I forgot where I read that, I was surely mistaken with another camera. the abel cine test shows 500 iso for -3 bd.That is probably correct for the F3 except the FS100 does not have negative gain. The one I played with in New York did not have it nor was there talk about it being implemented.

It is awkward for a 800 iso camera to have no lower iso possibility, more so when they did not include built in ND filter. I am asking the question now if it is still rated at 800 iso. Perhaps it is one stop lower and that is why it can go to + 30 db compared to the +18 db of the F3?

It is awkward for a 800 iso camera to have no lower iso possibility, more so when they did not include built in ND filter. I am asking the question now if it is still rated at 800 iso. Perhaps it is one stop lower and that is why it can go to + 30 db compared to the +18 db of the F3?That maybe the case until we can have someone do a test to rate the sensor. The 30db gain on the FS100 was not horribly noisy like any of my video cameras at all at high gains. There was noise in the image but I would have no problem shooting an event at 30db gain as it looked better than my T2i at 1600 ISO and a huge difference than ISO 3200 in terms of noise.

From the spec of the Fs-100 only the 8 bit output from hdmi is really disappointing. Should it have been 10 bit, even only using hdmi I would have been satisfied. Having such a good sensor as the F3 with only 8 bit is hard to swallow. I thought that the number of functionality (s-log, genlock, 3d, form factor, zoom rocker, Nd, etc.) would have been enough differentiation that they would have at least left the image pipeline intact when they have cheaper camera with 10 bit output. For me it would have been the ideal camera even with its short coming like no built in ND etc.

Now Sony put this camera at the mercy of the hdslr camera it is suppose to compete with. The gh2 has shown that it is possible to have a very high resolution HDSLR without moire and aliasing. Should a Canon 5d mark 3 come out in the next few month with all the benefit of the gh2 but with a 8 bit or even 10 bit clean hdmi output at half the price of the Sony, how many will switch. I know that the last part is speculation but it is very much a possibility. We are definitely seeing a 5d mark3 in the next six month. Canon will surely use that model to kick about an enhanced video line of Hdslr to keep the momentum as everybody has at least matched or exceeded them.

If you compare any S35 camera to a Canon 550D, anything will seem very overpriced. We have to be a bit realistic here. I is not because a Ferari cost 10 time more than a normal car that it will go 10 times faster. In the high-end you always have diminishing returns. It is always like this for that extra 2 or 3 stop of low light and dynamic range, you are going to pay much more for that. If you see the favorable reviews it getting from everywhere. People are calling it baby alexa (a $ 70 000 camera) even before the S-log!!!

A large problem is processing the images, doing this creates heat and the DSLRs will have to solve this problem and keep the costs down for their main market, the stills photographers, without introducing compression artefacts. It's very much a balancing act.

The costs of a working 10 bit recorder rig tends to bring everything above the DSLR price range. Currently every video camera in this price range is 8 bit and I suspect enters that "good enough" spectrum for a large part of this particular market and is capable of HD broadcast results. A lot more expensive video cameras than this only record 8 bit and I suspect a Canon large sensor video camera would record 8 bit 4;2;2 at most.

The only camera on the horizon that offers more than 8 bits in this price range is the much delayed 2/3" Scarlet with its currently drifting delivery date

The Sony NX5U NXCAM delivers true 10-bit 4:2:2 through its HD/SDI port.
All the more reason to wonder why Sony didn't include this feature in the fellow NXCAM FS100.

The EX series cams also deliver 10-bit, as does the upcoming HPX250.

A large problem is processing the images, doing this creates heat and the DSLRs will have to solve this problem and keep the costs down for their main market, the stills photographers, without introducing compression artefacts. It's very much a balancing act.

The costs of a working 10 bit recorder rig tends to bring everything above the DSLR price range. Currently every video camera in this price range is 8 bit and I suspect enters that "good enough" spectrum for a large part of this particular market and is capable of HD broadcast results. A lot more expensive video cameras than this only record 8 bit and I suspect a Canon large sensor video camera would record 8 bit 4;2;2 at most.

The only camera on the horizon that offers more than 8 bits in this price range is the much delayed 2/3" Scarlet with its currently drifting delivery date

Dear Brian, it is not because the Canon overheat that it is the case for every DSLR. Unfortunately dslr has been associated only to Canon. The GH1 and now the GH2 don't overheat even in such small packages. The GH2 is truly for me a second, some would say, third generation DSLR. It is really high resolution, does not suffer from moire and aliasing etc. The only thing it that it rolling shutter is still at the Canon Level. The new benchmark should be the GH2 today for comparing dslr technology.

You can now buy the Atomos Ninja 10 bit recorder at less than $ 1000, better more the new 10 bit uncompressed Blackmagic shuttle for less than $ 400!!! Unimaginable 6 month ago.

Steve,

I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who uses autofocus on pro cameras whether it be an EX1 or PMW350. So, I don't see any point to claiming issues about hearing the Alpha lenses. Plus, their SSM lenses are very quiet.

Also, with the Alpha adapter, you get better control over the iris/aperture compared to Nikon/Zeiss lenses which have hard stops.

Your point about the 'has the same sensor' is certainly true. For example, Sony makes most of Nikon's sensors and I believe the 24 megapixel Sony A900 has the same sensor as Nikon's 24Mp D3x, but the Nikon is slightly better in many regards such as lower noise and roughly 1-1.5 stop more sensitive.

Another example of products using identical parts but have vastly different image quality is the LCD industry. LG makes most panels and one of their 24" panels is used in a $450 HP LCD and $2400 NEC and Eizo LCDs and the HP is inferior in every aspect.

Cabs were hard to come by today but I made my way over to NAB during lunch and found Doug Jensen on duty at Sony. It was a pleasant experience to get the tour of the fs100 and dialog about it's capabilities. I also discussed the lens adapters for nikon leica and canon (the latter with another rep).

I like that so many of the body controls are the same as the EX. Doug confirmed there's a strong affinity and operations reuse. There were some nice surprises such as last clip review and expanded focus. I noticed the familiar peaking, zebras, and histogram buttons as well as expanded focus. Doug pointed out the latter can be used while rolling.

I'm a big fan of the ex rotating handle and was pleasantly surprised that the fs100 handle is not fixed. Not as easy to rotate as the ex but better than fixed. I don't intend to used Sony glass so the the iris control on the body or complaints about plastic lenses parts is a Non issue for me. I shoot my ex using all 3 rings and would do the same with the fs100. I also like the idea of an xlr out the back instead of off the mic holder.

The image on the display was of course stunning even at 18 db but it was a trade show so only the best equipment was being used. We used a leica f1.4 85mm if I recall. The low light performance was hard to judge on the floor but in a dimly lit area, the camera produced a nicely exposed portrait on a dark skinned model.

I'm considering this camera. I appreciate the larger sensor sites enabled by the super 35 sensor that's also 1.78 aspect ratio.

In the fs100 video, Juan Martinez referred to the vg10 as the insides of a nex stills camera repackaged into a camcorder.

You can now buy the Atomos Ninja 10 bit recorder at less than $ 1000, better more the new 10 bit uncompressed Blackmagic shuttle for less than $ 400!!! Unimaginable 6 month ago.

I think you may have answered your own question why not 10 bit? Given how long it takes to develop a camera, perhaps that option wasn't taken on board because it wasn't apparently available on the horizon when the specs for the camera were being laid out. You can keep adding things, but then the development drifts as each new neat feature gets put on.

The F3 has 10 bit because of HDCAM SR.

I think you may have answered your own question why not 10 bit? Given how long it takes to develop a camera, perhaps that option wasn't taken on board because it wasn't apparently available on the horizon when the specs for the camera were being laid out. You can keep adding things, but then the development drifts as each new neat feature gets put on.

The F3 has 10 bit because of HDCAM SR.

People need to realize that the Atomos Ninja can only record 8bits of info because there are NO cameras with 10bit HDMI outputs. Also, the bitrate of Pro Res varies with the frame size and frame rate. For example, the 'target data rate' of 1080 24p is only 176Mb/s. However, up to 10% is not being used for non-complex scenes so the actual data rate is closer to 160Mb/s. Pro Res is VBR, not CBR like other I-frame based codecs. Furthermore, 20% of that is being wasted due to being 10bit because only 8bits of data is being recorded, so, the actual data rate used to record an 8bit source is ~128Mb/s. Go down to 720 24p, and its target rate is 88Mb/s. Take away 10% for VBR and then 20% for 10bit and you are left with ~64Mb/s.

This can explain why XDCAM HD 50Mb L-GOP looks just as good as Pro Res HQ.

PS As far as I am concerned, the nanoFlash still rules 8bit acquisition because you can record any frame size and frame rate at a constant quality whether it be 280Mb I-frame at 1080 24p or 720 60p.

Steve,

I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who uses autofocus on pro cameras whether it be an EX1 or PMW350. So, I don't see any point to claiming issues about hearing the Alpha lenses. Plus, their SSM lenses are very quiet.

Also, with the Alpha adapter, you get better control over the iris/aperture compared to Nikon/Zeiss lenses which have hard stops.

I think everyone claims not to use AF, but they do. If no one did, why have it?

But, let's assume we manual focus -- which I do. Trust me. (Actually even with E-mounts you can really use AF because it's Contrast AF not Phase AF. Another thing I'll bet no one explained in these demos. And, how many even thought to ask.

Bottom-line, you can hear the zoom and the aperture.

You do get aperture control with A-mounts and is better than non A-mount lenses, because the other lenses have no aperture control from the camera. Old the great old lenses not only have no camera control -- they have poor aperture control.

The adaptor either has a ring marked 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or you use the lens ring. But, where is the auto-open doing focusing? Not present because there is no coupling pins from the camera to provide this function. So you open manually. Where is the auto-close to the selected aperture when you start shooting? Not possible.

All this talk about using adaptors, but who has actually used them. AFAIK, I'm the only one and they -- nor the E-mounts -- work well enough in the real world to justify $6000. For a $1000 with a NEX-5, sure. But, anyone currently using an EX1 is not going to put-up with the actual operational nonsense of either the VG10 or the FS100.

====

"I shoot my ex using all 3 rings and would do the same with the fs100."

With what lens?

the actual data rate used to record an 8bit source is ~128Mb/s. Go down to 720 24p, and its target rate is 88Mb/s. Take away 10% for VBR and then 20% for 10bit and you are left with ~64Mb/s.

This can explain why XDCAM HD 50Mb L-GOP looks just as good as Pro Res HQ.


Not sure why you need to take away 10% for VBR and also the difference in datarate is more pronounced in 1080. XDCAM is of course interframe so should be more efficient in most situations. I did a test ON THIS LINK (http://mikemarriage.lunarfilm.co.uk/Blog/files/category-xdcam-35mb002fs-vs-prores-test.html) and found that the difference between Prores and XDCAM even at 35Mbps is quite small. However, for complex movement or subtle gradients, Prores did have a slight edge. Would a client notice under normal viewing? Unlikely. Would a professional colourist in a broadcast facility? Probably.

I would say the choice between a external Prores recorder and XDCAM recorder should come down to workflow rather than image quality. Prores is smoother in a FCP edit but XDCAM requires less storage.

Is the HDMI on the PMW350 and 320 not 10bit? Anyone know?

In the fs100 video, Juan Martinez referred to the vg10 as the insides of a nex stills camera repackaged into a camcorder.

That's true. But saying that doesn't mean the FS100 isn't anything more than a VG10 repackaged with some EX looking controls. In fact, most of the exciting controls are present on all $4000 prosumer camcorders. Shot- review. I think my Sony video8 had this button. There's nothing to these controls. What's unique is the cool looking package.

If it reminds you of your EX1 that's because the designer added the needed styling cues to make you think you were getting something more than the lens and electronics of the VG10.

And of Allan Roberts is correct, you may be getting the same chip as in all NEX cameras. It simply reads 3.3 mp of binned photosites.

I don't know why you keep referring to Alan Roberts' report when soo many people have refuted his crazy math. He posited that the F3 has similar sensitivity to a 2/3" camera, therefore, their photosites are the same size - this is utterly wrong. He also says that the F3 has a cleaner signal at +6db than 0db. And throughput his paper, he provides at least 3 different numbers of pixels with different reasons behind each number.

Not sure why you need to take away 10% for VBR...

Is the HDMI on the PMW350 and 320 not 10bit? Anyone know?

The 10% number is directly from Apple's white paper http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L342568A_ProRes_WP.pdf

According to Dan Keaton at Convergent Design, no camera has a 10bit HDMI output.

Because 10bit HDMI connectors are so rare, I would need proof that the Atomos Ninja is even using true 10bit HDMI hardware before considering it. Same goes for the Aja Mini (although it has 10bit SDI).

I think you may have answered your own question why not 10 bit? Given how long it takes to develop a camera, perhaps that option wasn't taken on board because it wasn't apparently available on the horizon when the specs for the camera were being laid out. You can keep adding things, but then the development drifts as each new neat feature gets put on.

The F3 has 10 bit because of HDCAM SR.

they have been releasing 10 bit camera system in their prosumer line for the last 3 years. The ex1, ex3 and NX5U. The latter costing much less than the FS-100, being in the same NX-CAM range and with a better hdsdi proffessional implementation. It is not as if a radical change to include it in such a camera. In fact it makes it more obvious that it was a deliberate choice.

Absolutely it was a deliberate choice, they'd have made it when the these two S35 sensor cameras were coming out in parallel.

Although, I don't think 8bit/10bit will affect the thinking of those people who have been shooting on DSLRs that much, they've been living with all sorts of artifacts and lower resolution, it'll be more if the FS100 becomes a cool camera to use. The design seems very much targeted that those people.

I don't know why you keep referring to Alan Roberts' report when soo many people have refuted his crazy math,


Of course, Allan could have made the wrong assumption, but if Sony supplied a proper set of specifications he wouldn't need to make any assumptions. Of course, he might of made a math error. The unit he tested may have been faulty.

BUT, unless you get the correct information from Sony and re-run the numbers -- or find and fix the math error -- you've got nothing but an OPINION of the noise level. As I've said a hundred times, opinions are not measures. Would you fly on a new plane based upon an opinion? "Gee, that 400-foot wing sure looks strong -- lets load 500 souls and fly to China."

HOW a camera feels to use can't be measured so we must fall back on opinions. But, when it comes to noise and resolution and aliasing -- there is NO NEED to rely on opinions. Do you think that when Sony writes a spec sheet on a $100,000 camera it asks a bunch of shooters to give their opinion. "OK guys, we have a range of FEELINGS -- now can we now vote on the S/N ratio. And, please convert your feelings to dB because NASA really likes dBs. We can't have a spec sheet reading `looks really clean' to 9 out of 10 of us."

Sony not only makes measures, it replicates these measures. It also follows a DEFINED procedure. And, during production it tests each unit to be sure it meets it specs. Do you really think Sony has a guy who looks at each unit? "Sure looks about like the one I saw 9 months ago it the lab, I'll sign-off."

Let's get real. What if someone next to the guy who says "Gee, that 400-foot wing sure looks strong -- lets load 500 souls and fly to China." says "Bet you $1000 the wings won't break-off until after at least 10 trips." Now, what do you do? Get another opinion? And, if the next guy, who admits he owns stock in the company, yells for the first two guys to shut-up."

Everyone who finds fault with Allan's measures has an "investment" in not wanting the numbers to say anything negative. Allan, on the other hand, has no investment in ANY camera, He simply tests them. Each one gets tested like the last one following a procedure accepted by the BBC. He runs the numbers and publishes them. The BBC is free to use the numbers or not use the numbers. They make a decision based on whatever they want. You are free to do the same. The one thing you can't do until you run a set of tests is make the numbers go away. Folks can scream at Allan. But, until another set of tests are run following industry accepted procedures -- you all have nada.

PS1: Some idiot posted that the BBC should not let one engineer dictate what cameras can be used. He wanted some "creative types" to be in on the decision. So, let's assume the BBC brings in Nigel who, if I remember right, hated how the FS100 FELT. He damns a camera. Do you demand the BBC replace him with someone who is less picky?

PS2: this drama has played-out over the years. In the end, when others make measures, they confirm Allan. But, after the confirmation, there's a statement about how it doesn't really look as bad as the numbers imply. That's fine.

Only with the FS100 are folks screaming at those who give negative comments. Hmmm.

Alan Roberts' assumption seems to be based on an ISO of 800, which is a rating similar to that of the Alexa and Epic, which do have rather different pixel counts.

I've honestly been trying to talk myself into buying the FS since it's been shown. I guess I have become accustomed to the "EX look" Even in the latest samples I still see a something that sits wrong with me. I wonder if it has something to do with AVCHD? The colors do remind me of my SR11 which also uses AVCHD. Perhaps the reason I seem to respond so strongly to the F3 video is because it is so similar to the EX1/3?

I don't know. I kinda give up on trying to figure it out.

My idea of a perfect camera would be an EX1 style camera with this chip at about the same price as an EX1. Could have made it at about the same cost as an EX1 and saved money in manufacturing by selling it without lens. A perfect opportunity to have cleaned up at the EX1 price level. Personally I would have bought the new version and kept both. The EX1 for greenscreen and run and gun and the new version for creative film making.

I can see financially this makes good business sense for Sony as this caters for the professionals and the indie film maker and clearly keeping the two apart maximising profit and unfortuneatly keeping the indie film makers in said category.

I will drool over the F3 and hope some manufacturer makes something with as good a sensor and ten bit out. From what I understand and I may be wrong is that they have to spend money to downgrade to 8bits. How sad is that if true.

Needless to say I won't be buying the FS100 .with its lower res and 8 bit out with avch recording. Like Erik I was looking forward to this camera only to now feel disapointed.

My idea of a perfect camera would be an EX1 style camera with this chip at about the same price as an EX1. Could have made it at about the same cost as an EX1 and saved money in manufacturing by selling it without lens. A perfect opportunity to have cleaned up at the EX1 price level. Personally I would have bought the new version and kept both. The EX1 for greenscreen and run and gun and the new version for creative film making.

It seems like you just described the FS100 to a "t."

In contrast, the fs100 is $1000 more and feature to feature is missing the vf, nd, and Sdi..

I was thrown off by the B&H listing. I've since learned the the FS-100 body does package the flip up diopter with it. I tried it at NAB and liked it.

I've honestly been trying to talk myself into buying the FS since it's been shown. I guess I have become accustomed to the "EX look" Even in the latest samples I still see a something that sits wrong with me. I wonder if it has something to do with AVCHD? The colors do remind me of my SR11 which also uses AVCHD. Perhaps the reason I seem to respond so strongly to the F3 video is because it is so similar to the EX1/3?

I don't know. I kinda give up on trying to figure it out.

Your EX has THREE 2MP chips. Before converting RGB to YUV it has 6MP of RGB data. Thus, from these three chips about all the resolution possible is obtained.

A single chip Bayer camera -- no matter how many photosites -- winds up with 3,4MP of RGB information. That's almost half as much, so the resolution is inherently much lower.

To obtain YUV the data must be debayered which means data are interpolated. But this can add all sorts of nasty chroma artifacts -- so the image is not as clean as your EX1.

Lastly, HOW the chip's photosite data are reduced to 3.4MP plays a role in how much fine detail is in the 3.4MP. Just because there are that many pixels doesn't mean there is X amount of fine detail. The lens MTF, the OLPF, the number of photocites, the way the chip is read-out, and the down-conversion process -- ALL play a role in how much fine detail is obtained.

I suspect you will not find the F3 to deliver the fine detail you are used to. That is why there is the F65 which has a very different chip design.

Forget about all the techno babble. I can assure anyone who cares to listen that the image quality of the FS100 is noticeably superior to that of the EX1 and EX3. Period.

Steve, since NAB was in your own backyard this week, what did you think of it when you saw the FS100 in person at the Sony booth? Weren't you impressed with the image quality and astounding low-light capability? Everyone I showed the camera to was amazed. I'm sorry I missed you. What day did you come by? It would have been great to hear your impressions first-hand.

I sooo wish I could have gone to your presentation Doug to see it for myself. The online videos are selling it short I guess.

Forget about all the techno babble. I can assure anyone who cares to listen that the image quality of the FS100 is noticeably superior to that of the EX1 and EX3. Period.

Not quite "period"

There have been several posts by those who think their EX has a better picture. I ASSUME they primarily mean an image with greater resolution. They are correct as the EX has much greater MEASURED resolution. For those who consider a "through a glass window into reality" look as the goal of HD, resolution is the primary spec.

Which brings me to the F3 and FS100.

1) Were I to want an 2K camera, the F3 looks to be wonderful. But, I would be more interested were the SDI and Log-S capabilities removed and the price was thus far lower.

2) The FS100 uses the E-mount system. I have over half a year's experience with the system. For the NEX 5 buyer who spends under a $800, it is "acceptable." That's why I wrote the "Shooting Great Video with the NEX Family" ebook. I do not hate the NEX cameras. I'm very much looking forward to the NEX 7.

IMHO there is a point at which the issues with the E-mount system impose such a burden on the shooter that it sets a LIMIT on how much a camera is worth -- given the competition.

For me, when I could get exactly the same video from an NEX 5 as a VG10, there was no point in spending 2-3X more. (I would re-evalute that were Sony to sell the VG10 w/o lens, because then I could jump immediately to Minolta MC/MD lenses.)

The same value judgement applies to the FS100. At the $6000 point, there is an alternative, the AF100. Here is where more than a decade of reviewing camcorders comes into play. A good reviewer must be able to identify cameras that offer the best BALANCE of features.

It really doesn't matter that the AF100 doesn't deliver the "best" image. Nor, does it matter if -- in theory -- it cannot achieve "as shallow" a DOF. This is why I did not come to the Sony booth. I DO believe everything you say about the image. But, my experience with the E-mount system tells me the AF100 has features that more than balance image quality.

I will use vario ND filters on an under $1000 camera. I will not spend $6000 for a camera that has no ND filters. Nor, would I give a positive review to a $6000, super sensitive big chip camera where a small aperture is the key to a shallow DOF, that has no built-in ND filters.

But, frankly, the unknowns give me equal pause. Juan talks about more suppliers of E-mount lenses. Will there be an F2 16-96 or 15-120 zoom? My experience says this is a must. Will it have a smooth zoom ring?

Juan clearly says there is an A-mount adaptor coming that will overcome the problems of the current one. When? How much? And, he hints at more. Could it have a stabilization motor for Alpha lenses?

And, will someone build an adaptor for non A-mount lenses? For many, this is THE key. The really old lenses have a nice aperture ring. The adaptor must have a FOCUS lever that pushes the aperture pin to fully open it while focusing. When switched out of focus mode, the aperture must return to our preset aperture.

But, slightly old lenses have no ring. Yet NEX cameras can't control the aperture. That means the adaptor must have a well positioned ring. It must also have a way of displaying the F-sop. I saw such an adaptor in the Panasonic booth for the AF100.

And, lastly why can't Juan provide the chip's specifications.

Please do not assume I think Sony is hiding a bad chip. On the contrary, I think it may be far more capable than Sony is letting on. My best guess is this is a version of 16.2 milliion photosite IMX071 chip that Sony uses in the A55 and sells to Nikon for the D7000. I expect it can convert photosites-to-pixels in two ways:

1) as a Super35 chip used by the FS100 and F3, the conversion increases sensitivity by 12dB while decreasing noise by 6dB. The photosite-to-pixel conversion process MAY be why the chip can run at 60Hz.

2) as an APS-C chip, I expect it will be used in the "A77" and "NEX 7" and "VG20" where it will deliver a 4K2K frame after debayering. Juan gives us a clue when he talks about DSLR lenses being better than needed for HDTV. In this mode, I do not expect the sensitivity gain -- although it may be more inherently sensitive.

Thus, I see every advantage in waiting to see if a 4K2K VG20 arrives (with Focus Assist and better feeling buttons); if it will be sold w/o lens; if new E-mount zooms arrive; and if better adaptors will arrive for really old lenses. Our first clue will be when the A77 and/or NEX 7 arrive.

By the way, the advantage of what a non-engineer calls "techno babble" is that it provides a perspective into the industry that can save thousands of dollars and wasted time. The advantage of reviewing professional video cameras for 20 years is that I see demos for exactly what they are -- an opportunity to push a product's best features. When I'm interested in a product, I get one, and use it for several months -- not several days. An hour seeing someone's video and having a few minutes to play with a camera holds no interest for me.

PS: The last time I had a role somewhat like yours, Sony loaned me a camcorder for 4 months and I used it to shoot through Asia. Then, I published independently with no Sony oversight. I did not, nor would I, take part in a paid or unpaid presentation for any company. OK -- maybe were the camera an F65. :)

Doug,

I really appreciate your information about the FS100. I have an EX1 and and EX3, but I'm very interested in the FS100 because of the modularity. I think it'll be something I can disassemble and carry onboard aircraft without worrying about having to gate check the carryon case. (I started worrying about that a lot more when I looked out the window on one flight and saw a Delta baggage agent drop a gate-checked carryon 20 feet to the concrete ramp.) And, I have a client who is particularly drawn to DSLRs. I have a 7D and have shot a couple of things with it, but I find the frustrations of making it work like a normal video camera more than I care to deal with after 30 years of using mostly broadcast cameras actually configured to use to shoot video. So thus far I've managed to keep him happy with the EX cameras, but the shallow focus on a FS100 would help tremendously.

I started out shooting with film, then the first Sony single tube (yes, tube) portable camera when they introduced 3/4 inch decks, graduated to Ikky HL33 and 35 (camera heads larger than almost anything extant today, cabled to a massive backpack that contained the REST of the camera, and then to a separate recorder) through to 40 pound betacams and so on. (And a bonus to anyone who knows what the HL on those Ikky cameras stands for...)

My point is that today there's a plethora of cameras that are smaller, lighter, far more functional and capable of making gorgeous images than at any time, ever. I'm not interested in how many pixels can dance on the grave of Zippy the Pinhead; I'm interested In how the image looks to my client, how the camera handles in the real world, and does it fit my needs. Wish I had been at NAB to see it in person, but I certainly will check it out in person as soon as Sony releases it. And thanks for the info.

...Thus, I see every advantage in waiting to see if a 4K2K VG20 arrives (with Focus Assist and better feeling buttons); if it will be sold w/o lens; if new E-mount zooms arrive; and if better adaptors will arrive for really old lenses. Our first clue will be when the A77 and/or NEX 7 arrive...Hi Steve, I have to ask you why do you keep commenting on this camcorder? Why not just wait for the VG20 as you said and leave this camcorder be and those who are interested and will buy it purchase it. I get you feel Sony is not being truthful with the sensor etc. your point is made. Just move on and allow those of us interested in the camcorder to enjoy talking about it. Thanks Steve

This is why I did not come to the Sony booth.

Are you kidding me? NAB is right there in your own backyard for four whole days and you can't bother yourself to go over and have a first-hand look at the camera you are constantly ranting about? You would have spent about 1/10th as much time actually looking at the camera as you do speculating about it. I think that speaks volumes. If you don't like the camera, fine. If you don't want to invest in the camera, fine. But please, the rest of us would appreciate if if you'd dial down the rhetoric a bit. You certainly had the chance to go and evaluate the camera first-hand and you chose not to.

As John says, we don't really care about the technical details of the camcordder or whether or not this camera is really a $100 consumer camera masquerading as a professional camcorder. We care about what we can do with it, and whether it will earn money for our businesses better than other camcorders out there. That's the bottom line that counts. I don't care if the camera has a billion pixels or a a thousand. What difference does it make? The camera's images speak for themselves, but some people apparently can't be bothered to go take a look.

And nobody I know in the business gives a hoot about E-mount or Alpha lenses. We don't care. Every professional I know has Nikon, Canon, or PL lenses. Anything else is non-standard, so I fail to see any reason to go on and on ranting about E and Alpha lenses. Nobody I know is investing in those lenses. We don't want those lenses and most of us don't care one bit about auto-focus or auto-iris. We never use them. The FS100 is a professional level camcorder and should be evaluated as such, and on that level, it is a killer camera. I know because I've actually seen it with my own two eyes. Ask anyone who made the effort to visit the Sony booth.

But, frankly, the unknowns give me equal pause. Juan talks about more suppliers of E-mount lenses. Will there be an F2 16-96 or 15-120 zoom? My experience says this is a must. Will it have a smooth zoom ring?


The only problem is such lenses are very large, however the nearest could be:

Welcome to Carl Zeiss Cinematography (http://www.zeiss.de/c125756900453232/Contents-Frame/be74a714e225c41cc125756f003df792)
http://www.angenieux.com/file/datasheets/cinema/pdf_Catalogue_2011-2012/17-80_catalog_2011.pdf

Selecting a camera is a matter selecting the one that has the features that are important to you or has the most of these features. However, you won't get compact, wide aperture, large zoom range lenses on these large sensor cameras, at most you'll get two of these three features.

For a built in filter system, Sony would need to redesign and give a more box shaped body that allows the filters to move up and down into position, that being the most compact arrangement. The Bolex camera has an optical block, plus a film shutter in a C mount (17.52mm), so I don't quite buy the space argument. However, it wouldn't fit in the current FS100 arrangement with its sensor and lens mount forward of the main body inside a cylinder.

In the end, can you shoot a feature film with a FS100? The answer is yes, especially if you use a Nanoflash. You're in the same position as an Epic or an Alexa regarding NDs, but not as neat as the Aaton 4k prototype which has the option of both ISO 100 and 800.

If you want to record events, 2/3" and smaller are much more sensible choices than the large sensor cameras for your A camera, especially if you want a large zoom range.

People may wait for more complete tests to see how the AF100 and FS100 images compare before making a decision on that aspect.

It's a matter of picking the right tool for the type of work you're doing. Do you need a shallow DOF to produce cinematic work? Er... no you don't. many of the most cinematic films don't have it.

DOF & beauty (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?37849-DOF-amp-beauty)

It's a matter of how you use your tools.

I went to those booths that had camcorders I was interested in: Panasonic, JVC, Arri, and RED. Sorry, but Sony had nothing interesting other than the F65 -- which alas has been true for years.

You keep thinking that looking at demo video and playing with a camcorder for a few minutes is going to increase a person's interest. Once Sony decided to build a camcorder without built-in ND filters -- and Panasonic did -- based upon far more experience than you have with the ND-less NEX family, as I said earlier, it was off my list. And, were had it been on my list -- I'd get one from Sony. No need to visit the booth.

Just as one hopes you are posting because you want to share your postive experience with NEX some cameras, I'm here to share my negative experience with some NEX camcorders.

"And nobody I know in the business gives a hoot about E-mount or Alpha lenses. We don't care. Every professional I know has Nikon, Canon, or PL lenses. Anything else is non-standard, so I fail to see any reason to go on and on ranting about E and Alpha lenses. Nobody I know is investing in those lenses."

What a great quote in support of the F3, but totally off the point when talking about the FS100 given that the entire FS100 pitch is for the E-mount system.

I'd be interested to know how the picture of the FS100 compares to the F3 using an 8 bit nanoflash?

Sort of thinking more how I could use this camera to compliment my EX1 and actually problems like moireing or 8 bits etc could be offset by the out of focus background and having a slightly lower resolution on mid shots and closeups usually of people may actually be a good thing and not noticeable unless in a theatre anyway.

The reason I use this forum is to try and make an informed and justified decision on what for me is a very big purchase and one that needs a lot of consideration in an ever changing market.

I want to give this camera every chance to prove its mettle and potential usefulness to my purposes as a DP and film maker. For me todays cameras are already at a high enough standard and produce fantastic pictures.

But thats not where I'm at. In todays world of matchmoving CGI and image manipulation then for me at least 10 bit uncompressed aquisition is a desired goal and something the EX1 has set the standard for. Anything new has to top this and has to be at the same level or better.

The FS100 has nice bokeh as standard but can it deliver to EX1 standards. Thats why I ask questions and I'm sure to its the same for others here.

I love the idea of this camera as a DP but I have to be sure that an investment of this size is right for me. I've read the review by Nigel Cooper who measures its resolution at 780 lines also some doubt cast if this is the same chip or/and the same image as the F3. Doug really rates the camera and image so I'm hoping to hear more about this and be persuaded by what to me had the potential to be a dream camera.

I think there are many who want to love this camera but will be disapointed by the lack of ten bit out and how it processes the image etc. The one thing that would have made this camera to my shopping list.

At this moment in time I'm erring on the side of the EX1 with letus as brilliant all rounder that still trumps the big chip consumer market. But I'm also intrigued by reports of the camera's abilities and look forward to hearing more.

There are other than aesthetic reasons for shooting short focus

eg

1 its cheaper to light F2.8 than F8

2 to blur out cheap sets, not everyone has a big set design budget

3 ...




Do you need a shallow DOF to produce cinematic work? Er... no you don't. many of the most cinematic films don't have it.

DOF & beauty (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?37849-DOF-amp-beauty)

It's a matter of how you use your tools.

Features usually don't light up to f8 unless it's a VFX, they usually go no more than f4, f2.8 is even more common, but you do still get a fair background detail at that stop, especially on the wider shots, With high speed sensors, you don't need much light for f2.8, commonly you end up putting on ND filters to get that stop because you have to balance the lighting with exteriors etc..

Art direction is a key part of any movie, just blurring it throws away a huge amount of the visual sub text. Why do HD when your sets are of SD quality? I know the answer, budget, but it was one of those things that tended to be passed over in the rush towards HD. It's also the thing that makes a big difference when you're looking at a film.. You have to use the DOF that's right for your story, not just the one fit all DOF.

Film noir was a work around for not having sets and other resources, so shallow DOF is not the only method..

In the first half of Scream 4 (out now) there was in my opinion too much shallow DOF. It can really get on my nerves if overdone. I liked the movie though. :) Last years "Monsters" shot on an EX3 with a DOF adapter was so shallow for soooo long that it actually effected my view on the movie itself. It was just too distracting.

I find the FS100 to be a very exciting camera and was looking forward to reading this post. But the more I read the more irritated I got.

Doug has used and shot beautiful images with this camera. Just look at the demo reel he has shot posted in another thread. I have only seen it online, but looks good to me. So why anyone is claiming otherwise and going at him again and again is beyond me. Seriously. Give him a break. He is interested to share his knowledge with us. And you should be grateful.

I remember when I started out. My very first camera was a VHS- C model from Orion, with a record button, an on/ off button and manual zoom. That was it. And I was happy with it. That was many years ago, however. But I worked hard, filming weddings for friends and family and made good money. Then I moved on. Today we are swamped with wonderful cameras and still complain?

Doug, thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. I am very grateful you are taking your time. I live in Norway and am not able to come to NAB.

Internet and technology however is a wonderful thing.

By the way, the advantage of what a non-engineer calls "techno babble" is that it provides a perspective into the industry that can save thousands of dollars and wasted time.

What an engineer calls "techno babble" is argument based on supposition rather than facts. The old instruction for professional engineers: "in argument clearly differentiate between 'I know' and 'I think'."

The 10% number is directly from Apple's white paper http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L342568A_ProRes_WP.pdf

According to Dan Keaton at Convergent Design, no camera has a 10bit HDMI output.

Because 10bit HDMI connectors are so rare, I would need proof that the Atomos Ninja is even using true 10bit HDMI hardware before considering it. Same goes for the Aja Mini (although it has 10bit SDI).

Atomos hardware supports HDMI 1.3 and uses well-respected chipsets. HDMI 1.3 supports 10-bit and even higher bit-depths. ProRes is intrinsically 10 bit.

Dave Shapton
President
Atomos EMEA