Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is F55 that special?

Harry Clark said:
I had to spend a lot of time tinkering to get a baked in 709 file that looked filmic enough (prior to getting Red One #344 back in 2008 I was a film guy, and also a Panasonic SDX and HDX owner, and I always felt like Panny had the edge on a more filmic electronic system)
Click to expand...

It's amazing, using either SLog2 or raw, using ACES in Resolve. Amazing look.

Any of the Standard or Hypergammas are terrible looking.
 
Yes, I totally agree. They need to hire someone with an eye to design LUTs... ;)
But the RAW is really wonderful. then again, so is Red ;)
Cheers,
Harry
 
M Most said:
Codecs don't affect resolution, but they do affect the dynamic range that can be effectively described and manipulated.
Click to expand...

I would say codecs most certainly can affect resolution. The h264 codec on the 5Ds softens the image substantially. REDCode above 7:1 drops the sharpness on many shots to below 1080p. I had an 8:1 shot with trees where it was just a fuzzy mess. The 1080p proxy had more resolution. Data has to be thrown away somewhere in comrpession, resolution is definitely a victim of lossy compression.
 
Steve Phillipps said:
Is it just me - the more I look into the F55 the more I see things lacking?
Compared to Epic once you start looking at it it starts looking a bit low-grade. There's a few people talking in hushed and not very optimistic tones about the future possibility of 120fps in 4k - they sound not hopeful (it's not on the roadmap at all - is the camera even capable of it?), and it's as if it's just one of those dreams that's not gonna happen but in an ideal world it'd be a dream spec. Epic of course already does it. Actually 150fps. In camera!
No interval recording (supposedly on the way). No pre record cache. Several comments about slightly plasticky build. New filter option to prevent aliasing when someone does something crazy like shoot more than 120fps in 2k.
Off the top of my head, 3 stand out features remain; global shutter, built in NDs and low power consumption. All good stuff, but, from my experience and all that I've heard, the rolling shutter on the Epic is absolutely nothing to be worried about unless you're on the red carpet or shooting lightning, and the low power consumption seems like it might be simply because the camera can't do as much!
Oh...and the Epic is actually cheaper too!
Not saying it's a bad camera - I was excited when it was revealed and still think it looks great - but the whole "game changer" thing etc.? I'm not so sure any more.
I don't have any affiliation with either manufacurer - Just a topic for discussion.
Steve
Click to expand...

The aliasing in 2K high frame is due to line skipping as F55 must do as it does the full sensor scan (that Epic can't/won't do). This will be fixed in firmware 3.0 in December when they add the option to do HFR in center crop mode (same as Epic).
 
I suppose nobody knows whether the F55 is capable of 120fps in 4k mode? As the maximum 2k speed is 240 I would assume it's very unlikely as by my rough maths I'd guess that 120fps in 4k would take about 3x as much data. Surely if the camera were capable of it they would have mentioned it too to increase its appeal. Without it, for wildlife at least, it'll be a bit limiting IMO.
Steve
 
I won't record 120fps in 4K RAW on the recorder, or 4K internally. Perhaps they will add that later. One of the minuses of the camera.
Yes, wildlife running is seriously best at very high frame rates. I just worked on a project shooting wolves running across the landscape in Montana. We used my Epic (160 fps) and a Phantom Flex (300-600 ish fps) and it really looked great.
Cheers,
Harry
 
M Most said:
XAVC, as I recall, is an 8 bit codec (it might be 10 bit, however).
Click to expand...
Wikipedia says 8-bits, 10-bits, or 12-bits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XAVC

I think if you could shoot simultaneous 4K RAW and 8-bit XAVC for offline, that'd be fine for an awful lot of people. I really think the F55 was invented as competition for the Alexa, not so much for Red. I see it as a TV series camera more than anything else, and I bet it'll do a good job for a lot of users.
 
Marc Wielage said:
Wikipedia says 8-bits, 10-bits, or 12-bits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XAVC

I think if you could shoot simultaneous 4K RAW and 8-bit XAVC for offline, that'd be fine for an awful lot of people. I really think the F55 was invented as competition for the Alexa, not so much for Red. I see it as a TV series camera more than anything else, and I bet it'll do a good job for a lot of users.
Click to expand...

TV is the larger market obviously, but do you honestly think the F55's 16-bit 4K linear raw output with 14-stops of DR and a global shutter exposure isn't intended for high-end cinema and the like? I've only had one shoot with the F55 to date, but the feature-set, wider dynamic range and smoother highlight rolloff make it more than a match for the MX sensor IMO.

These high-end cameras are all so good now, I think you to separate them more by their 'looks' than by production types they're suited for.
 
Marc Wielage said:
Wikipedia says 8-bits, 10-bits, or 12-bits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XAVC

I think if you could shoot simultaneous 4K RAW and 8-bit XAVC for offline, that'd be fine for an awful lot of people.
Click to expand...

You can, as long as the XAVC recording is HD (you can't if the XAVC is being recorded as 4K). You can also use the SR codec or the XDCam variants. At this point, however, many, if not most of the shows using it are recording HD only, using the SR or XAVC codec. Some are also doing 4K RAW, but the comment I often hear is "we can't afford the separate recorder," which really means they can't afford the cards that go in it (the cost and required number of cards for a typical show is a big sticking point these days, regardless of the card format, which is pretty surprising to me).
 
M Most said:
You can, as long as the XAVC recording is HD (you can't if the XAVC is being recorded as 4K). You can also use the SR codec or the XDCam variants. At this point, however, many, if not most of the shows using it are recording HD only, using the SR or XAVC codec. Some are also doing 4K RAW, but the comment I often hear is "we can't afford the separate recorder," which really means they can't afford the cards that go in it (the cost and required number of cards for a typical show is a big sticking point these days, regardless of the card format, which is pretty surprising to me).
Click to expand...


jupp, 4k or above raw.... without r3d kind of compression is really what makes other cameras differ from red. Just working with small little alexa 2,7k or what ever they are in raw is quite heavy.
 
Travis MacRitchie said:
F55 Internal XAVC is 10-bit, the R5 Raw Recorder is 16-bit linear log
Click to expand...

Ummm... It's just linear. There's no such thing as "linear log", it's either one or the other. The RAW is recorded to a 16bit data container, however just as we see with R3D and ARRI RAW, that is just the size of the container. What really matters is the signal to noise ratio and the range delivered from the sensor combined with the precision of the ADC.

Not trying to say anything bad against the F55 here, just picking a couple large nits. The F55 has it's strengths and weaknesses, just like any other camera. It's proving to be a viable production tool for many.
 
Björn Benckert said:
jupp, 4k or above raw.... without r3d kind of compression is really what makes other cameras differ from red. Just working with small little alexa 2,7k or what ever they are in raw is quite heavy.
Click to expand...

The F55 RAW file is compressed, using wavelets, much like R3D. The ratio is about 3.5:1. On the F65, there is a second, more compressed codec (Raw Lite) that is about double that, or approx. 6:1. Sony's explanation for not having Raw Lite on the F55 is that the sensor itself has fewer photosites, so the base 3.5:1 compression is all that's needed and all that you would want to use, and that yields a file of about the same size as Raw Lite with the denser F65 sensor.

I did say that's Sony's explanation........
 
The F55 is a bit of a compromise in virtually every respect. It's also the most flexible camera on the market with as good a chance to remain viable over time as anything out there.

The form factor, feature set and multi-format support suit a lot of people's needs - both now and in the future. Live UHD output makes hardlined UHD EFP multi-cam shows possible. I think this is the transition camera a lot of broadcasters will buy to replace older rigs.

The Epic Dragon will easily outperform the F55, but for a lot of everyday, meat and potatoes production work the F55 is good enough (yes, I hate that phrase too).

Cheers - #19
 
Marc Wielage said:
Wikipedia says 8-bits, 10-bits, or 12-bits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XAVC
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, Wiki does say XAVC can support 8-bit, 10-bit and 12-bit - but there is absolutely no 12-bit at all on the F55 (or F5) camera. The F65 does have a 12-bit option, but well its an option. :)

The F55 offers 8-bit MPEG HD, 10-bit XAVC HD, 10-bit XAVC 2k, 10-bit XAVC 4k, 10-bit SR Codec 422 and 444, and with external recorder can record 4k 16-bit linear RAW (no, not log!). The internal codecs can record using standard REC709 gammas, a few hyper-gammas to increase the perceived dynamic range, and finally slog2 gamma which gives you the most dynamic range of the camera sensor before going "RAW". If you're shooting cinema and not for broadcast you definitely want slog2 to keep the highlights under control and give you more of a filmic look.


As for my F55 story:
I was one of the early adopters of the F55 back in March. I had been shooting with the F3 for a couple years and last October bought a RED Scarlet for 4k RAW but soon after the Sony's were announced I sold the RED Scarlet just as I received it and hung onto the F3 for a bit longer until the F55 was shipping.

I was originally considering the F5 but I really wanted the ability to shoot 4k 10-bit 422 XAVC without having to necessarily go to RAW, plus I knew from working with slog in 10-bit that if exposed correctly there was lots of room in post for grading. If I could squeeze 95% of the Alexa look out of the F55 without having to shoot RAW I'd also save 3 times the bit-rate and hence disk space, transcoding times, etc..

The F55 offers a lot that the F5 doesn't like the Extended Color Gamut (exceeds film color and meets ACES spec.), Global Shutter, internal 4k recording, and can provide 4k live output via SDI, and with a separate module provide 4k via fiber for multicamera-casting. It will also record MPEG HD proxy files at the same time as 4k XAVC internally to the same card. This is pretty cool (no need to transcode later with Davinci or FCP, etc..)

Over the RED cameras, the F55 does offer a few things I can think of. The main thing really is the versatility with the wide variety of codecs from crappy 8-bit 50mbps MPEG (meeting most broadcast specs.) to the SR-Codec in RGB 444 excellent for green screen work, to the higher end "cinema" type codecs like RAW. Also the images are very clean and you can shoot at really high ISO's without really any introduction of major noise that has to be cleaned later. Another awesome thing is a 96wH battery will last 2-3 hours quite easily.

I have a few gripes with the F55 since it came out like the lack of any professional exposure tool (like seriously are you kidding?), and also absolutely no built in monitoring LUTs so if you shoot in slog2 in VF or monitor you must work with what looks like severely under-exposed images but in fact they are exposed properly for slog2. Thankfully Sony just released some built in exposure tools (false color, histogram, waveform monitor) a few days ago, but the monitoring LUTs are still no where to be found. For a camera that in my mind was suppose to compete with "cinema" cameras, this is a non-starter man. You can not expect any professional DP (in my opinion) to work with a camera that has A.) no built in exposure tools, and B.) no monitoring LUTs for working in SLOG. Of course there are work-arounds like external monitors or VF's via SDI,..

120fps HFR was just released last week on the recent firmware update but it uses the entire 4k sensor to preserve the FOV and the method Sony chose to do it with was line skipping which is producing some minor aliasing (but still some aliasing none-the-less) and by the end of the year will release a 2k cropped (windowed) mode which hopefully will produce some better results. Not sure if the 2k crop will support HFR though, need to check that.

All and all I don't like to say that camera A is better than camera B because I've worked with (and still do) a variety of cameras (including RED) and there are just different tools for the job and some you want to own/operate more than others for different reasons. If you feel the need to peg yourself down to one specific camera, well then that's your prerogative. Me? I still shoot with Canon 1DC, 60D, 7D, C100, Sony F3,.. and other cameras depending on the situation, budget, project, etc.. The F55 isn't always the right camera for the job.

Anyway hope this has been insightful.
 
Last edited:
Yes Dennis, very useful, thanks. And you're right - tool for the job, and for my purposes, shooting wildlife, I really do think that the RED is the right tool - entirely due to higher frame rates. Pre record is a biggie too, but I'm pretty sure the F5 and F55 will get that before too long. The higher frame rates seem unlikely though.
Steve
 
Yes Sony has more updates up their sleeve coming out by the end of the year of which will give the cameras two modes of HFR - one being full scan sensor mode and the other being a 2k cropped version.

For anyone's interest here is a video shot in sony's RAW mode. I think it's what anyone would expect when shooting RAW, a look that can be harder to achieve if only using the built in codecs (although slog2 can be a good compromise.)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top