Well I was lucky enough to get an FS100 to play with earlier in the week. I just wish it had been longer. Anyway with the help of Den Lennie at F-stop we put this little video together.

Sony FS100 and F3 compared on Vimeo

Loved the shots. Sure makes the FS100 a real bargain.

Thanks for putting that together Al.

Allister:

Wow, thank you for the side by side testing. FS100 looking good for the "low budget" film maker.

Thanks, an interesting compassion between the cameras.

The motion on the birds taking off on the shot with the girl sitting down (i assume shot with the FS100) looks a bit strange for a 1/50 shutter speed. Is that an on board codec artifact or the shutter?

I just wish I had the FS100 for longer, there's a lot more I want to look into.
The main aim of the shoot was to see how the FS100 held up against the F3. We shot on a bright sunny day by the River Thames and again in the evening in a typically lit living room. There were no big surprises. The FS100 is remarkably close to the F3. You would have no problems cutting between the two of them in a project.
I did find that the FS100 LCD appeared less sharp and not quite as good as the F3's even though they both use the same underlying panel. This is probably down to the additional layers required for touch screen operation on the FS100. I also did not like the 18-200mm f5.6 kit lens. There was too much lag in the focus and iris controls, but the beauty of this camera is that you can use a multitude of lenses. For the evening shoot I used a Nikon 50mm f1.8 which was so much nicer to use. On reviewing the footage I did find that we were tending to over expose the FS100 by half a stop to a stop, this does make making accurate comparisons difficult and I apologise for this. I believe this was down to the slightly different images we were seeing on the LCD's. I did use the histograms on both cameras to try to ensure even exposure, but even so there is a difference. A small part of this is also likely down to the very slightly different contrast ranges of the two cameras.
Oe thing we discovered, not mentioned in the video is that when you use a full frame lens, like the Nikon 50mm. You must ensure that the E-Mount adapter you use has an internal baffle or choke. If it doesn't you will suffer from excessive flare. The adapter I had did not have a baffle and some shots (not used) were spoilt by flare. The adapter I have from MTF for the F3 has a baffle as do MTF's E-Mount adapters, so these should not suffer from this issue.
The FS100 performance is so very close to that of the F3's (at 8 bit 4:2:0, 35Mb/s) that it is hard to tell the two apart. I believe the F3's images are just a tiny bit richer, with about half a stop more dynamic range, in most cases it takes a direct side by side comparison to show up the differences.
The range of camera settings and adjustments on the FS100 is not quite as extensive as on the F3, nor do the adjustments have such a broad range. However there is plenty of flexibility for most productions.
If you don't need 10 bit 4:2:2 then it is hard to justify the additional cost of the F3, both cameras really are very good. Despite some other reports else where I felt the build quality to be very good and the buttons, while small, are big enough and well placed. If you do want autofocus then you will be pleased to know that it actually works pretty well on the FS100 with only minimal hunting (of course you must use an AF compatible lens).
I did also record the HDMI output to one of my NanoFlashes at 100Mb/s. Comparing these side by side it is extremely hard to see any difference. It is only when you start to heavily grade the material that the advantage of the higher bit rate Nanoflash material becomes apparent. There is less mosquito noise in the NanoFlash material. I was really impressed by the AVCHD material. The lack of noise in the images really helps.
The FS100 really is the F3's little brother. The pictures are remarkably close, which they should be as they share the same sensor. The FS100 packs down into a remarkably small size for transport. The loan camera from Sony was actually packed in a case designed for the MC1P mini-cam, about 15"x10"x5" so very compact indeed. The F3 is considerably larger and bulkier, in part due to the extra space taken up by the built in ND filters.
The lack of ND filters does need to be considered. There are some clever solutions in the pipelines from various manufacturers as well as existing solutions such as vari ND's, screw on ND's and a Matte Box with ND's, so it's not a deal breaker
I think there is every chance that the FS100 will be the first NXCAM camera that I will purchase. It will be a good companion to my F3. It's modular design will allow me to get shots that are not possible with the F3. I felt that the FS100 (with the 18-200mm lens that I don't like) was better suited to "run and gun" than my F3 with either manual DSLR lenses or PL glass. You can, with the FS100 simply point the camera at your subject and hit the one push auto focus and auto iris and have an in-focus, correctly exposed shot. This is much more like a traditional small sensor camcorder in this respect. The long zoom range also makes this more like a conventional camcorder, although there is no servo for the zoom.

In conclusion, in my opinion, for "run and gun" or quick and dirty setups the FS100 with the 18-200mm lens has an edge over the F3 due to the fast auto focus and auto iris one-push controls. For more precise work and shallow DoF your going to want a different lens, something with manual control and calibrated focus and iris scales. For more demanding shoots then the F3 is probably the better choice with it's slightly improved dynamic range and the ability to use S-Log and 4:4:4. In either case these cameras can produce highly cinematic pictures and I see no reason why you could not shoot a great looking feature with either.

The shutter was set to 1/250 for many of the exteriors.

Here are some frame grabs from the shoot. Please note that the FS100 frame grabs are taken from the ProResHQ imports into FCP while the F3 grabs are from the re-wrapped .mov files.

Thanks for the comparison, Alister.
You've come across the limitations of the 18-200 lens. I have one on my VG10, which I purchased as a kind of a percurser to the FS100. The focusing is indeed really annoying, but you should try it on a smaller 3" screen - very frustrating. The autofocus ( which I thought I'd never use on any camera) helps at times - or it can go on its own and focus on the background or whatever.
Still, even for a small consumer cam, the VG10 can produce some pretty pictures. If you work it, the 18-200 can get you that narrow depth of field. A faster 2.8 or so lens should make for much better images in the VG10.

I can't wait to try out an FS100. I have a steady client who likes the AVCHD codec. You have to admit, the media is darn cheap.

Hi Alister

Thank you for the pics! I used after effects 32 bit with colirista 2 and Magic bullet looks on the Bench and houses.

Well...

The images from the F3 WERE exraordinary and Beautifully filmic!
The images from the FS100 do try to imitate the colour balance of the F3 but fall short. But even then its not the colour balance that is making the F3 footage so wonderful although that is helping but it can only be due to some other jiggerry pokery going on The F3 is the most filmic camera I have seen and my experience is limited however. I'd certainly love to make films with it.

I even called out to Samantha PLEASE I want the F3

The barge picture
F3 Beautiful
FS100 Highlights overexposed. Once white balanced the greens became less so The look was more HD and less filmic

The Bench picture
F3 Beautiful
FS100 Overexposed and White balance off but did favour skin tones so looked better When it was corrected it looked more videoish.

The Houses
F3 Beautiful but had to zoom in or the green trees was a little much but thats only because my screen is small would look wonderful on a 50" etc.
FS100 Of all the FS100 images this was the most pleasing but then I think this was less over exposed than the other two.

Most of the images were overexposed to some degree and most needed a little white balancing.

IN CONCLUSION

I believe from what I have seen so far the FS100 is a pretender to the F3's throne and with a little work was able to bring the AF101 from Phil Blooms footage up to a similar colour balance Sometimes the white balance was off slightly off on the AF101 a little more so than the others and not in a good way. In my opinion the star here is the F3 The other two cameras have nice dof control but thats all they have over other cameras like the EX1. However things may change with properly exposed footage and because of this--

--I've now got a new concern and that is how all these cameras handle highlights

Although the HIGHLIGHTS from the F3 always looked good!

Mark

To try to create a level playing field both the FS100 and F3 were set up using REC-709 and white balance set to 5600k preset. This is not the optimum for either camera when it comes to dynamic range, but it should give the most natural looking images without grading. The houses shot is the most accurately exposed, it was shot after I reviewed the FS100 clips and realised I was over exposing. Given that both cameras have the same LCD panel and I used the histogram to compare exposures, I am still a little surprised at how big the exposure difference was. As I said in my review I put this down to the extra layers over the top of the FS100 LCD for touch screen operation. Certainly on location the LCD's looked very different with the FS100 lacking the crispness and contrast of the F3 LCD. If I had more time I would have re-shot the tests.

When I did try the Cinematone gammas on the FS100 I did not see any improvement in dynamic range, while I know from experience that with the F3 the use of cinegammas will increase the DR, but more importantly the highlights are handled in a more sympathetic manner that makes them grade better at the expense of mid-range compression, so the images do require grading.

I did not have sufficient time to investigate many aspects of the FS100 in as much depth as I would have liked. My conclusion is that both are extremely good, but that the F3 has an edge, probably down to improved internal processing. Given the price premium this is not really a surprise.

Thanks Alister I appreciate the work you've done and had some fun with the images!

Look forward to seeing more!

Mark

Hi
Am I correct in thinking that there is no HDSDI out on the FS100, but there is an HDMI, does anyone know if the HDMI will have embedded audio and timecode. I am thinking that an FS100 would be great with a nanoflash so I could give my clients the long gop codec and 50mbs they are all getting used to. Has anyone tested this combo, do you think it would bring the FS100 pictures closer to the F3's.

Chris

The FS100's HDMI output does have embedded audio and timecode, but the current version of the NanoFlash can't read the timecode. I suppose it is something Convergent Design may add in a firmware update.
But adding a NanoFlash isn't going to turn an FS100 into an F3.

Hi
Am I correct in thinking that there is no HDSDI out on the FS100, but there is an HDMI, does anyone know if the HDMI will have embedded audio and timecode. Chris
Doug answered your question about the FS100. But, not the question about HDMI.

Audio will be there, and I think Juan said 24p flags in TC.

But, here are questions I have that you might also want to know the answer to.

As I remember HDMI can carry RGB or YUV data.

1) does a camera send RGB or YUV to a nano for encoding?

2) If RGB, I assume it must be 4:4:4. Correct?

3) If RGB, I assume it must be 0 to 255. Correct?

4) Is RGB over HDMI ever 10-bit? I thought HDTVs only input 8-bit data.

5) If YUV, it seems like it would only 4:2:2 because that's what HDTVs use. Correct?

6) Once again I thought HDTVs only input 8-bit data.

Bottom-line HDMI was designed to provide what HDTVs accept.

And what about DeepColor data from camcorders? What do video recorders to with that?

HDMI 1.3 and above supports 10-bit, 12-bit and 16-bit (RGB or YCbCr), although true 10 bit let alone 12 and 16 bit monitors are not at all common. There is a small range of 10 bit monitors (Hazro) and quite a few TV's that have 10 bit processing and 10 bit panels, but to get the most out of a 10 bit pipe you want processing that is at a higher bit depth than 10 bits.
The Atamos Ninja has a 10 bit pipe as well as most of the Current BlackMagic and Matrox HDMI capture cards. A 10 bit HDMI recorder will be able to record the DeepColor output, on an 8 bit recorder I assume it is simply truncated.

From what I've been able to find out, the BlackMagic capture cards (including the shuttle) are all 10 bit YUV (YCbCr) which suggests that cameras output YCbCr, but that is speculation based on manufacturer data sheets. You can have either 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 YCbCr over HDMI 1.3.

I would hope that the HDMI output is YCbCr to avoid having to cross convert from YCbCr to RGB and back again with the potential for color space reduction if it's not done exactly right.

Mr. Chapman, thank you for the test,
once again, what a nice piece of camera is F3, but FS100 footage to me looks just like VG10

The FS100 is a lot better than the VG10. There is minimal aliasing for starters. The brickwork of the houses would have not looked good on the VG10.

Actually I would consider buying the VG10 over the FS100 especially if your using the camera for DOF control and in combination with say an EX1 for wide shots. I wouldn't be concerned about aliasing if the backgrounds out of focus anyway.

Mark

But aliasing and moire can occur on skin texture, facial hair, eyebrows, eyelashes, hair and clothing plus it messes up compressed codecs and broadcasting systems big time as if there is any movement in the image the aliases travel in the reverse direction, doubling the bandwidth required. It's ugly and the best way to make video look like video, especially on a big screen where flickering lines and false colour moire are so much more apparent.

I had hoped that cameras like the FS100 would allow us to leave the era pixel skipping and highly aliased images behind.

Mr. Chapman, thank you for the test,
once again, what a nice piece of camera is F3, but FS100 footage to me looks just like VG10

FS100 and F3 has the same sensor, and I pretty sure with correct setting (in this case lower exposure), FS100 can be made to look just like F3 in these "tests."

Asif

It may have the same sensor but that's only part of the equation.It's only got 8bit processing and 8 bit out for example. There is also definately some jiggery pokery the F3 has going on that the Fs100 doesn't.

The FS100 processing is 12 bit, using components from the lower cost NXCAM range and the processing is tailored for a 4:2:2 8 bit output. I expect the DSP only works with 4:2:2 colour space, although I could be wrong.

The F3's processing is I believe also 12 bit, but it's output has to support 10 bit 4:4:4, so the likelihood is that the DSP's internal processing is 4:4:4. It also has more advanced detail correction and aperture correction circuits along with a wider range of gamma curves.

Small differences perhaps but they can make a noticeable difference in the final image quality. In Rec-709 the differences will be minimal and it will probably take a side by side comparison to highlight them. Switch to the Cinegammas or S-Log and the F3 will have definite dynamic range advantage.

Hi Alister

This is from the creative video site I read it somewhere else too that its signal procesing is 8bit and is the reason it could only have 8bit out.

Sony NEX-FS100 (http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=article/Sony+NEX-FS100)
The FS100 shares its sensor with the F3, however the similarity ends there because its signal processing is 8-bit

Quite interesting to hear it uses components from the lower cost range.

Mark

Actually I would consider buying the VG10 over the FS100 especially if your using the camera for DOF control and in combination with say an EX1 for wide shots. I wouldn't be concerned about aliasing if the backgrounds out of focus anyway.

Mark

In all my time with the VG10 the only aliasing I saw was on a brick building and it was very slight. It's far less than from the Canon cameras that some folks fully feel is "broadcast quality."

Were the VG10 available w/o a lens and thus at a much lower price AND were the newest firmware to add Focus Assist OR Peaking OR One-Touch Focus, it really could be a OK buy. Without better focusing aids you either must use E-mount AF operation or pray you got focus right.

VG10 lesson: Before pressing record, press the shutter-button and the camera will run through the entire focus range and lock the best focus. Now disable AF and shoot. You will have a better focus than you can get by eye on the LCD or VF when in bright light. (Yes, there should be one-touch focus button -- just one more thing Sony left out.)

But, I still say wait! A new version is "expected" by many in the next few months. If it adds the missing focus features it's worth the wait. If it is a 4K2K camera, for some of us it is definitely worth the wait. And no I do not expect 1080p24 or 1080p25/30 as Sony wants to keep this in the consumer camp.

Steve

Why can't you focus using an external monitor? The first thing that would go for me would be any on board auto focus. I know some cameras you can program focusing or follow a target or rack focus but all these things can and usually done anyway with a follow focus and for the price who cares. Peaking would be nice though.

The internal processing must be done at a higher bit depth than the output, otherwise there is no headroom for calculations. An 8 bit DSP will not give a good 8 bit output. It is also reasonable to consider that the output from the sensor will almost certainly have an output that is 12 bit or more to get the dynamic range that the F3 can provide and simply taking 12 bit's into an 8 bit DSP would seriously degrade the output.

The internal processing must be done at a higher bit depth than the output, otherwise there is no headroom for calculations. An 8 bit DSP will not give a good 8 bit output. It is also reasonable to consider that the output from the sensor will almost certainly have an output that is 12 bit or more to get the dynamic range that the F3 can provide and simply taking 12 bit's into an 8 bit DSP would seriously degrade the output.

If that's true and from what I can find out the processing is 8bit because of the heat generated, then there are more problems on recording to an external recorder like an atomos?

I also wonder how digital noise reduction is applied and could this affect the resolution of the Fs100?

Mark

Interesting discussion and I just wanted to contribute with a couple of points that may shed some light on things.

First, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the internal processing on any digital device is always higher resolution than the output. Think of it like this. Most of Digital Signal Processing is multiplication and addition. If you add or multiply two numbers together, you get a bigger number. So if you add or multiply two numbers that are already maxing out the 8 bit resolution (let's say 255 x 255) then you're going to get an number that is bigger than you can represent with only 8 bits. The result is distortion.

In reality, there is some extremely complex processing going on all the time in these cameras, the detail of which we can only guess at. How it's done exactly is a closely guarded commercial secret and nobody should be surprised if the manufacturer doesn't want to reveal their innermost workings.

You can't really gauge the quality of a camera solely on the bit-resolution of it's output. It's quite conceivable - but pretty unlikely - that a bad 10-bit camera could look worse than an extremely good 8 bit one. You have additional factors like noise, internal processing quality and a host of other things that can completely affect the quality quite independently of the bit resolution

The Ninja will always record in 10-bit resolution. This is a worthwhile stance, even though it might not actually improve the quality of an incoming 8-bit signal. By adding an extra two bits (as zeros!) to the incoming bitstream, it means that all subsequent processing is done at that additional resolution. All colour grading and dissolves will result in smoother gradients. Even adding a small amount of noise at the 10-bit resolution will dither the original 8-bit contours without actually degrading the picture from an 8-bit point of view. (Some of the early audio A/D converters actually ADDED noise, for this very reason - it simply made it sound better!).

Dave Shapton
President
Atomos EMEA

Hi Dave

This was Phil Blooms site re the FS100 although Phil might have it wrong it seems a few people have also mentioned the processing is 8 bit.

Sony FS100…just my first impressions | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.net/2011/04/26/fs100/)
It has the same Super 35mm sized sensor as the F3 but different processing. It has no SDI out, just HDMI and it is only 8 bit 422 even though HDMI can do 10 bit 422 because the processor is only 8 bit. Compromises have had to be made to slash the price down from the F3.

Big fan of atomos by the way!

The sensor in the FS100 is an Exmor sensor, so it probably has 2 stages of noise reduction occurring on board. The first is an analog CDS (Correlated Double Sampling) noise reduction circuit that samples the output of the individual pixel during it's dark or shuttered period and compares it with the exposed signal and subtracts the dark noise from the exposed signal. The analog signal is then passed to a digital to analog converter that then performs a second CDS noise reduction to reduce noise generated during the A to D process. These stages have little effect on image quality beyond reducing noise.

Then the digital signal is passed from the sensor chip to the DSP (digital signal processor) where further noise reduction probably takes place. This may use a mix of temporal noise reduction and spacial reduction. Temporal NR takes the signal over two of three frames and looks for differences that may be noise and then reduces or removes them by subtraction or blending. Spacial NR looks at adjacent groups of pixels looking for anything that might be noise and reduces it by subtraction or blending. There may be other processes in use, but things like that are kept very secret.

Both spacial and temporal NR can soften or blur the image and there have been some cameras in recent years that have used a lot of temporal NR leading to image lag and blurring of fast action. Most CMOS and many CCD cameras have high levels of noise reduction occurring. I think it's one of the reasons why XDCAM EX pictures can look sometimes lack detail in subtle textures. Even high end cameras like the PDW-700 use noise reduction.

Hi Mark

The thing about processors is that they have several data paths, and also registers (the short-term pigeon-holes where they store data that's being worked on), all of which can have different bit-lengths. So on the same processor you might find a 256-bit register and somewhere else a 64-bit data path.

The processor being referred to might have an 8-bit output, or something like that, but I will eat my chair if the calculations are all done internally at 8-bit.

Dave Shapton
Atomos

Hi Dave

Got some salt n pepper? No just kidding. All I can say is that both Phil Bloom and the creative video site have said the processor is 8 bit. I've also seen it other places. Whatever the truth I'm sure it will out at some point.

Mark

And therein lies one of the flaws of the internet, both good and bad information spreads with equal vigour and is taken as fact without question.

Now I can't categorically say it isn't an 8 bit DSP, but in this day and age 8 bit video DSP's in quality cameras are pretty unusual.

Alistar

Notes On Video: Sony Chat on the NEX-FS100 (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4i3GivRK9G8J:notesonvideo.blogspot.com/2011/04/sony-chat-on-nex-fs100.html+Kanta+Yamamoto+the+internal+processor&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk)

This is what Kanta Yamamoto from sony said
: HDMI could support 10-bit, same as SDI. On the other hand, the internal processor decided the output bit depth.

Whether that is right or not is still not proved but Creative video must have got their info from somewhere and are a professional company. Also Phil Bloom would'nt have just said it again he must have got his info too.

I think its erring on the side that the internal processor is 8bit and probably is so in order to keep it cool as it can also record 60p in 1920x1080 instead of 720p.

Mark

On the other hand, the internal processor decided the output bit depth.

Note he's talking about the processors output bit depth which we all know to be 8bit, not the processing bit depth. Maybe the DSP is only 10 bit which would restrict your output to less than 10 bits.

Anyway no point in debating it any further, it's not getting anyone anywhere. I'm going to have to borrow the camera again to do some more shooting.

Be good if you could!

Steve

Why can't you focus using an external monitor? The first thing that would go for me would be any on board auto focus. I know some cameras you can program focusing or follow a target or rack focus but all these things can and usually done anyway with a follow focus and for the price who cares. Peaking would be nice though.

You can use an external monitor, but while I had the VG10 the Sony monitor had only been announced. Moreover, the whole point of an inexpensive camera with a hi-rez LCD and is a good VF is not need to buy anything MORE in order to focus.

Have you noticed how many gizmos seem to be needed to good results from the VG10 and FS100?

With the 3X cheaper NEX-5 I get Focus Assist. I simply don't understand that when Sony re-packaged the NEX-5 parts into a camcorder body -- how or why did they leave-out a CRITICAL existing function?

Likewise, the wonderful 'press Shutter and you get One-Touch AF-driven focus' function only works in AF MODE!!! You get nothing to help focus in MF MODE.

And, to switch from AF to MF you cannot simply press the AF/MF button. The button takes you into the menu system where you must manually select AF or MF and the press the Select button. Crazy!

There are so many odd aspects to the VG10 it is either a market test -- which failed because it was so flawed -- or it was crippled because of the need to sell FS100 or it was the first version with a much improved version mode to arrive mid-2011.

Still no word from Sony on the new firmware, but the re-spin of the NEX-3 is now out with its 16MP APS-C chip. The expected NEX-5 re-spin should be soon. The open question is, will the re-spin of the VG10 be not much more than the current model with a 16MP chip. I had been hoping for a 4K2K model, but looking at how little money Sony spent on the re-spin of the NEX-3 I begin to think Sony will let JVC have the 4K2K market for another year. If new firmware provides peaking for the VG10, eBay may be a good place to find a VG10 from those selling to buy the FS100. Buy cheap and w/o the 18200 lens. Forget the A-mount adaptor too.

PS: in AF mode, there is a critical need for the 'press Shutter and you get One-Touch AF-driven focus' function. Contrast focus way too often totally blows it and gets stuck out of focus. By pressing the shutter button you force the AF mode to try again.

Thanks Steve will keep a look out!

If I was making a film I really would want a decent 24" monitor and a smaller one I'd also have a focus puller and prefer to have a Camera operator DP and assistant and that would be with the F3 or the AF101.

Mark

If I had the budget for a film -- one that could make me a profit -- I would skip ALL these cameras and get a RED. It's not the camera itself! The folks at RED understand the technology needed to obtain electronic images that rival film. When I read their website, I understand WHY a RED works the way it does. Every engineering decision makes sense to me.

All the other cameras use marketing to gloss over what the camera lacks. The exception, of course, is Sony's F65. But, even then Sony's marketing is BS. Of course, their new sensor beats a 4K camera, But, RED is now selling a 5K camera.

Read Larry Thorpe's discussion of how much work it took him to introduce the idea of "progressive" into a company where no video engineer had any experience with anything but "interlaced video." And therein lies the fundamental problem. The Japanese companies have few if any engineers who are film-photography engineers. These 25-year old engineers have never seen or used a Bolex or Arri.

In the `90s I remember meeting with a team of Sony engineers and asking them about brands of CD players. They confessed they bought from the company store. They had never heard a CD player from anybody but Sony. Their job was to use Sony semiconductors in a way they met marketing needs. Listening played no role in their job.

And, remember when Toyota took a car to Lotus in the UK for a suspension tune. Of course, the engineers in Japan couldn't do this because very few engineers even own a car.

American's need to realize that experiences we take for granted -- shooting 8mm film as a teenager, for example, simply does not apply to most countries other than Europe. The great Japanese photo companies built wonderful products by copying AND IMPROVING already great European products. But, that expertise was lost as these folks have retired. Japanese ELECTRONICS executives did not grow-up shooting film with European built cameras. They are now busy planning our 3D future. Sir Howard has even stated that it is 3D that will "save" Sony.

IMHO, either buy the best cheap camera HD-DSLR or buy a RED if you want to make films. Everything in between is a money and time waster.

IMHO, either buy the best cheap camera HD-DSLR or buy a RED if you want to make films. Everything in between is a money and time waster.

Steve,

You surely remember I used to agree with you on most subjects, ever since I joined this Forum back in 2006. But if you really mean the above, I must say it's b...t (take no offense, please).

Piotr

Well depending on the films budget at this moment in time I would go for an EX1 with Letus for low budget only because I own one.

For a better budget then the F3 or Alexia rented

For a better than better budget 35mm film

3D will fail IMHO Its a novelty that will sink.

The future should lie in 70mm films being made as TV resolution gets better then so too should cinema. and the potential for films to have even better defination.

Why 70MM is not being developed I don't know. About time Kodak and Fuji got their finger out.

They're going for 4k cinemas to remove the need for film prints. That's why RED is pushing the 4k resolution of the Epic (as against the pixel count).

Red is not a 4k or 5k camera. It is a camera that has 4k or 5k (MX) pixels horizontally across the sensor. As people on these forums keep reminding us, a 4k or 5k pixel wide bayer sensor will not give 4k or 5k resolution.

So who's marketing is BS?

Answer: Just about every company that operates in a competitive market, Red, Sony, Pana, JVC etc etc, they will all manipulate terms, specifications etc to make their product sound more attractive than the next. That's what marketing is all about.

Does it matter whether or not an electronics engineer has used a film camera? Many of the best designed new products come from people with no knowledge of previous products or concepts as they approach the design with fresh, unbiased ideas. Kids that have never used film cameras are producing great movies using video cameras. I used to shoot day in and day out with Super16, do I want to go back? No thank you. I do miss the discipline that film brings to a shoot, but not all the aggravation.
Don't forget that there was a huge input from potential end users on the design of the FS100, that's one of the reasons for it's quirky design and looks. It's what I and others asked for, a modular compact camera. It's a bold design that may or may not catch on, but at least they are not afraid to try new ideas. Is it perfect, no, of course not, it's built down to a price and compromises have been made to get to that price. But is it good value and could you make a good looking movie with it? In my opinion it is a great big yes to both.

I doubt that the average cinema goer in a typical cinema would notice the difference between HD, 2k and 4k.
I struggle to see the difference and I remember being completely underwhelmed a couple of years ago at the big 4k demo event in the 4k big screen theater. I struggled to see any real difference between the 2k and 4k films that were shown. If you can't persuade the audience that they are going to be getting something appreciably better than what they have now, then how will cinemas justify the extra expense of 4k or higher projection?

We've debated already on these forums over whether people at home sitting at average viewing distances etc can see the difference between 720 and 1080. The conclusion was generally that 1080 was better, but not by much. There are still many, many people that don't see the benefit of HD over SD here in Europe where our SD was pretty good to start with. Rather than an increase in resolution I would much rather see big improvements in contrast. I can't wait for the day when I can get an OLED TV and then have material to view that uses wider gamuts than currently broadcast. A higher contrast image can easily appear sharper than a low contrast one. Resolution is nice to have, but I believe there are other things to be improved first that will have a much more profound effect on perceived image quality, in particular display and presentation brightness and contrast.

RED claim roughly a resolution of 3.2k for the 4k Bayer RED One and for the 5k Epic that would be roughly be a 4k claim.

I suppose this is would be their backing the claim.:

http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1304136624.jpg

Alister

I'm quite happy with the design of the Fs100 Just the spec. I think the nature of business is to make the most you can full stop. The marketing for the Fs100 has been quite good but for what it is on the known playing field it's well overpriced in consumer terms in my opinion.

Re resolution

There is a lot that can be done to improve image but those improvements could look even better on 70mm anyway.

I watched film I'd shot as a youngster on an internal projection device I got from ebay The film was kodachrome 40 and it was like a window on the world past. This is positive film not negative I know in my own mind that the potential for film is not yet realised Maybe projectors need to also improve and as TVs get better then the reasoning for 70mm will become clear. All modern films should now use 70mm for future purposes.

I don't think Sony is aiming it at the consumer market, the DSLRs can handle that for people who just want a shallow DOF, it's aimed at the more demanding pro-sumer market. The price is pretty similar to pimping up a DSLR for video.

Mark, given that you are such an advocate of film, why are you considering buying another video camera? You can pick up used 16mm and 35mm film cameras for less than an F3.

If you could own for free only either a Sony F3 or 35mm film camera and you can never sell or hire out either and you can only use the one you choose on your own projects, which would you choose and why?

I have an Arri 16mm camera and made a film with equipment borrowed from Arriflex. I wouldn't say I am an advocate of film, just film's still the best medium.

If I had a choice of an F3 or a 35mm camera then it would have to be the F3 because of film costs and transfer to digital. Probably most of us here couldn't afford real film. However if you gave me the option to have unlimited film and throw in development and transfer costs then GIMME A 35MM CAMERA!!!

Mark