FS5 file please

[Nate Haustein]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

With all due respect to Nate for taking the time to shoot the clips and post them, you can't make any judgements about the performance of the camera from these clips. By Nate's own admission they were shot with a bunch of randomly selected settings that don't work together and with no attention paid to exposure or anything else. We don't even know what the lens was. Take them for what they are, but PLEASE do not judge the camera my these hastily shot tests. I would send my camera back to Sony if I thought this is what the camera really looks like.

You are so right. After I posted I had second thoughts about it since it really is a terrible scene! Good for seeing how the clips work in your editor but not much else. I've shot a bunch of stuff I'm happy with, but client work so no posting on video forums. FYI lens was kit lens wide open to about F5.6.

I'm in a shoot right now with some down time, so I'm going to try again in better light. I'm not so familiar with the Gain terminology, does 0db 9db 18db work as a usable spread?

[Michael Stevenson]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

With all due respect to Nate for taking the time to shoot the clips and post them, you can't make any judgements about the performance of the camera from these clips. By Nate's own admission they were shot with a bunch of randomly selected settings that don't work together and with no attention paid to exposure or anything else. We don't even know what the lens was. Take them for what they are, but PLEASE do not judge the camera my these hastily shot tests. I would send my camera back to Sony if I thought this is what the camera really looks like.

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I"m not sure if I am the only one but I honestly don't understand what you guys are complaining about, that last clip (10000 using PP7 with S-Log2/S-Gamut3.cine Color.) looked perfectly fine to me, I would be glad being able to shoot such a nice and clean image at 10.000 iso, my wife was standing next to me when I was viewing that clip and I asked, "can you point out noise, color fringing, and artifacts" and she had no idea what I was talking about, for her it looked fine as well. Ofcourse it could be that most of you shoot high end commercials for big companies who expect artifact free images at 10.000 iso without extra light but seriously, are you not expecting too much or staring too close at the screen while pausing the video or taking frames out and magnifying them in photoshop? Or do I really have so low standards that I am blind to the obvious?

Ouch, getting clobbered here. :) The truth is I'm a rank amateur at this. I appreciate both comments.

[Ray Lee]

Originally Posted by Nate Haustein

You are so right. After I posted I had second thoughts about it since it really is a terrible scene! Good for seeing how the clips work in your editor but not much else. I've shot a bunch of stuff I'm happy with, but client work so no posting on video forums. FYI lens was kit lens wide open to about F5.6.

I'm in a shoot right now with some down time, so I'm going to try again in better light. I'm not so familiar with the Gain terminology, does 0db 9db 18db work as a usable spread?

I think the reason people are asking for gain vs. ISO is that depending on the gamma setting the ISO readout means very different things.... 0 gain in SLOG3 is according to Sony 3200ISO but 0 gain in CINE2 gamma is 640ISO I dont use it to edit or work but for testing purposes Sony Catalyst is great because it gives you all the EXIF data you need

Thanks for posting, you are braver than I am.. I kept seeing this post and wanted to share but after posting samples on the FS5 FB page and even on another video site I learned my lesson (this post looks likes its going well, but this camera really brings out the crazy in people for some reason :) )

[Nate Haustein]

Ok, heres another couple scenes in better light. Two scenes, each shot first with stock PP6, and then PP7 with the S-Gamut3.cine color.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vi4r3efyz6...STS-2.zip?dl=0

Specs: FS5, UHD 100Mbps, Sigma 18-35mm. Other info is audibly spoken in the videos. Sorry about the loud mic - forgot channel 1 was on manual control when I switched to the internal mics.

[Cliff Totten]

Interesting....when you try to pull a "Media Info" on these files, you get ALL the metadata fields being empty!

This exact same thing used to happen on the original Sony PXW-X70 with it's original firmware. Sony then repaired that in the next firmware release. Sony Vegas was able to then use those new firmware recordings with now problem.

With all this metadata being missing, it could make it hard for some NLEs to identify and playback the files properly.

Anybody else seeing this too? It's the X70 firmware 1.0 problem all over again.

Interesting.....

[Docea Marius]

Hallo Nate

If is possible make a test C100 MarkII vs FS5 1920x1080 in hi iso :-) ,unfortunately FS5 is not camcorder for 6000 usd which I expect from Sony.weak performance in low light,codec problems.
I want to convince myself that I deserve this money,Sony must quickly resolve problems.I want to buy this FS5 but always watch back Canon C100 Mark II,ok is not 4k,no 10 bit....,codec ..

[Nate Haustein]

Hmmm. I deleted the MXF files from the folders that weren't for public eyes. I'm sure the metadata got kind of messed up, but I was still able to import the clips to FCPX. The metadata does not show up in FCPX, but when I view the files in Catalyst Browse, all the metadata is still there. I believe it may be a NLE thing. They don't make it easy to share a single file these days...

[Ray Lee]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Interesting....when you try to pull a "Media Info" on these files, you get ALL the metadata fields being empty!

This exact same thing used to happen on the original Sony PXW-X70 with it's original firmware. Sony then repaired that in the next firmware release. Sony Vegas was able to then use those new firmware recordings with now problem.

With all this metadata being missing, it could make it hard for some NLEs to identify and playback the files properly.

Anybody else seeing this too? It's the X70 firmware 1.0 problem all over again.

Interesting.....

all the EXIF information is shown in Sony Catalyst

[Cliff Totten]

I think that "Media Info" pulls it's metadata from inside the .mxf wrapper itself. Sony Catalyst probably pulls it's information from the surrounding metadata files associated with each .mxf video file.

I dont know. However, we have seen this exact same thing before with the original Sony PXW-X70 firmware before. Sony did fix it it the next X70 firmware release and "Media Info" was able to read the metadata again.

[Jack Zhang]

NEVER delete random files through a standard file browser. Use Catalyst Browse to make a new folder and import the footage into a new folder. Worse comes to worse, get a fresh SD card and transfer only the clips you want to be public and then share THAT entire card.

Also, always write protect your card before import on a Mac.

[Walter Brokx]

Thanks for sharing the files!
I am actually curious to try some 10-bit HD files...

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

NEVER delete random files through a standard file browser. Use Catalyst Browse to make a new folder and import the footage into a new folder. Worse comes to worse, get a fresh SD card and transfer only the clips you want to be public and then share THAT entire card.

Also, always write protect your card before import on a Mac.

With XAVC-L and XAVC-S, when I'm done shooting, I simply copy the .mxf files and the .mp4 files with File Explorer and only keep those files for my projects.

I dump all the rest of the files and format the card for the next shoot. I have never had a need for anything else in those folders.

I do occasionally use "Media Info" on those files to verify what bit rate they were shot in and look at any other embedded data into the files.

[Side note] I do also prefer XAVC-S' .mp4 container over .mxf. I strongly believe that h.264 unpacks and plays back smoother and with less CPU overhead than h.264 in an .mxf container.

[Walter Brokx]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

NEVER delete random files through a standard file browser. Use Catalyst Browse to make a new folder and import the footage into a new folder. Worse comes to worse, get a fresh SD card and transfer only the clips you want to be public and then share THAT entire card.

Also, always write protect your card before import on a Mac.

With an EX1(r) and EX3 and other EXCAM camera's this is very true.
It seems that FS5 uses a more user friendly structure :-)

[Jack Zhang]

No. NEVER assume you can just copy select files. You lose your "Digital Negative" of the shoot each time you only copy the files instead of the entire structure.

Trust me, if you make the same mistake with P2 on a critical shoot, you will be yelled at.

NEVER COPY THE FILES YOU "NEED." COPY ALL THE FILES ON THE CARD AND IT'S FOLDER STRUCTURE. I know DSLR shooting has made this point soured down cause everything's in one file, but PLEASE. COPY EVERYTHING.

WATCH THIS: (go to 1:04)

YouTube (Short URL)

[Cliff Totten]

I guess it all depends on the work flow you are using. Some might need to be concerned with time code or other metadata. This could easily be a major concern for many people.

The .mxf or .mp4 files that XAVC-L/I/S create don't have any playback dependencies on their folder structure or external file metadata. They contain their own metadata inside that needed for simple playback.

My workflow has never needed those external XAVC files and folders. Whatever works for you.