Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Sony FS5 codec problems and 4K ripped edges bug

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Even the GH4 has an ALL-I codec at 200Mbit/s... and that's $1400.

$1400 vs $5600

The less you pay, the better the codec?!

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, $1000 and under. 10bit ProRes and internal Cinema DNG raw!

Indeed, c'mon Sony!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Sony's problem is exactly what you mention in the article: "Segmenting the market by codec".

If they do indeed update the codec to XAVC-I then there is little to be had extra with an FS7.

So unless they charge ~$2000 for the update I am guessing they will just fix the XAVC-L. Which is still fine cause the FS5 is a great little camera. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This crippling of cameras capabilities on purpose is getting really ridiculous and insulting.

We know how much of a scam it really is since the 2009 mark II is 14 bit raw capable thanks to magic lantern,

- The gh2 capable of much higher quality compressions thanks to the hack.

- The sony F5 internal 4k capability with a simple line change edit in the config text file.

I'm under the impression we have come to a point in camera technology where the entry line cameras are fully capable of producing at least 4:2:2 color, possibly at 10bit depth and definitively with higher quality compressions. Problem is with this level of image quality the enormous price jump of the high end cameras would be hard to justify even with raw formats. They just have to mess up the cheaper ones somehow.

Since blackmagic strategy is to offer the most features at the best price to compete with the market, and they don't have such a crowded product line to have to apply this product segmentation garbage I believe they are a good comparison:

Ursa mini $4,995                               Sony fs5 $5,599.00

ProRes XQ 4:4:4  - 250 MB/s              XAVC Long 4:2:0  - 100Mb/s with macro blocking nightmare

It's 2016, you pay 5'600usd for macroblocked 4:2:0 8 bit. Come on now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm under the impression we have come to a point in camera technology where the entry line cameras are fully capable of producing at least 4:2:2 color, possibly at 10bit depth and definitively with higher quality compressions. Problem is with this level of image quality the enormous price jump of the high end cameras would be hard to justify even with raw formats. They just have to mess up the cheaper ones somehow.

I think the form factor, audio and ergonomics justify the cinema cameras for pros rather than image quality, so to cripple the FS5 is pointless of Sony, it should have had the same codec options as the FS7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just speculation tugela. Also there are two separate issues.

There's the bug, not just the performance limitations of the codec.

With the edge ripping this isn't internal codec related at all unless Sony are doing something really strange and applying compression / H.264 encoding to the feed that hits the monitor, magnified focus assist and uncompressed SDI. I don't think so! This looks to me like a 4K image processing bug.

The performance in 10bit (internal 1080p) is worse than 8bit AVCHD on the C100 II so if Sony want to beat the Canon and live up to their own marketing text they will have to upgrade the 10bit mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really disappointing.  I'm in the market for 3 new cameras for a broadcast program shot in different locations each week.  I have been excited by so much of this camera's form factor, ND etc.  - but a crippled image / codec really takes this out of the running for me.  This camera could have been a huge hit.  

Now I'm left thinking: 

  • FS7 - bigger than I want, color takes more tweaking than canon and we've got a lot of show to edit...
  • Ursa Mini 4.6 - No ND's, not out yet, who knows the bugs we'll have
  • C300 Mk1 - No slow mo, but good broadcast image & form factor
  • C300 Mk2 - Expensive, good image but cropped slow mo... 

FS5 would have fit the bill.  Internal broadcast codec is a must - external recorders are too bulky for my needs.  I wonder how many in broadcast would have jumped on the FS5? I'm sure quite a few have been like me,  waiting, watching for the reviews and footage to come forth.  My guess is they'll fix the bug - but we'll be left with the weaker codec.  Unless... we get an FS5ii in a couple months... (kidding, kidding)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the form factor, audio and ergonomics justify the cinema cameras for pros rather than image quality, so to cripple the FS5 is pointless of Sony, it should have had the same codec options as the FS7.

Well, I've not even had good experiences with Sony's form factor and ergonomics... I found the F5 plain awful to use. It has a million pointless buttons on it that I just wanted to go away, and trying to navigate the menus for things that I actually needed was just nightmarish... nothing about that camera justifies the price. And the bottom line should be the pictures. Spend 5K on a pro camera - the pictures should look better than on a consumer camera a quarter the price. I just don't see that right now at all. 

This crippling of cameras capabilities on purpose is getting really ridiculous and insulting.

We know how much of a scam it really is since the 2009 mark II is 14 bit raw capable thanks to magic lantern,

- The gh2 capable of much higher quality compressions thanks to the hack.

- The sony F5 internal 4k capability with a simple line change edit in the config text file.

I'm under the impression we have come to a point in camera technology where the entry line cameras are fully capable of producing at least 4:2:2 color, possibly at 10bit depth and definitively with higher quality compressions. Problem is with this level of image quality the enormous price jump of the high end cameras would be hard to justify even with raw formats. They just have to mess up the cheaper ones somehow.

Since blackmagic strategy is to offer the most features at the best price to compete with the market, and they don't have such a crowded product line to have to apply this product segmentation garbage I believe they are a good comparison:

Ursa mini $4,995                               Sony fs5 $5,599.00

ProRes XQ 4:4:4  - 250 MB/s              XAVC Long 4:2:0  - 100Mb/s with macro blocking nightmare

It's 2016, you pay 5'600usd for macroblocked 4:2:0 8 bit. Come on now.

I wonder how much the recent space race for 4K+ resolutions has actually derailed absolute image quality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this with one really long sigh... Well, in my head, doing that for real would probably be dangerous.

it was just so predictable, I mean I didn't want it to be true, the Sony spec sheet was, as usual, amazing; I can't remember a camera of theirs that hasn't made me eventually hate it because of bugs though.

all this progress and I'm still using a bloody C100. It works, grades easy in hi-dr mode (sort of semi log) and the footage flies on a laptop. I actually WANT to find something even better... But I don't like too many compromises 

 I hope one day Sony do bring us a camera that he no bugs, a great or even passable codec and has their usual lower-than-Canon price points, but until then... I Gotta keep using what works...

so sad :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an FS5 owner myself, and having made my biggest investment yet in a video camera, I'm feeling cheated. Yes Sony will produce firmware updates to address the problems that they can address in software but I am very concerned that there is only so much they can do in firmware: The FS5 is very small and extremely light and there really is not much in the way of electronics inside compared to an FS7. Many assume that Sony could simply unlock the FS5 and give it full FS7 capabilities if they chose to but is that assumption realistic? My concern is that Sony compromised one step too far in terms of hardware + processing power when they made the FS5 to be so compact. One example being that the camera is hardware limited to feeding only one external output at a time - which includes the LCD/EVF - thereby forcing you to invest in, and daisy chain, a 3rd party viewfinder if you want to record externally. At this rate, with external recorder and 3rd-party viewfinder, where is the advantage in size or cost compared to an FS7?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise this is a slightly off topic, but Sony seem to have dropped the ball on other aspects of R&D as well. In this thread there are over 400!!! pages of owners complaining about the implementation of Android on their 2015 Bravia TV's: https://community.sony.co.uk/t5/televisions/2015-bravia-android-tv-issues/td-p/1949079

A year or so back I read Sony intended to concentrate a major part of it's R&D budget on the PS4. I am now wondering if other Sony departments have had budget cuts as a consequence? 

Anyway a major theme in this TV thread is Sony has gone completely quiet on end users only breaking cover to suggest the next update will resolve current issues. If you read the whole thread (good luck) you'll see the updates have rarely cured problems only introduced new ones.

I realise Sony's TV and camera depts are unlikely to be closely aligned, but if they are covered by the same philosophy, management and ethic.... I wouldn't be holding your breath re any FS5 updates!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...