New Sony PXW-FS5

[Doug Jensen]

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.

[Ron Evans]

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

[Walter Brokx]

Originally Posted by 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.)

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

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.

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

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.

[Walter Brokx]

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

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Walter Brokx

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

[Andy Wilkinson]

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

[Walter Brokx]

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.

[Andy Wilkinson]

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.

[Mike Watson]

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."

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

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.

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

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

[David Peterson]

Originally Posted by Tom Gresham

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!).

[Tom Gresham]

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.

[Jim Stamos]

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

[Olof Ekbergh]

Originally Posted by Jim Stamos

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/B00...ilpage_o02_s00

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...ilpage_o02_s00

Hi Jim,

Both these work great...