Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Can anyone who's handled the FS5 comment on it's size / weight compared with Canon C100? With and without top handle / grip?

Also, C100 can often pass for stills camera (handy when working in places where playing the tourist is advantageous). From the photos I've seen, Sony FS5 looks to have too many dials / buttons on the side to play that card ... any advice?

Many thanks.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

No, the FS700 saves the HFR video as progressive, user selectable as 24p, 30p or 60p.

Mark

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

I held the FS5 in my hands: felt good.
I saw someone compare it to a PD150: I don't share that feeling.
I doesn't compare to the PD150 at all: the handgrip is much better and rotatable like on the EX1(R).
The variable electronic ND will really give you more control over DoF.
I see it more like a little brother of the FS7 and a nice S35 successor of the EX1R with a bonus: it can be stripped down to the body alone, so it can be used on a MoVI M5.

One downside I learnt from Alister: while recording there is no HDMI out, at the moment: he said it will be added by a firmware update.

@Zack:
Read this blog by Vincent Laforet about the cost of doing business:
How to succeed as a creative long term: know your C.O.D.B. « Vincent Laforet's Blog
It's very informative if you struggle about what to charge.

And go networking: there must be networking clubs or events you can attent to make new contacts. I understand you find it hard to make new connections: maybe you can ask someone to join you to 'break the ice' or even better: ask if you can join someone who is going there anyway. That person might introduce you to some new people.
And change your mindset: a proper rate is not insane.
Your 'friend-clients' might think it is insane, but they have become used to insanely cheap.
Years ago I heard someone telling about this same situation: he was fed up and sent an email to all his clients explaining that he needs to raise his rates to survive and that he will have to say goodbye to bad paying clients. What happened? He indeed had to say goodbye to a part of his clients, while others were willingto pay better rates, because they felt it was worth it.


The EX1R is still a very good camera. I also still use it (although not for everything.)
In times you have nothing to do, you could go make something you'd like to create. This way you can expand your portfolio with something to target clients, so you can up your game.
Never do nothing: always learn to improve your skills, so you can offer more quality.
4K doesn't automaticly improve your work's quality.
Actually buying the newest stuff isn't the quickest way to better rates/more work: stuff is just tools.
Make your clients feel and understand you make THE difference because you know how to tell their story in a compelling way that helps their businesses.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

I held a C100 maybe once but from what I remember it has a more DSLR-factor designwise and the FS5 is a real videocamera. With a lot of dedicated buttons, yes, so passing as a stills camera would be hard. Over at Newsshooter I saw an unboxing of the FS5 and the maker commented that it did remind him of the Canon Cinema series.

I held the FS5 and it felt great- very light also. I felt I could handhold this camera for a long time, looking down through the viewfinder. The weight, handgrip and small size got me very excited. Not to mention the chip and variable ND...

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

This video of Tom Crocker of Sony talking about the FS5 at IBC has just been released.

Sony PXW-FS5, in-depth interview: Tom Crocker, Sony, Europe

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Thanks to those of you who've actually held the camera. Your input is invaluable. It does seem to be a very versatile, little hand-held camera.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

This camera looks like it would satisfy my yearning for a 4k version of an ex1 type camera but I have some concerns around editing the XAVC-L footage. I have a fs7 and have tried filming and editing using this codec and found it difficult. I have a decent computer and playback was a pain in the arse.

I'm tipping many buyers will also be shelling out for a new computer in order to edit the footage the FS5 produces without pulling all their hair out!

Hope I'm wrong cos I'd love one of these!

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

I hear you on that one. Good point.

I am hoping my pretty high spec new Mac Pro ("trashcan") and G-Raid Studio-R 4-Bay Thunderbolt 2 system (where all my work in progress media sits), running Adobe CC and/or FCPX, will handle the Sony XAVC-L 4K codec pretty well - especially the HD 4.2.2 50 Mbps codec which is what I'll be using 80-90% 0f the time I expect - at least for now. But time will tell - roll on November!

What type of spec is the Mac or PC that struggles with clips from your FS7 with the XAVC-Long GoP codec? And is that 4K or HD you're talking about?

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

At IBC I saw the FS5 side by side with a C100.
The sizes are pretty close to each other.
2 major physical differences are the position of the LCD screen and the handgrip: the FS5 can easily be adjusted while holding the camera, while a C100 has to be but down to unsrew the handgrip if you want it to be rotated.

@Jamie,
difficulties with playback can have various reasons: the harddrive can be the bottleneck, or the GPU or CPU.
So maybe the solution isn't a new system, but identifying the part causing the problem.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Well, got to check one out for real today and I'm hoping for a "output only" mode to be included in the RAW upgrade that would allow the sensor to scan at 60p without any internal recording functions active. The photo below was the menu option that gave me hope. If the FS5 can in the very least output 4K 60p out the HDMI with duplicate frames, it can very likely do so natively if the internal recording functions were disabled, which the RAW upgrade probably would do.

If that option is HD only, then there is no hope for 4K 60p out the HDMI, but rather the RAW upgrade only.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Ron ~

Right now I'm holding my powder dry after spending an afternoon with the DVX200.

The one we looked at was the latest firmware version prior to release we were told. First things first. I had heard about noisy shadows and blacks so I was on the lookout for this. Sure enough I could see noise in the dark areas at 0dB. What I DIDN'T expect to see as I wasn't even looking for it and it was the furthest thing from my mind was fixed pattern noise in the blacks. To see pronounced FPN at 0dB on a late model camera release surprised me. Something else I didn't expect to see and wasn't even thinking about looking for it until it hit me was moire... moire on T shirt material even? These three issues all raised their heads in the first thirty minutes of just trying the camera out without any specific tests in mind.

The other aspect I found a little surprising was that I was led to believe that the 200 had a similar zoom function to Sony's Clear Image Zoom. A zoom that once it reached the end of its optical travel would then continue on from the long end. On the x70 for example you go from full wide to 12 x and then on to 24 x with pretty acceptable results. On the 200 this is not the case it is actually a doubler as we are used to in B4 lens terminology. The HD wide end is 28mm in FF terms so this becomes 56mm and the long end goes from 365.3 to 730.6mm. So no zooming from full wide of 28mm with the 2x engaged. I can see uses for this but the loss of the wide end really cramps ones style if you want the extended reach at the same time.

In all fairness to Panasonic this was a pre-production model so I will wait to see a full production roll out model before I draw any further conclusions. The DVX200 camera has masses of appeal on paper with the specs it offers but unless the image characteristics improve somewhat I think there will a few people asking questions. No doubt more and more opinions will start to surface in the near future as these cameras hit the stores. I'm just surprised to see to see these issues raising their heads so close to release date.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Jamie I know where you are coming from. Long GOP formats like XAVC-L are always harder for CPUs. to decode. What I am doing with all my XAVC footage is batch converting it to Cineform 4:2:2 Medium which is a wavelet based codec. It plays super smoothly edits nicely and can carry a fair bit of correction and effects before it even looks like dropping below a full 50 frames per second and that sort of performance can be seen on a 1st gen i7 CPU. The trade off is that the clips will be about 3.6 times the size. Quality? I cannot pick the difference so it's a no brainer for me.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Any updates on delivery date? With two on order, I'm counting the days. I just don't know how many days to count. ;)

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

I'm excited about this camera more for HD at 4:2:2, 10-bit with an efficient codec onto cheap XCSD cards off a super 35mm sensor, plus interchangeable lenses. Don't really care about 4K just now, but love the idea of having more "cinematic" look potential and more robust post-production tweak-able footage - all in a gun-and-run format. Kind of like a PXW X70 with a bigger chip AND I can swap lenses. I don't think anything else out there ticks all of those boxes. 240 FPS slow-mo is icing on the cake really. Will seriously consider buying this when available for cinema verite type projects.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Maybe a stupid question, but... would it be compatible with the HXR-PMU128?
If yes, that would be a boon (and would permit high rate 4K recording)

N.F.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

I guess I rather irreverently spilled my guts, but would anyone care agree or disagree with my take on this camera. Thanks.

-Terence

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Eric from Pro Video and Tape said I was one of the first few on the pre-order list, so I assume I'll be one of the first to get one. Like you, I am chomping at the bit. They were saying shipping in November but I'd heard mention of "perhaps by the end of October", so I have my hopes up. My beta 300 was serial number #10012, the 12th Beta 300 to roll off the line. I am curious to see if I can have a similar accolade for the FS5, although certainly it won't be as iconic.
The FMU128 would require molding of the body that the FS5 does not seem to have.
If you had hard drive space to burn, I suppose you could shoot HD 4:2:2 10-bit - I'm showing you'd get about 7 minutes on a 64GB card. Can your edit system handle this bandwidth? What do you have for a monitoring solution that can take advantage of this extra data? How are you outputting? Will your audience notice a difference? To me, this is not the advantage of this camera. But I am not the camera gestapo - but it for whatever reasons you wish.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Quote: If you had hard drive space to burn, I suppose you could shoot HD 4:2:2 10-bit - I'm showing you'd get about 7 minutes on a 64GB card. Can your edit system handle this bandwidth? What do you have for a monitoring solution that can take advantage of this extra data? How are you outputting? Will your audience notice a difference? To me, this is not the advantage of this camera. But I am not the camera gestapo - but it for whatever reasons you wish.

Regarding the card space, XAVC-L compresses HD to 50 MB/s - so that's not a problem. Pro Res conversion (for example) will blow that up quite a bit, which I think is what you maybe were referring to (7 minutes/64 GB)? I use external hard drives for all my projects, which are relatively cheap enough now. Regarding the quality, you may be right that most of the audience will not notice. But I do, and there is no rationalization beyond that it bugs me. I'd put up money for competing in blind trials to pick 4:2:0 over 4:2:2. Poor me - I could save so much money. Having the X70 has been a kind of vindication. No more greenish greens, reddish reds. And I have much more latitude in post with 10-bit vs 8-bit. I mainly deliver for internet or small screen charity events, so no great shakes, but I much prefer 4:2:2/10bit to work with. Horses for courses I guess.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

It's 50 Mb/s, NOT MB/s - a very big difference! :-)

Well, I'd be happy to take your bet! Of course, it depends on what the trial is, but on straightforward shooting/viewing - even on a very high quality monitor - I would be very, very surprised if anyone could tell the difference without extreme pixel peeping.

And to an extent depends what the format is. The whole rationale behind the existence of 4:2:2 stems from interlace, and in such a system there are indeed valid reasons for not subsampling vertically, at least at the acquisition end of the chain.

For a progressive system all that goes away and it is far more sensible to have a symmetrical system - 4:2:0 or 4:4:4.

Ah, now 10 bit is a different matter. For most material 8 bit is fine, but it's when you get into the world of log curves and such that 10 bit really gets important.

It's also worth saying that 4:2:2/10 bit codecs have traditionally gone hand in hand with higher end codecs with higher bitrates, so less overall compression - and the latter can make a huge difference to how material may stand up in post. But such doesn't have the "headline" nature of "4:2:2", even though practically it may be the compression factor that is really making most difference.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

New Sony FS5 footage...

VideON | First Look At What The PXW-FS5K Can Do | XDCAM HD Products

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

It's 50 Mb/s, NOT MB/s - a very big difference! :-)

---I actually know this, so hold my head in shame, and thanks for the correction; see what occurs when typing something late into the evening after a couple of glasses of merlot.

Well, I'd be happy to take your bet! Of course, it depends on what the trial is, but on straightforward shooting/viewing - even on a very high quality monitor - I would be very, very surprised if anyone could tell the difference without extreme pixel peeping.

----Well, if there is ever a world tournament :-)

And to an extent depends what the format is. The whole rationale behind the existence of 4:2:2 stems from interlace, and in such a system there are indeed valid reasons for not subsampling vertically, at least at the acquisition end of the chain.

For a progressive system all that goes away and it is far more sensible to have a symmetrical system - 4:2:0 or 4:4:4.

----I don't pretend understand much of that in any depth (but promise to educate myself accordingly) - and with respect, I do trust what my eyes tell me; whenever I have seen footage 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0 even crushed somewhat on Vimeo, it positively pokes me in the eye. Or I could be seriously deluded. I do intend to do a series of blind comparisons on myself, since I respect your expertise. (I also have perfect pitch apparently, and a slightly mistuned piano causes much pain while every one else merrily bobs along oblivious to any discord.)

Ah, now 10 bit is a different matter. For most material 8 bit is fine, but it's when you get into the world of log curves and such that 10 bit really gets important. ---agreed, but I can still find I can push around the x70 XAVC-L 10-bit image much more, even in "standard" settings, with less chance of it falling apart.

It's also worth saying that 4:2:2/10 bit codecs have traditionally gone hand in hand with higher end codecs with higher bitrates, so less overall compression - and the latter can make a huge difference to how material may stand up in post. But such doesn't have the "headline" nature of "4:2:2", even though practically it may be the compression factor that is really making most difference.

----Thank you for your guidance. I have relied on DVinfo so much in the past to set me right, including your good self David, but I think I would to enjoy this camera, if only for the super 35mm sensor, 240 FPS slo-mo and swappable lenses. Fool and his money etc etc.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5 & Ronin M
 

This was posted yesterday on Vimeo by someone in Italy. Sony FS5 on a Ronin M. He says it was shot in SLog2 (not yet sure if it was 1080p 10-bit or QFHD 8-bit).

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

I see this has now become a private video.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

But the question I have to ask is have you ever seen a 4:2:0 v 4:2:2 comparison *with all else equal*? Same compression factors, obviously same camera ( :-) ), same everything else? Because if the answer is "no", then whilst you may indeed have seen a difference, then how can you definitively say it was due to colour space and not one of the other factors?

This is relevant as typically 4:2:2 may be more likely to come with lower overall compression and other "good" factors. So that codec may well show a real benefit, but not necessarily down to colour space. It's a bit like going to my favourite restaurant, who (unknown to me) buys all his lamb from a local high quality source which he has a good deal with, and all his beef from a more anonymous source. I don't eat meat anywhere else, so my conclusion is that "beef is a better meat than lamb". It's valid on the basis of my experience....... but.... :-)

And - was what you saw interlace or progressive? It is undoubtedly true that 4:2:2 is more suitable in the interlace world, though I'd expect that to be more the case further down a chain than on source material.

You have to ask yourself why, if it's OK to halve chroma resolution horizontally, then why is it not OK to halve it vertically? Because that's what is implied by demanding 4:2:2. And the answer, quite simply is interlace. Halving the samples is a bad idea when you think of the line structure of interleaving lines of the alternate fields. Move to progressive imagery and all that goes away.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put you off this camera, I've seen it and basically was pretty impressed by it. But the 4:2:2 aspect is pretty well down my list of reasons for thinking that....... It's certainly good if you're thinking of shooting HD interlace, but I can think of many more important factors to buy it for.

(Actually, I think I'd still overall go for the FS7 personally, but it's horses for courses and I do like the variable ND of the FS5. Very impressive. But if sheer small size and the ability to strip it down even smaller is of key importance then yes, it has to be the FS5.)

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

David - You have given me a lot to think about. I do appreciate you taking time to enlighten green-horns such as myself. There is probably some definitive Digital Video Engineer's Handbook I should be consulting, although Wikipedia is pretty good for most things. Anyway, I foresee an interesting learning curve ahead. The bottom line is, no, I haven't done a controlled comparison with all parameters being equal, as best as that may be possible to achieve. And I had not even factored in interlaced vs progressive, but I see your point in light of the way horizontal rastering works. Hmm...

Thanks again,
Terence

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Everything on Vimeo / Youtube / TV / Everywhere is 4:2:0. So even if someone shoots 4:4:4, by the time it reaches Vimeo, it will look exactly as anything shot in 4:2:0.

4:2:2 only really affects color edges and outlines (especially in animation).

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Vimeo / YouTube / TV is < 8 mbps. So by that logic, we should abandon these 50 and 100 mbps codecs in favor of something that's 8 mbps because there's no sense in delivering more than that.

In reality, the latitude of color correcting and editing in a more generous color space is what we're after. Even if you compress it when you're done, you had it when you needed it.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Two things. First, it's wrong to equate colour space with bitrate compression. Colour space is a very defined one thing or another matter. You either have chroma resolution equal to luminance or you don't. And if you don't, it's a defined ratio to it, end of story - bitrate compression is far more complex.

And as far as bitrate goes, then simple numbers don't tell anything like the whole story. What's the codec? Long-GOP or I-frame only? If long-GOP, what's the GOP length? How complex is the encoder, and is it able to do any sort of 2-pass encoding? Take all that into account, and it's PLAUSIBLE that something around 8Mbs COULD rival in quality terms the same material encoded at much higher bitrate. Plausible if the encoding used had access to a high level encoder, and could make use of tricks like 2-pass encoding, or the complexities found in a broadcast level hardware transmission coder.

But such is not likely to be found in a camcorder capable of working in near real time with power consumption limits, and yes, in principle you want acquisition to be capable of allowing for concatenation through the post and transmission process.
Again, I agree with the broad sentiment, but where do you draw the line? Ideally, you don't want anything less than 4:4:4 uncompressed, if we take the argument to the limit? In practice, that's normally not feasible, and the datarate has to be drastically reduced.

So we're into the land of compromise. And if we decide to accept a degree of subsampling, then why 4:2:2? For a fixed datarate 4:2:0 will mean less samples - so a lower degree of data compression. And - arguably - the lower compression will make more difference than a higher colour space. Maybe. It comes back to the original point. 4:2:2 colour subsampling came about because of interlace TV, when it's usage is highly sensible. For progressive systems it's an anachronism. For most (progressive) use 4:2:0 is the best compromise, when the very best is needed it makes sense to go to 4:4:4. What's the point of accepting horizontal subsampling, but not vertical!?

Terence - to give you a little something else to think about, then the early digital component systems were 4:2:2, but it's interesting to think what happened when cheaper (digital) formats first came out. And the DV variants are the most obvious. They wanted to reduce the chroma sampling by 50% - but how to do it? Two obvious possibilities, either further reduce it by 50% horizontally, have one chroma sample per four luminance (which is 4:1:1) or halve the vertical chroma resolution (which is 4:2:0).

Initially, the decision was to do the former, and in the NTSC system all the DV formats are 4:1:1. The reason is that this can withstand repeated analogue-digital conversions much better than 4:2:0 (the latter tends to eventually give vertical chroma smearing) - and initially the recorders were seen as digital "islands" in an analogue world.

But that didn't last very long, and in the all-digital world 4:2:0 was rapidly seen as the better compromise. And because PAL equipment always came after NTSC equivalents, this enabled the spec for PAL DV and DVCAM to be set at 4:2:0 - not 4:1:1. (Sometimes it's better to be a little behind...... :-) ) This became even more significant as regarding all the delivery methods (DVD, digital broadcast etc) were specced to be 4:2:0. Start off with DV and 4:1:1, and the final result will be a worst case scenario approximating to "4:1:0". Not good! But in the PAL world, start off with DV, and it's 4:2:0 all the way.

What this meant was in NTSC territories, "4:2:2" was rightly seen as important - but because it gave a final true 4:2:0 and not "4:1:0"! Does that make sense? 4:2:2 was desired not because of what it was/is - but because it's NOT 4:1:1 ! :-)

Yes, that's all in the past, but with 4K, so is the whole concept of interlace, and so too should be 4:2:2. But old habits die hard.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

I may have remembered it wrong...but I am sure I saw a video where someone (from Sony, I think) said that the FS5 does two-pass encoding. It got my interest as I thought this unusual in a camera - but if true highly desirable!

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

No, I remember something like that as well. I'd like to know the detail behind it, because two-pass encoding normally means having the entire material available to analyse before the actual encode - so bits get allocated to scenes which most need them. Easy enough if you're encoding such as a DVD and all the file is available - but on a camera, working in real time.......?

I can only think it must be using a buffer, and delaying encoding by the duration of the buffer, which would give a chance for limited forward analysis before the encode? But normally, I'd think two pass and real time coding to be exclusive?

Sony PXW-FS5 Has Dual Pass Encoding
 

David,

Found it! Watch from just after the 6-minute mark in this video, about 6 min 20 secs to be exact.

In this video Juan Martinez, Senior Product Manager of Sony clearly says that the Sony PXW-FS5 "uses dual-pass encoding so the quality is incredibly high...none of our competitors use this same technology...so even though it's still H.264 we can achieve a different level of performance."

I was very excited to hear this when I first watched this video some time ago. :-)

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Roll call - to see how many FS5's we have on order in this forum. I have one on order, and as we creep closer to the end of October, I get antsier every day!

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Ordered mine the day of the announcement.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Some new video today:

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Nice colors, nice footage! Dynamic range seems to be pretty good in the corridors. Overall a good look.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

It sold me as much on the Ronin M as it did the FS5. ;-)

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

Yes, the footage of the Ronin M was very impressive. The wide angle lens, less so, but the quality of the footage was very nice. Camera appears to mate well with the Ronin. It is a very versatile camera for its size and price.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

I have two on order. Placed the order the first day possible. Wish I had them now -- on a week-long shoot in Arizona, and they sure would come in handy here.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

I have one on order going to use it as a B camera to my FS7.

Re: New Sony PXW-FS5
 

New FS5 Footage (it starts at 10:28 minutes to the end of the clip, while before, when the guy speaks there are just few seconds of footage) : Part Two:
Best Regards,

Danilo Del Tufo