New Sony E-mount video cam for IBC

[Mike Watson]

The FS100 form factor was common in it's time; I'd be shocked to see them use it again. I'd expect something more like an FS-7 form factor.

Despite my statement that it having a FF sensor would explain the 28-135, I can't see them putting a FF sensor on the "FS1" while the FS7 has a Super 35.

[Dmitri Zigany]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

Oh, so a VG900 replacement it may be then, just with much better EVFs and a proper LCD placement.

No. It will be something that fits into the FS line.
My guess is it will have much in common with the FS7.

[Cliff Totten]

Here are my crazy guesses for this thing:

I suspect that the "FS-?" will be Sony's answer to market against the Panasonic AG-DVX200. Yes, they are going to be very different types of cameras but they both might be in similar price points and both aimed at some degree of ENG work.(even though fighting big sensor focus is not fun for ENG work)

I think Sony will draw very clear and careful lines between this "FS-?" and their current FS7. The FS7 is a huge hit for Sony and they are NOT about cannibalize themselves and put unnecessary pressure on the FS7's sales numbers.

Here goes....

SENSOR:
The "FS-?" will have a FF sensor - FF and Super32 are often thought of as different markets with Super35 as the true "pro" one. Sony is also investing heavily into it's new FF lens lineup. A new full frame "FS-?" will certainly help to move more Sony FF lenses from the store shelves. It also gives the Sony 28-135mm FF Cine lens a new home.Today, this lens not as not well suited to the current FS7's S35 crop.

FRAME SIZE:
I strongly suspect that Sony will keep this a 1080/UHD camera. I'm guessing that Sony will not allow DCI-4k as to help keep pressure away from the FS7. The Panasonic DVX200 does have DCI-4k but I just don't think Sony is willing challenge that feature. They will hold stubborn on this. Also, I HOPE is uses a sensor with a bit more resolution than the A7s. The A7s only does true UHD in FF. In Super35 mode, it's got allot less than the 8 mega pixels needed for UHD. (But then again, this might be the market separation tactic that Sony wants)

FRAME RATES:
1080 will see up to 120p and UHD will have 60p. I think that Sony would rather leave UHD at 30p but I think that Panasonic will be twisting Sony's arm on this one. I think Sony might hate doing 60p on this "FS-?" but in the end they will do it.

CODEC:
1080 - The Sony "FS-?" should be similar to the very cheap Sony X70 in 1080 HD and that means 10bit, 4:2:2. Sony is focusing on 4k now and is very willing to "loosen up" on the old 1080 marketing restrictions. I'm sure internal UHD will probably be locked at 8 bit, 4:2:0 with 4:2:2 over it's HDMI port. I see no chance in Hell where internal UHD will be anything more than this. I'm sure this will also be a long GOP only and no intra-frame options.

CONNECTIONS:
I'm betting we will see the usual 3G SDI for 1080 and HDMI 2.0 for UHD 60p.

SLOG-2:
I think Sony will want this camera to be limited to 12 stops of dynamic range. The Panasonic DVX200 and all the other sub $5k players do 12 stops and I think Sony will be happy to just match it. SLOG-3 and more than 12 stops of DR will be the solid domain of the current FS7 and I don't think Sony is willing to add more DR to this lower model. Plus, you really need 10bit anyway to normalize SLOG-3.

If this cameras has these features and is in the $5000 range, I'm totally getting one. (Hope my wife is not reading!) I suspect,..no, I KNOW that it's going to be a FANTASTIC low light performer.

[David Heath]

There are three most likely calls for what the front end will be. First is using same s35 sensor as the FS7 - which I feel a bit unlikely, would make it difficult to differentiate from the FS7.

Next two most obvious would be to use either of the front ends from the A7R ii OR the new RX10/100, either combined with video oriented back end. Is it confirmed it will be "E" mount? I don't see that in the Sony tease, only the rumour sites?

If true, if it IS E mount, it points most heavily to the first of those scenarios, the full frame sensor from the A7R ii with a video centric body. Personally, I can see room for both. A full frame camera with interchangeable lenses, and a camera based on the new RX10 sensor and lens, but both made far more video friendly and with full broadcast I-frame only codec etc.

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

I suspect that the "FS-?" will be Sony's answer to market against the Panasonic AG-DVX200.

Yes - I really find it strange why Panasonic announce a product so long before it's availability to actually buy. It would seem to give their competitors chance to best tweak their own product launches, and for that matter tweak the specifications and prices of what they're launching to compete?

In that respect I'd think something based on the RX10 chipset (with built in zoom lens) was a more direct competitor to the DVX200, but I'd be more inclined to guess it's going to be the full frame model. Who knows - we may get both at the same time?

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Yes, they are going to be very different types of cameras but they both might be in similar price points and both aimed at some degree of ENG work.(even though fighting big sensor focus is not fun for ENG work).

Careful - what you are saying in the last sentence is ONLY true *assuming the same f stop*. Which may not be at all true.

Compare 2/3" with full frame, and the latter I believe is very roughly 16x the area of the former. On a like for like comparison, it may therefore be expected to be about 4 stops more sensitive. (Because of the larger photosites.) So assuming all else equal, then for an f2 lens on 2/3", you can expect identical performance to a f8 lens on the FF sensor, of 4x the focal length. Identical low light performance, identical depth of field. Work it through and even the size/weight of the lenses are likely to be very similar.

Large sensors CAN mean shallow depth of field, but ONLY if used with fast lenses.

[Dmitri Zigany]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Is it confirmed it will be "E" mount? I don't see that in the Sony tease, only the rumour sites?

Well, it's confirmed that it's a FS-series camera. So far all FS cameras have been E-Mount so I think that's about the safest bet regarding this camera.

I also don't think that the AG-DVX200 is the competition, that's a fixed lens ENG/event camera. Sony has their own cameras in this segment fighting that battle. The competition here is mostly the C100mkII (and the Black Magic cameras). While the FS7 fights the C300 (and soon mkII) at a significantly lower price the FS??? will come at a rather similar price as the C100mkII, which means it will have to beat it in features.

[Brian Rhodes]

Here are my guesses

Sony PXW-FS5 4K XDCAM XAVC
No Grip extension Handle
Some of the menus grayed out
Super 35mm Single-Chip Exmor CMOS
No loupe on LCD

XAVC-L QFHD 50
3840 x 2160/59.94p, 50p, 29.97p, 23.98p, 25p
XAVC-L 35
1920 x 1080/59.94p, 50p, 59.94i, 50i, 29.97p, 23.98p, 25p
XAVC-L QFHD MPEG-4 H.264/AVC
59.94p/50p mode: VBR, maximum bit rate 150 Mb/s
29.97p/23.98p/25p mode: VBR, maximum bit rate 100 Mb/s

XAVC-L HD 50 MPEG-4 H.264/AVC
VBR, maximum bit rate 50 Mb/s

MPEG-2 Long GOP
1920 x 1080/59.94i, 50i, 29.97p, 23.98p, 25p 1280 x 720/59.94p, 50p, 29.97p, 23.98p, 25
MPEG-2 Long GOP
CBR, maximum bit rate 50 Mbps, MPEG-2 422P@HL

Audio Input
2 x 3-pin XLR
Line/mic/mic +48
Mic Reference: -40. -50. -60 dBu

SDI Output
2 x BNC HD/3G-SDI
SMTPE292M/424M/425M

HDMI 2.0
1 x Type A

USB
USB device, miniB

Headphone
1 x Stereo mini jack
-16 dBu 16 Ω

Remote
Stereo mini jack (Φ2.5 mm)

[Jack Zhang]

I expect 8 bit 4:2:0 only in the XAVC-L QFHD mode. And the lower bitrate option has to be 60mbps. You'll have an option of 60mbps, 100mbps for framerates up to 30p and 150mbps for 50p or 60p. No 4:2:2 option in 4K except out the HDMI.

Also, it may be full frame, but be aware of weird crop factors if they choose this route. If it's the same Super35 sensor, expect all the framerates and crop factors to be normal, but no RAW options whatsoever.

[Josh Bass]

Am I missing something, or is UHD so close to 4K that the differences are insignificant (literally a few hundred pixels)? This is not like 720p and 1080p; you're talking one being 95% or so as large as the other. Even if you had to scale up to real 4K for delivery, would you even notice?

[Jack Zhang]

You crop away the extra pixels for Cinema 4K to "Broadcast" 4K. A 16:9 safe essentially. Most broadcast will be 3840 sourced anyways, only if you need to deliver to Digital Cinema will 4096 matter.

[Roshdi Alkadri]

Alexa's older non-4k resolution has been upscaled drastically for 4k projection with no visible artifacts. Not comparing Alexa to this new cam but an UHD image does not need "as much" stretching

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

Am I missing something, or is UHD so close to 4K that the differences are insignificant (literally a few hundred pixels)? This is not like 720p and 1080p; you're talking one being 95% or so as large as the other. Even if you had to scale up to real 4K for delivery, would you even notice?

Two things - when you talk of "UHD" I think you actually mean QFHD (3840x2160, "quad full HD")?

UHD is defined as an umbrella term, defined by the CES as referring to a system with a resolution of at least 3840x2160, so can be used to refer to 4K UHD and 8K UHD etc - in other words "better than normal HD". QFHD uniquely refers to 3840x2160.

Both QFHD and "cinema 4K" have a pixel height of 2160. The difference (as you imply) is solely in width - 4096 for 4k, and 3840 for QFHD. So yes, a few hundred pixels in one sense, but it means 4K is a wider aspect ratio than QFHD.

Converting QFHD to 4K means cropping the image and then rescaling up - yes, possible, but it's generally better to avoid any rescaling if possible. Shooting true 4K (4096x2160) and outputting QFHD is far better - a simple crop horizontally and no rescale. So if uncertain which aspect ratio you want to end up with (or you may want cinema and TV versions), it's more desirable to originate 4K and crop to QFHD than the other way round.

[Roshdi Alkadri]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Two things - when you talk of "UHD" I think you actually mean QFHD (3840x2160, "quad full HD")?

UHD is defined as an umbrella term, defined by the CES as referring to a system with a resolution of at least 3840x2160, so can be used to refer to 4K UHD and 8K UHD etc - in other words "better than normal HD". QFHD uniquely refers to 3840x2160.

Both QFHD and "cinema 4K" have a pixel height of 2160. The difference (as you imply) is solely in width - 4096 for 4k, and 3840 for QFHD. So yes, a few hundred pixels in one sense, but it means 4K is a wider aspect ratio than QFHD.

Converting QFHD to 4K means cropping the image and then rescaling up - yes, possible, but it's generally better to avoid any rescaling if possible. Shooting true 4K (4096x2160) and outputting QFHD is far better - a simple crop horizontally and no rescale. So if uncertain which aspect ratio you want to end up with (or you may want cinema and TV versions), it's more desirable to originate 4K and crop to QFHD than the other way round.

Yes, a slight change of aspect ratio for sure. Resolution wise, there isn't a huge difference between QFHD vs DCI 4K. We're not up-scaling 2k or 2.8k for that matter to full DCI 4K but instead enlarging a few hundred pixels, not as drastic.

You're right though, starting with a full raster DCI 4K will always be better taking into consideration that we're actually finishing in 4K.

[Mike Watson]

Can we hope it supports SD cards? I've finally gotten a surplus of SD cards in 32 and 64GB... it'd be nice if I didn't have to start over.

Oh, and F970 batteries. I have years worth of 970 batteries.

[Josh Bass]

Thanks. But in real world practical terms, if you, say, had a cam that only shot QFHD and client wanted their final delivery in "real" 4K, so you had to upscale, would the image quality suffer noticeably or only to pixel peepers?

[Mark Fry]

So the new camera sits between the cheaper FS700 and the more expensive FS7? I predict it will be called the FS70.

But this speculation belongs in the Area51 section, not the Industry News section. It won't be "news" until we see the first official announcements and spec sheets. Remind me, when does IBC start?