Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I should have both the FS100 and F3 at the BPV show in Haydock: bpv.org.uk and I'm sure there will also be some 101's.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Funding is always a problem and yes nothing really looks the same as 35mm film, but the new digital cameras are getting there, if not quite the same. The Alexa seems about the closest so far.

Given the current budget limits, unless you've more than a couple features or good connections and high end commercials under your belt, current digital technology allows you more on screen art direction and a larger name. Although, the latter tend to come before other elements fall into place, "Monsters" had a couple attached, even if not A lisr.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

The actors were NOT attached Gareth Edwards had worked for the BBC on special effects.

The two actors were introduced by Vertigo Also the film cost was probably nearer a couple of hundred thousand when you add in the travel costs wages etc Also the Music and post.

None of this was really indie although it appeared that way. All had professional experience. Were budgeted and backed up. The fact they used an EX1 camera and little crew did not make this indie. To my mind it made it a professional film aimed at a curious public who want to believe they can do it too.

The sound design really added a professional touch and without all the post work that went into it would never have got to the level it did. Monsters was touted as made for £15,000 which was a propogated myth that helped the film an awful lot. I think the cost of this film that had only had two actors two editors a director and a line producer and sound guy actually proves how little of the budget really goes on the camera.. I believe Vertigo may have promoted the movie in this unusual way in order to make money from there point of view for very little outlay.

The idea the money was throwaway and surplus to Vertigos needs seems to show a good attitude for up and coming film makers however it may have been cleverly designed to make a nice little pot for a future more realistic film plan.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Depends how you define "indie", the term traditionally means a film not made by the studios, short for independent. People have picked it up and used it for their films, even if they're making them as a hobby. In the UK the term also covers production companies outside BBC & ITV.

The actors would be an element so far as Vertigo are concerned, it's all part the business of putting together a film.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I guess meanings change for me Indie means a film made by anyone who gets a film made outside of any kind of studio setup. IE most films entered into festivals I would certainly not have labeeled Vertigo as Indie film makers!

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

It's usually outside the major studios, so most feature films are independent.

Independent film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From their web site: "Vertigo Films is a UK Media company founded in 2002 to create and distribute commercially driven independent cinema". There are many companies that do this, it's a big part of the film industry and producers/directors with projects should go to the film markets to meet these companies.

Film entered into festivals are usually independent, although not always. The studios do have their festival moments if they feel it'll work for the film and pre-release studio films can be the opening or closing film at a festival.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

In general terms though I believe most would tie an indie film to the word independent to mean made by an individual who is a step up from being a hobbyist.

I think a studio film would be regarded as a limited company like Vertigo or any other professional who could also call themselves independent but without it being shortened to Indie Of course I may be wrong Maybe many film production companies inside the UK and not part of BBC or ITV consider themselves Indie as well as independent.

If I was a professional film company I would not want to promote myself as Indie although would be happy to be regarded as Independent because of the connotations Indie has.

Have we a new seperate word? Indie and independent or maybe not!

Interesting.

Mark

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Indie has been a used for many years in UK television as an abbreviation of independent, it's been used by television executives when talking to independent producers . It's an understood term in the film & TV industry, although formally they tend to use the full word independent. However, that doesn't mean they won't talk about the indie sector when they're down the pub.

In the industry all production companies are limited companies, it's not a defining term for what might be a studio. You can't make an independent production for UK television without being a limited company,

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

errr, I've been commissioned to make programmes for UK and international TV and I'm not a limited company.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Yes Alister I believe you would fall under my perception of what I would see as "Indie" Although I wouldn't see Vertigo as an Indie company although as Brian has pointed out they are IN THE strictest sense. As are all the production companies in the UK apart from BBC and ITV.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

You need to be for the BBC, I know producers who had to start a limited company as part of getting their programme commissioned. Also, to access a number of funding schemes as a production company it has to be limited.

A limited company is a legal entity, which is a requirement for many of the numerous contracts involved, otherwise they'd have to sign with an individual rather than a production company.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I remember as part of the British film council application for one of their funds I had to create a limited film company although on paper only. The biggest benefit to this is you as an individual are not as liable as you would be if a sole trader.

Be great to sell shares bit like crowd funding but sounds a bit more prestigious. In fact it's similar to what many independents do, set up a limited company, maybe in another country. Wherever the benefits ( Tax breaks) are best.

This is what I would do with my proposed film if I ever find those elusive investors. I think at that point though I wouldn't regard myself as indie anymore but a bonafide production company out to make an independent film.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

The EX1 has three 2 million photosite chips that 6 million samples to the encoder. So the logic works like this:

1) you want a big chip for the potential of a shallow DOF.

2) three S35 chips is beyond us, so a single chip is used.

3) therefore, if one wants the luma resolution one gets from the EX1, which I do, one must use a sensor that has the photosites to capture a pre-debayered frame with adequate samples to deliver, after debayering, a recorded image with 1000-lines.

4) We know that a 1920-pixel image can carry 1000-lines of real detail assuming everything before encoding carries REAL detail. 2000 pixels is a nice number.

5) RED uses a 70% pre-debayer to post-debayer factor -- for each axis. Looking just at horizontal resolution, that means there must be a minimum of 2800 photosites per line to obtain 2000 pixels. Let's assume 3200 because if we divide by 16 and multiply by 9 we see the sensor must have 1800 rows. That means the sensor must have almost 6 million photosites.

The specific numbers don't matter -- what we see is that to get maximum FullHD resolution, a single chip camera must have a sensor that has LOTS of photosites. When a camera does not have enough photosites, its recorded resolution will measure much lower than does the EX1.

However, once one has a chip with 10-12 million photosites -- EZ these days -- one can have a 4K2K camera. Such a camera is able to deliver, after the file is converted to FullHD, far more resolution than an EX1.

In fact, there's enough resolution to enable an editor to pan a FullHD window around inside a 4K2K frame. There's enough resolution to enable an editor to zoom a FullHD window into a 4K2K frame. IMHO, buying anything less than a 4K2K camera in 2011 is a waste of money. Wait for IBC before buying anything.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I guess it sounds more hip to call yourself an "indie", although it's still an aspect of the same sector, if with very much lower budgets, assuming you're hoping to sell the film.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Back to the topic, I've downloaded Phil's low light sample (where his Dad is lighting all the cigars in the world), and after watching them on my 50" plasma I must say that:

- the F3 is gorgeous
- the FS100 is not far behind
- the difference between the above 2 is much, much smaller than between the FS100 and the AF101
- the 5D is the worst, by far.

What I mean is that the noise (and I am a little paranoid about noise - those who followed my threads on the noise from EX1/nanoFlash know that) is very film-like on both the S35 cameras - almost no chroma noise, just some grain...While it's very videoish (still acceptable) from the AF101, it becomes unacceptable with the Canon (not only is the chroma noise visible, but it takes an ugly pattern of horizontal smears).

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Piotr
I just downloaded the half a gig clip.

Wouldnt this be a different story if using the Hdmi out? I can't see a reason I would ever use the on board codecs of any of these cameras? Also can you really compare these like this as there not exactly scientific.

At ISO 3200/6400 I couldn't see much chroma noise in the (EDITED in Canon 5d) but I could see noise in the blue channel. Far more than the others. In fact extra noise here would add to the film look I imagine..

Mark

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Mark,

the http://nino.macbay.de/PhilipBloom/arnie_low_light.mov download I tested is 2.42 GB, with the QT bitrate of 73,7 Mbps 422. I realize it was originally recorded in different native codecs, and only rendered out like that by Phil - but where did I say my assessment was scientific?

I DID say I was mainly looking for noise, as I'm biased :)

However, I can imagine the FS100 HDMI 422 output recorded as 100Mbps L-GoP (or 220 Mbps I-Fo) on the nanoFlash could only be better!

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Hi Piotr

I think the point is it is well understood the codec in the 5D is not so good. Even so I could only really find ordinary noise in the blue channel? And agreed there was some more.

Looking at the AF101 and the FS100 From reviews this is what I understand. A movie sensor size is 24x18mm and so needs to be that size for the same dof control.

FS100
780 LINES
One card slot
8 bit processing and 8 bit Hdsmi 4.2.2 Out
No ND filters
Sensor size 23.4x13.2mm,

AF101
Sensor size 17x13mm
680/630 LINES
ND filters
8bit HDSDI out

EX1
1000 LINES
ND Filters
Hdsdi 10bit out

Clearly the EX1 is the much better camera unless dof control is important. With the EX1 and letus I lose about 4 stops depending on the lenses I use and so really I'm starting at f4 But I do have a full camera frame or slightly larger and so can compete with the FS100 and most definately the AF101.

With the AF101 the Dof is only about 1.5 stops better than my EX1 alone and I can imagine you would need to have very fast lenses although perfect for me with mark one primes at T1.3 But I can't live with the LOSS of defination 320 lines minimum and 8bit out. Although the AF101 is a very usable camera.

With the FS100 Again its working around a Mattebox and messing with filters and so may as well mess around with the Letus Also would be a resolution drop of 220 lines and again 8bit out.

The canon 5D offers better dof control than all of the above and to my mind gives a beautiful film look only bettered by the F3 But still the 5D has better DOF control than all of them and if you want a tool for this is actually the best.

My conclusion to all this is if I want the best picture and the best for post then an EX1 with Letus beats them both.

Also I think waiting for the Canon 5D Mark 3 could be the better bet.

Mark

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Just for the records, Mark, I'm in the same boat as you (see my signature).

However, there are 2 aspects that make the AF100 attractive to me:

- much less noise than the EX1
- much less hassle to control DOF compared to EX1+Letus.

That said, if I considered buying the FS100 it would only be an addition, not a replacement...

Piotr

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Hi Piotr

Yes I know we're in the same boat!

I'd like to buy a large sensor camera. I think to me and you the idea of having a camera where you can fit the lens you want and have complete control of DoF is very enticing. I'm also looking for an addition to my EX1.

Has the Fs100 got less noise? Has there been any tests?

I also have to pick up on the idea its less hassle than a Letus? The fact you have to use ND filters even an adjustable one and then place a Mattebox in front means you have to keep sliding the mattebox forward in order to adjust the ND filter. Could be very annoying when filming outside. If you have the letus at least you can use the Cameras internal NDs and once setup you're set.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

For a true idea of actual achieved camera resolution MTF50 is normally reliable and more importantly easy to measure repeatably and accurately. These are corrected MTF50 results for some of the cameras being discussed here, as measured by myself and Tom Roper. Units are LW/PH. Ultimate resolution in all cases will be higher than this and it's best to look at the charts to get a feel for extinction point resolution.

Canon 5D MkII 623 H, 756 V.
Sony PMW-EX1 931 H, 1109 V.
Sony PMW-F3 1093 H, 776 V (results from test with 50mm Nikon Lens, 24th April)

I did also test the FS100, but I suspect the lens was softening the image (I had a vari ND on it), until I can re-test I would not read too much into these figures as I believe they should be the same or similar to the F3.

Sony FS100 772 H, 756 V

Any resolution above Nyquist (1040) will lead to aliasing artefacts and is generally undesirable.

I am somewhat surprised by the difference between the F3 and FS100 H results. I wish I had an FS100 to hand to repeat the test and double check.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I don't need a chart to see that in the web videos. You can see the FS is not as sharp as the F3 or EX cameras. Yes web videos don't always tell the whole story but the measurements do support what you can see in the videos.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Using the same lens and similar Picture Profile settings, the FS100 and F3 should both be equally sharp. After all, they share the same sensor. If the FS100 looks less sharp to you, I'd blame it on the lens or the camera's setup. The cameras are very different in many ways, but that isn't one of them.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

MORE NUMBERS GIVING MORE TYPICAL VALUES (numbers from PVC)

RED ONE MX 1080 TVL/ph
Sony PMW-EX1 1000 TVL/ph
Sony PMW-F3 500 TVL/ph
Panasonic AF100 500 TVL/ph
Canon 5D MkII 440 TVL/ph

Basically what I've previously posted, if you want 3-chip EX1 resolution AND a potential for a shallow DOF you must step up to a 4K camera. It's simple physics. The F3 is beat by several Canon 3-chip consumer camcorders.

Sensitivity F3 6400
Sensitivity Canon 5D MkII 6400
Sensitivity RED ONE MX 5000
Sensitivity AF100 4000

The 5D has 41 sq um photocites
The F3 bins 16 DSLR-sized photocites together to get an ALMOST 2-stop greater sensitivity than from the DSLR photosites in the AF100. However, at 3200ISO, there is no difference. Advantage goes to the two cheapest cameras.

Latitude currently available:
F3 11.2 stops
Canon 5D MkII 11.2 stops
RED ONE 11.9 stops
AF100 10.2 stops

Exactly what Phillips video showed, the AF100 is more contrasty. The 1 stop difference between it and the F3 does not IMHO justify the 3X greater F3 price.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I suspect you're paying for more than just a sensor on the F3, there's a whole upgrade path and you may find the latitude figure improves when you use S-log. I've also read another test giving 12 stops on the F3.

The figures are on PVC l are "line pairs per sensor height", for TV lines you need to double the figure.

Here's some comment by a person who attended.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...evaluation/P0/

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Someone who refused to even visit Sony stand at NAB because there was nothing "special" there, you spend a great deal of time on Sony forum worrying about F3 and FS100.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

There is something odd with the numbers from PVC.

Corrected MTF50 for Red is 1426 LW/PH H, 1448 LW/PH V as measured by Alfonso Parra, again absolute resolution will be somewhat higher than this.

PVC have resolution for Red pegged at 1080TVL

Then PVC have the EX1 at 1000 TVL. Do we really believe that Red MX only has 80 TVL more resolution than an EX1?

PVC also have the F3, AF100 and Canon at half the resolution of the EX1, no-one else has them anywhere near this.

If we convert TVL/ph to LW/PH then the EX1 has 2000 LW/PH resolution, from a 1920x1080 camera??????

Hmmm, something not right with these numbers.

This is why I like and trust MTF50 tests. They are consistent and repeatable. They also give a measure of how visibly sharp the image will appear as MTF is a contrast measurement and it is the combination of both contrast and resolution that makes images look sharp, not resolution alone.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Personally if I had to choose from the Panny AF101 or the Sony FS100 I'd choose the Panny for functionality and with an eye to post.

I wouldn't swap my Ex1 with letus for either of them though!

Mark

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

The EX1 isn't part of the single sensor evaluation.

ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews

We seem to be mixing up line pairs and TV lines from with an EX1 from a different test on another occasion. The single sensor charts are "line pairs per sensor height" rather than TV lines.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I introduced the EX1 number at 1000-lines because that is what it was measured at when it was introduced and it matches Sony specs. The same for the Canon 3-chip. (Sorry, I tossed in the TVL not to just leave it as a number.)

The F3 does indeed measure much lower by a test posted somewhere here. Go back and look if you want the exact number. It was only slightly higher than many consumer camcorders. And, it must measure lower, because it simply does't have enough "pixels" to be higher. If you claim 3.37M pre-bayered pixels, you can NOT get the measured resolution of an EX1. Not possible. You get the same resolution as any 3.5MP single-chip camcorder. The F3 chip trades resolution for increased sensitivity.

Of course, the F3 offers far more! But, this is an FS100 thread. Unfortunately, F3 numbers were posted here. My bad too.

This was the perfect opportunity to post numbers from both. But, they were not. And, weren't folks posting just a few weeks ago that Vario-NDs don't soften the image. Now, that is the excuse being given for not posting numbers.


PS: I assume RED ONE numbers are after the downconversion to FullHD. Obviously, the native resolution when working with NON downconverted frames is much higher.

By the way MTF test numbers cannot be compared to other tests. IMHO, only IMATEST numbers should be accepted because all the others are subjective in reading the wedges.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

You need to double the resolution numbers in the single sensor evaluation to get the TV lines, the tests were done by a film guy. However, I suspect there could be debate over some numbers.

I'd accept that the EX1 usually has better resolution figures than the F3, it has always been regarded as an impressive performer in that regard. Although, the F3 does offer advantages in other areas.

As usual, it's a matter of picking the tool for the job in hand.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

The numbers I have posted here all all taken from Imatest MTF50 tests. I have posted my FS100 results, but with the caveat that there was a VariND. It, may or may not have effected the test, however I would have expected to have seen closer numbers to the F3. I had not planned on measuring the resolution when I had the FS100, but as I did shoot a suitable chart I was able to subsequently take a look at the chart with Imatest and those were the numbers produced. As I don't have the camera anymore I cannot re-shoot the chart without the VariND to confirm the results.

If you look at my MTF50 test for the F3 attached and compare it with Tom Ropers EX1 test you will see remarkably similar results. I see no real reason why the FS100 resolution should be significantly different to the F3.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

I guess that demonstrates that if you're comparing these figures make sure that the cameras are all doing the exactly same test and, if possible, remove subjective judgements as to when aliasing is kicking in.

The quality of the lens being used is also going to impact on the figures.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Hi Mark,

As you know, I used to consider the lack of ND filers in the FS100 almost a deal breaker for me. But I don't any more - not after watching this presentation by Juan Martinez, and particularly the video by David Leitner: Sony VideON | A Tour of the NXCAM Super 35mm Camcorder | NAB 2011.

This really is an eye-opener; one needs to change his way of thinking about shooting video when he puts his hands on an S35 sensor camera. Mr. Leitner's video proves that the FS100 can even be used as a run&gun camera, and without a bunch of ND filters and/or a mattebox, or the hassle of setting them up!

Why? Well, what is the smallest aperture you can use with your EX1 without getting soft due to diffraction? F5.6? OK, now follow the link and see video shot on the FS100 at F11, or even F22! It's still sharp and beautiful.... Also, one needs to stop thinking the 180 deg shutter is something you cannot change; depending on the material subject and destination, you can open up the iris and control the exposure by speeding up the shutter! Mr. Leitner shows that even at 1/1000th of a second, no harm is done!

Of course, when you're shooting a feature or drama, you need to keep your shutter constant and best at 180 deg, and still have the iris wide open for DOF control - this is when you will need ND filters indeed. But then again: those are controlled situations, so not a big deal...

So Mark, I'll stick to my opinion that 35mm video is much, much less hassle with FS100 than it is with EX1/Letus.

Oh, and you mentioned noise... Wait a minute, noise? what is that?

Go watch that video; there simply is no noise in this camera - not in the practical shooting conditions.

Piotr

PS. I'm sold :)

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

1/1000th may be OK when there's no movement, but shutter speed does begin to show on faster than 1/120th on movement.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Sure, sure... I know all this - I highlighted a couple of extremities just to make a point.

A very valid point, IMHO.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

If you look at my FS100 video you will see the way the motion of the flying birds is affected by the use of the shutter at 1/250th. It's not a good look. But it's only in the shots where birds fly through the scene that you notice the fast shutter speed. It's going to depend on what you are shooting as to how much of an issue shutter speed will be.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

That's exactly what I meant when saying:

"depending on the material subject and destination, you can open up the iris and control the exposure by speeding up the shutter" :)

Piotr

PS. One more important and surprising (to me at least) observation: David's video proves that even at F16 (or close to that - don't remember the exact value), considerable control over DOF is still possible on this camera!

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

For its physical size and cost it does give very nice looking images of N.Y.

My old Arri light weight 3" x 3" matte box might fit on a lot of those stills lenses with suitable adapter rings.

Re: Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom
 

Piotr

Good luck with your purchase! I watched the video but I'm still not sold.

The fact it can see clearer in the dark than the AF101 and the moire issues which I could still see on the buildings in leitners film.Is NOT enough to sway me.

Some of leitners footage seemed over saturated and in some instances had people with orange faces does not make me believe this is anymore filmic than any other camera. The fact you can shoot at f11 f16 without defraction is good because you don't have NDs but then I wouldn't use this camera closed like this and anyway a camera with ND filters it's not a problem in fact you can shoot at f22 f32 using filters. I would use the EX1 especially for wide shots where detail capture and moire are issues with the FS100.

It's an 8 bit camera with no NDs. Noise level of -48dbs and probably significant noise reduction added. I also felt the DSLR comparison of fine detail looked soft like the image was blurred. I'd like to see some more tests and not so much an advert that leaves out sometimes critical flaws.

Mark