EX 35Mbps, 4:2:0 8-bit codec. Interestingly, the 35mb type is usually not approved for broadcast use, yet I and other shooters have used it with success. Go figure.

XDCAM HD is used in the popular Sony PDW-F800 and 700, PMW-400, 300 and 200. Older cameras like the EX1, 1R and 3, PMW-350 and 320, along with the first generation HD laserdisc cams, use EX. (I've shot with all of the cameras listed, btw.)

Even though it's still very popular, it seems it's almost becoming a legacy codec. I think Sony is hoping XAVC completely takes over the broadcast world. XDCAM is usable with older editing systems, though, like FCP 6 and 7. I'm not sure they can handle XAVC.

So, XDCAM is still big in the broadcast world. I don't know how long that will last, years I expect, but until it dies out, I'd like to have it.

It's odd that an XDCAM labeled FS5 camera wouldn't come with the codec. Strange decision, Sony.

It is a little funny about the whole 35Mbp/s XDCAM EX is NOT good enough for broadcast and 50Mbp/s IS good enough for broadcast thing....

This is a bit of an industry joke really. People look at 50Mbp/s and it's 4:2:2 sampling and say, oh that's great! They also look at 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 and say, oh that's bad. "50" is a higher number than "35", right?

The funny part is that there is no 4:2:2 "broadcast" standard today. (Satellite, DVB, Cable, ATSC...it's all 4:2:0) So everything that is shot in 4:2:2 will just get bumped down to 4:2:0 for broadcast/delivery anyway!

Even funnier!,....because 50Mbp/s 4:2:2 sampling has TWICE the chroma resolution of 4:2:0 35Mbp/s, it has a HIGHER COMPRESSION RATIO than 35Mbp/s 4:2:0.

So XDCAM 50 is MORE compressed and has a chroma resolution that cant even be "broadcasted" anyway, yet 35 is LESS compressed and that is no good. lol

In the US, the ATSC "broadcast" standard that Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC (OTA) uses is 8 bit, 4:2:0 MPEG 2 at 19Mbp/s. and if they mux a second second or third stream into that, the quality just drops even lower.

Yes, green screen argument work aside,......35 with it's lower compression ratio "should" be perfectly fine for "boradcast".

Funny! CT ;-)

Well, you're welcome to think there is no significant difference or benefit to shooting 50Mbps 4:2:2 vs. 35Mbps 4:2:0 if you choose to, but I know you're dead wrong. It really makes no difference to me how dumbed down the delivery format becomes at the other end of the pipeline. What I care about is that there are definite benefits to shooting and editing HD422. If you can't see them or it doesn't make any difference to you, that is fine, but I'm not buying what you're selling because I've done the head-to-head testing myself -- and many years of working with both formats has shown me things that I cannot ignore. Only a fool would argue that shooting with a better format than the bare minimum standard for delivery is a waste of resources. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Oh c'mon Doug, lighten up!

I'm not "selling" anything! I'm only saying that 50Mbp/s 4:2:2 is a higher compression ratio than 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 EX. I'm not saying 35 is better than 50, I'm just saying it's an amusing and cute fact. That's all.

I have happily used them both for years and years. And yes, I still find it ironic that cameras that record with specs that are much higher than "broadcast" standards are not good enough for actual "broadcasting".

I'm not being ultra, super, duper, deathly serious here,...I'm just saying it's funny.

I dunno, on second thought, maybe you are right Doug. Maybe this is NOT a joking matter whatsoever. There might be somebody reading what I wrote and just started recording 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 EX for his news station tonight thinking that I gave him the "OK" to do so!!!!

Let me think about that,..................Nah,....I dont think so..... ;-)

CT

Oh c'mon Doug, lighten up!

I'm not "selling" anything! I'm only saying that 50Mbp/s 4:2:2 is a higher compression ratio than 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 EX. I'm not saying 35 is better than 50, I'm just saying it's an amusing and cute fact. That's all.

I have happily used them both for years and years. And yes, I still find it ironic that cameras that record with specs that are much higher than "broadcast" standards are not good enough for actual "broadcasting".

I'm not being ultra, super, duper, deathly serious here,...I'm just saying it's funny.

I dunno, on second thought, maybe you are right Doug. Maybe this is NOT a joking matter whatsoever. There might be somebody reading what I wrote and just started recording 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 EX for his news station tonight thinking that I gave him the "OK" to do so!!!!

Let me think about that,..................Nah,....I dont think so..... ;-)

CT

WARNING: SERIOUS POST AHEAD....

Oh, c'mon Cliff, don't jump out of the ring now.

I can see the value of using a well-established standard such as XDCAM. Whether my cameras can do it or not hasn't any effect on me, but for anybody playing in the broadcast pipeline, it could be a big deal.

For example: there could be some costly equipment exclusively for editing, storing, previewing and cataloging XDCAM footage. Think about all the broadcast stations that have complete suites of this equipment, not just the cameras and it makes lots of business sense to milk as much life from that gear as possible. Also, the people handling the footage, all that experience and expertise required to make things run smoothly. Why throw all that away and make massive changes just because a higher spec codec is available? With a huge population of footage contributors, freelance, etc., they are all supposed to run out and get new cameras whenever the broadcasters decide to go with the latest and greatest? New codecs, higher specs, are coming out too frequently to try to keep up. Maybe the XDCAM workflow takes some time to learn how to handle efficiently, maybe the XDCAM footage has some unique metadata embedded that the newer, higher spec codecs lack and the whole broadcast industry doesn't want to lose all that. I don't know, don't use this codec myself and don't contribute any footage for broadcast, but when someone "in the know" tells me there's value in it, I find it easy enough to accept that.


Mark

In the US, the ATSC "broadcast" standard that Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC (OTA) uses is 8 bit, 4:2:0 MPEG 2 at 19Mbp/s. and if they mux a second second or third stream into that, the quality just drops even lower.


I don't think what goes out that matters but what goes in does, eventhough I don't deliver for broadcast I can guess the delivered footage takes quite some beating before it is being served to the public, probably the XDCAM codec is robust enough that it just works to secure a stable and fast workflow for now and the coming years. But Like I said, I"m guessing as I don't have any experience but I"ll take Doug's word over yours as like usual your numbers don't say it all but his experience does.

I want that xcdam hd422 option for my FS5.It would be a great add to this cam. The idea that i can use this camera for broadcast is exciting,and yes,the majority of my clients are asking this codec and i'm talking about tv networks. it would be nice if it's a free option but for me it's ok also to pay for this upgrade,worth every penny!
Doug,did you have any chance to check from Sony resources if this is a real option!? or we are talking about something that we hope to get!
I saw it's already available for the X70 but no word about the FS5 on Sony sites!
I really hope to get it asap

I don't think what goes out that matters but what goes in does, eventhough I don't deliver for broadcast I can guess the delivered footage takes quite some beating before it is being served to the public, probably the XDCAM codec is robust enough that it just works to secure a stable and fast workflow for now and the coming years. But Like I said, I"m guessing as I don't have any experience but I"ll take Doug's word over yours as like usual your numbers don't say it all but his experience does.

Noa, what in the world are you talking about? I'm not saying "don't use 50/ 4:2:2" and I'm not saying "35/ 4:2:0 is better" I'm not even saying a damn thing that collides with what Doug is saying!

"My" numbers? No, those are Sony's and ATSC's and MEPG's numbers. Neither Doug nor I invented them and they don't belong to us. You have always eluded in the past that I quote too many "numbers" in my posts. Are you of the belief that "numbers" or facts and figures are meaningless to these discussions?

The only industry heresy that I have spoken is my comment that XDCAM EX "should" be OK for broadcast. GASP!! "What did he just say?...how dare he say that?...horrible!!"

By the way, the reality is, we have ALL seen kabillions of hours of EX1's and EX3''s make our local evening news all around the world. YES!...XDCAM 35 4:2:0 has actually been "broadcast". There are countless EX1/3 in TV station trucks and journalists in the field right now as I type this.

So guys,...weather or not you agree with my statement that XDCAM EX (35Mbp/s 4:2:0) "should" be good enough for "broadcast"....hate this or not, you cannot argue that it WAS and still IS being used for broadcast today. With Doug's experience, I'm 100% sure he is fully aware of this. OK Noa?.....I am not contradicting Doug's experience.

Lastly, let me say this: Sony agrees with me. The company I work for has a "bronz", "silver" and "gold" standard for deliverable's. Sony actively lobbied for us to accept XDCAM EX into those standards. Sony also actively lobbied against the Euro standard to allow XDCAM EX.

And just to make any "35 Mbp/s 4:2:0 is not good enough for broadcast" trumpeter's head explode.....Discovery Channel's "Deadliest Catch" was shot ALLOT with HDV cameras!...BOOM! Yes,...HDV in "broadcast"!!! That's 25Mbp/s 4:2:0, non-square pixel 1440x1080i. Can you believe that? (Sorry Noa for dropping so many "numbers")

Bottom line = XDCAM 35 and EX1/3 cameras ARE being used for broadcast right now...and here some are criticizing me because I say that it "should" be OK? LMAO!

Wow! CT ;-)

You only had me confused as you first didn't know what xdcam stands for and questioned if there was market left that demands MPEG 2 but then apparently you know all about broadcast standards. So if I misunderstood you then I apologize.

I'm a die hard Sony guy and XDCAM - MPEG 2 camera's (50 and 35) have been the bane of my existence for years and years (This is my part time job but I work full time for a global media company) And now XDCAM - H.264 cameras are what I use today. In the future, I'm sure I'll use XDCAM - HEVC 8K cameras. I just sold my very last MPEG 2 camera last week. My beloved EX1r. I stopped using it two years ago but just never had the heart to sell it because of all the memories we had together. I'm all 4k now and I just couldn't justify letting that thing live in my safe any longer.

The "XDCAM" logo stays but the CODEC changes to whatever MPEG CODEC is hot for that time.

In my opinion, it's not accurate to call "XDCAM" the actual CODEC. The "CODEC" (A/V Coding & DeCoding math) is 100% MPEG h.262 or h.264 and eventually someday (probably) h.265.

To me "XDCAM" represents it's pro camera line. But whatever, only Sony can tell you what "XDCAM" means to them. ;-)

only Sony can tell you what "XDCAM" means to them.

That's simple to find out if you read this: https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/micro/xdcam/brochures/XDCAMsystemFAQs_09.pdf

Yup, I read that a long time ago. It's an old document now. XDCAM products have come a long way since then. Which reminds me, with my EX1r sold, I no longer own a Sony CINEALTA camera any longer :- (

So the "XDCAM" logo represents a "camera" product and a "workflow" together.

CT

Anyone heard of a release date for the XDCAM firmware update? it was supposed to be released in June.
Just a reminder for this thread so it doesn't fade away without an answer or any info about it!
Anyone have any clue about this upgrade? any link from Sony?
Thanks

I've been in contact with Sony on an unrelated matter, so also asked about this.

I was told by Sony UK, who checked with its marketing department, that this optional upgrade isn't going to happen. I was told Sony had made a mistake be releasing this information earlier this year! And the information related to the X70 and not the FS5.

This seems difficult to believe that a company the size of Sony would make this sort of mistake?

If it can offer it for the X70, is it such a leap to be able to offer it for the FS5?

Maybe, if the demand is there, Sony will in the future?

I must say that I was rather surprised as it's not as if this option hadn't been publicised. Or is it a case of UK Sony not knowing what Japan has in the pipeline?

Maybe someone with Sony contacts can clarify this further...

Very interesting...thanks for sharing.

So why did they put a XDCAM logo on the side of the FS5?...and why on Earth did they announce it was coming?

Poor show Sony (not that I would have bought this particular Firmware option, BTW).

I wonder, after Sony said "by mistake" (or so it now seems...that XDCAM option was coming) just how many people then bought the FS5 expecting the option to have this legacy codec capability?

This is really disappointing.It seemed to me too good to be true! could have been a great extra to this camera...I'm sure that more than 90% of FS5's owners would have preferred the Xdcamhd mpeg2 instead of that crappy Avchd!! Go figure...
Thanks for the update

I also asked Alister Chapman whether he knew anymore via an existing FS5 tutorial conversation on his own website.

Here's his reply:

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2016/06/pxw-fs5-tutorial-videos/#comment-80418

Damn, this sucks.

Why give it to the X70 and not the FS5? Protecting the FS7, maybe?

Shame that XDCAM isn't the codec, since in the UK (at least) a manufacturer can't put a logo on a product and then not deliver on what it implies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Descriptions_Act_1968

But the FS5 CAN have the "XDCAM" logo.

Today, Sony "XDCAM" now has two CODECS....The older H.262 (MPEG2) and the newer H.264 (AVC).

As long as the FS5 supports at least one of these CODECS, it can carry the "XDCAM" logo.

I don't think anybody can attack Sony from any legal angle. "XDCAM" is a Sony defined brand. They could simply argue in their defense that "XDCAM" is nothing more that a "camera" model line and that it's not married to any actual MPEG CODEC....old , new or future.

I'm fairly certain that H.265 (HEVC) will be the future 3rd CODEC to be included in "XDCAM" cameras soon for 6k and 8k. So again, h.264 cant do 8K, so get ready for the next Sony CODEC roll out. And,...if those future 8k XDCAM cameras cant do MPEG2 or H.264 and can only do H.265 HEVC?, they can still carry the "XDCAM" logo.

So yeah, their defense will be; "Sorry, but we (Sony) never said the XDCAM logo "only" meant MPEG2 exclusively, especially when our marketing material promoted the new h.264 so heavily."

I think Sony is safe with the XDCAM camera branding. What CAN screw them are those original rare documents that started to float out there that DID show a paid MPEG2 upgrade option. They pulled that back in pretty quick and hoped that people would forget.

If a buyer made a decision based on this pulled back document?....now you got a case!

CT

Sony's decision to withhold the mpeg2 codec from the fs5 but to include it in the x70 is most likely that the x70 is for them a "broadcast ready" camera that can serve a large group of broadcast professionals that depend on that particular codec to deliver to production houses that also demand such a codec. Sony doesn't seem to want the fs5 to be used for that same purpose but they do so for their fs7 (from what I have seen it has that mpeg2 codec?), the only reasoning behind it that I can think of is to protect the fs7 and it's Sony's way of saying, "if you want it all then buy the fs7"

Wow, I was a few days away from grabbing an FS5 when I read that ad floating around that v2 would provide MPEG422. So glad I read this thread just now. Thanks guys. Downloaded the v2 manual and there is no mention of 422. Good grief! That should be standard. Even the z150 has it at half the price. C'mon Sony! Do the right thing.

Chris,

What do mean by V2? The camera or the software? And can you post the link...

Thanks,

Dano

Sony appears to be pegging this camera as a less than a professional camera ... too bad, since it is a workhorse for me. The mpeg2 codec would certainly make it more useful. I went online to the Sony Community site and there is no forum for the FS5. it is left out completely. If I had realized that they planned to peg it in this way, I would have made a different choice. I like the camera but I don't like a camera to be pegged for less than it is or can be. Support may suffer. I guess we will see how they treat it over time.

Sony's decision to withhold the mpeg2 codec from the fs5 but to include it in the x70 is most likely that the x70 is for them a "broadcast ready" camera that can serve a large group of broadcast professionals that depend on that particular codec to deliver to production houses that also demand such a codec. Sony doesn't seem to want the fs5 to be used for that same purpose but they do so for their fs7 (from what I have seen it has that mpeg2 codec?), the only reasoning behind it that I can think of is to protect the fs7 and it's Sony's way of saying, "if you want it all then buy the fs7"

Wow, I was a few days away from grabbing an FS5 when I read that ad floating around that v2 would provide MPEG422. So glad I read this thread just now. Thanks guys. Downloaded the v2 manual and there is no mention of 422. Good grief! That should be standard. Even the z150 has it at half the price. C'mon Sony! Do the right thing.

V2 is the firmware update. 422 4K is supported via external recorders IIRC once a paid upgrade is in place but Sony haven't provided that yet.

As far as I know there is no V2 of the camera. It is just the firmware.

Right, firmware version 2.00. The Sony Professional site has the manual posted that goes the update and there is no mention of MPEG422.

Sony appears to be pegging this camera as a less than a professional camera ... too bad, since it is a workhorse for me. The mpeg2 codec would certainly make it more useful. I went online to the Sony Community site and there is no forum for the FS5. it is left out completely. If I had realized that they planned to peg it in this way, I would have made a different choice. I like the camera but I don't like a camera to be pegged for less than it is or can be. Support may suffer. I guess we will see how they treat it over time.

Just curious, does anybody have the opinion that the MPEG-2, 8bit 4:2:2, 50MBp/s, CODEC is a "professional" CODEC but the H.264, 10bit, 4:2:2, 50Mbp/s CODEC is NOT "professional"?

I must say that I really under estimated the current demand today for MPEG-2. I really thought that H.264 had already successfully replaced the majority of the desire for MPEG-2.

I guess I was wrong. I wonder how long MPEG-2 demand will continue for. 2 years?...3 years?...even more?


CT

Just curious, does anybody have the opinion that the MPEG-2, 8bit 4:2:2, 50MBp/s, CODEC is a "professional" CODEC but the H.264, 10bit, 4:2:2, 50Mbp/s CODEC is NOT "professional"?

I must say that I really under estimated the current demand today for MPEG-2. I really thought that H.264 had already successfully replaced the majority of the desire for MPEG-2.

I guess I was wrong. I wonder how long MPEG-2 demand will continue for. 2 years?...3 years?...even more?


CT


You kind of answered your own question: the current demand for HD422. It's not us shooters who are picking the format, it's our broadcast clients. I would love for them to take XAVC-L, and in time they might do so. I try to sell XAVC when I can, but the clients have the final say.

Most of my clients ask for mpeg-2 422 50mbp/s and with my pmw-200 and X200 i give them this format,and often copy mxf files to a professional disc or a hard disk.
I know FS5 wasn't made for the "broadcast" world but it's really silly to think about the X70 as a broadcast little camera and not the FS5! like i said before in this thread i would have gladly pay for this upgrade.
Now the only option I have is using my lovely/priceless Nanoflash to record the mxf file from it so i can give my clients what they demand.

Just passing on information from a broadcast equipment supplier...he's been told that there should be announcement about this from Sony at IBC.

It will be interesting to see if this becomes a reality or not...

Just passing on information from a broadcast equipment supplier...he's been told that there should be announcement about this from Sony at IBC.

It will be interesting to see if this becomes a reality or not...

Thanks, Kevin! I hope it's good news.

And now it's official!

IBC 2016: Sony PXW-FS5 Gets MPEG2 HD 422 Recording as Paid Upgrade License | 4K Shooters (http://www.4kshooters.net/2016/09/09/ibc-2016-sony-pxw-fs5-gets-mpeg2-hd-422-recording-as-paid-upgrade-license/)