Interesting, that would mean an entirely new codec system from Sony, or adaptation of SR to go down to 100Mb/s. SR-Lite is currently 220 Mb/s. Do you really want bigger files for the kinds of productions most 350’s are used for. You double you archive requirements for maybe only a marginal image quality improvement.
I also like F3 replacement. I suspect that we will have fs100-s35, fs700 s35 with 4k through a recorder and then F3 s35 with internal 4k with better bit rate and better gamma curves. I’d be impressed if we got that in 2012. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Lets be realistic about gamma curves, there is a limit to what can be captured even with a 10 bit codec and recorder. The next step is raw. The further we go from the gammas used for display and broadcast the flatter and less interesting the captured images look, so more grading and post production is required. Eventually it gets to the point where you may as well use a raw workflow, ditch capture gamma and just deal with the extra processing time.
Yes, raw would be a lovely feature on the F3 – if only Sony could do it as a firmware upgrade… right now.
4K recorder must be in the wings for sure. Maybe a firmware change to the SRR1 to allow raw recording at extortionate prices?
A long shot as it is considering it’s an announcement I live in hope it’s an update for the to make the EX1/3 50mbps compatible.
Reaslistically it’s probably fs700 external recording or a replacement for the ex1/3 as that market has largely been forgotten these last few years with the focus on narrow dof
To expand, I think that there will always be a gradient between the cheaper cameras and the more expensive ones. Ideally the gradient is formed by adding better stuff to the higher end cameras rather than by hobbling the potential of the cheaper ones. In that spirit, I would love to see the dynamic range of the higher end cameras increase ever higher towards film or beyond. I don’t think that will be in the announcement but I certainly hope that the upward trend continues.
Dynamic range is great to have, but it’s easy nowadays to have too much of it because the recording system has to be able to record the extra information. I think everyone just accepts that to go from SD to HD or from HD to 4K requires more data to record. It’s easy to understand that a bigger image needs more data to maintain the same image quality. But many people forget that an image with higher latitude is also a “bigger” image, it has a bigger range from light to dark and that too requires more data to capture with the same quality. Most of the codecs in use today were designed to work with traditional gammas like REC-709 which have limited latitude. Even going up to Cinegammas or Hypergammas with an 8 bit codec is pushing things beyond what they were designed for. If you step up to a 10 bit codec then 13, 14 stops becomes more realistic using gammas like S-Log, but even these are trade offs as in order to allocate sensible amounts of data to the lower stops in the exposure range you must compress the high end significantly (without compression each additional stop of exposure requires double the amount of data). Even 10 bit can’t cope with 13 – 14 stops without highlight compression. To record linear data you need to go up to 12 or 14 bit data, better still 16 bit like the Sony F65. That requires new recording systems and new workflows and these tend to cost money.
Yes, but Alister you are talking about recording video signals, right?-
In my understanding, raw recording is not “video” per se and needs less data than a comparable 4:4:4 video signal and raw can be used to capture the maximum dynamic range possible from the sensor at the full native bit depth.
Also, I agree with Matt – all digital camera’s in the professional class should be pushing towards the standards set by Film – and not stop until that is achieved.
The computers will easily copy with that (even laptops) in a couple of years time and you can always provide a lower quality broadcast codec as an alternative recording setting on the camera…
A new PMW-350/320. 10-bit 4:2:2 50-100Mbps internal recording!
Interesting, that would mean an entirely new codec system from Sony, or adaptation of SR to go down to 100Mb/s. SR-Lite is currently 220 Mb/s. Do you really want bigger files for the kinds of productions most 350’s are used for. You double you archive requirements for maybe only a marginal image quality improvement.
The F3 replacement?
4k recorder for fs700
I also like F3 replacement. I suspect that we will have fs100-s35, fs700 s35 with 4k through a recorder and then F3 s35 with internal 4k with better bit rate and better gamma curves. I’d be impressed if we got that in 2012. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Better gamma curves than S-Log?
Lets be realistic about gamma curves, there is a limit to what can be captured even with a 10 bit codec and recorder. The next step is raw. The further we go from the gammas used for display and broadcast the flatter and less interesting the captured images look, so more grading and post production is required. Eventually it gets to the point where you may as well use a raw workflow, ditch capture gamma and just deal with the extra processing time.
Yes, raw would be a lovely feature on the F3 – if only Sony could do it as a firmware upgrade… right now.
4K recorder must be in the wings for sure. Maybe a firmware change to the SRR1 to allow raw recording at extortionate prices?
A long shot as it is considering it’s an announcement I live in hope it’s an update for the to make the EX1/3 50mbps compatible.
Reaslistically it’s probably fs700 external recording or a replacement for the ex1/3 as that market has largely been forgotten these last few years with the focus on narrow dof
I meant better than the fs700.
To expand, I think that there will always be a gradient between the cheaper cameras and the more expensive ones. Ideally the gradient is formed by adding better stuff to the higher end cameras rather than by hobbling the potential of the cheaper ones. In that spirit, I would love to see the dynamic range of the higher end cameras increase ever higher towards film or beyond. I don’t think that will be in the announcement but I certainly hope that the upward trend continues.
Dynamic range is great to have, but it’s easy nowadays to have too much of it because the recording system has to be able to record the extra information. I think everyone just accepts that to go from SD to HD or from HD to 4K requires more data to record. It’s easy to understand that a bigger image needs more data to maintain the same image quality. But many people forget that an image with higher latitude is also a “bigger” image, it has a bigger range from light to dark and that too requires more data to capture with the same quality. Most of the codecs in use today were designed to work with traditional gammas like REC-709 which have limited latitude. Even going up to Cinegammas or Hypergammas with an 8 bit codec is pushing things beyond what they were designed for. If you step up to a 10 bit codec then 13, 14 stops becomes more realistic using gammas like S-Log, but even these are trade offs as in order to allocate sensible amounts of data to the lower stops in the exposure range you must compress the high end significantly (without compression each additional stop of exposure requires double the amount of data). Even 10 bit can’t cope with 13 – 14 stops without highlight compression. To record linear data you need to go up to 12 or 14 bit data, better still 16 bit like the Sony F65. That requires new recording systems and new workflows and these tend to cost money.
Yes, but Alister you are talking about recording video signals, right?-
In my understanding, raw recording is not “video” per se and needs less data than a comparable 4:4:4 video signal and raw can be used to capture the maximum dynamic range possible from the sensor at the full native bit depth.
Also, I agree with Matt – all digital camera’s in the professional class should be pushing towards the standards set by Film – and not stop until that is achieved.
The computers will easily copy with that (even laptops) in a couple of years time and you can always provide a lower quality broadcast codec as an alternative recording setting on the camera…