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

Alister

Detail IS turned off completley. This is a film about Vampires hence the pale skin and choice of colour.
The girls hair is wet and so does look darker. The black line is her hair going over shoulder.

However the point is re resolution.

Mark

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

Given that it's HD video, looking at the frames, I'd have assumed a light diffusion filter had been used. Nothing wrong with that, camera people have been using light black promist & pro mist filters to give a similar feel for many years. Black nets behind the lens are rather nice as well.

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

Can't see any decent resolution of anything in those shots. Resolution allows you to see those subtle textures in hair and dark areas that are lost in your images altogether. Resolution is all about contrast, resolution allows you to see subtle contrast differences and textures that are otherwise lost. It is not all about image "sharpness". In a high resolution image you would be able to see the stubble on the mans face as opposed to the nondescript fuzz in your shots.

At NAB at the Sony F65 demo the most striking thing about the film that was shown was not how sharp it was, in fact it didn't look particularly sharp at all. But then you could see incredible subtle shadow details and textures where you wouldn't normally see them, the actors iris's or the texture of leaves on plants for example, subtle, low contrast areas. This made the images look incredibly real.

When you buy a high end, high resolution lens what you are paying for is how that lens handles high frequency contrast. Sadly the one thing that the Letus does is completely kill high frequency contrast, thats why it's MTF50 results are always poor as it lacks both resolution and contrast and while you can have one without the other, unless you have both together the image will not contain those subtle details that film is so good at capturing.

If you have a high resolution, high contrast image you can compress the blacks and you will still see the textures.

Now this may be controversial, but it's my opinion that one of the reasons why so many low/no budget films are horror flicks of some sort is because it's easy to hide short comings in the budget with the typical crush blacks, ultra dark grade. It's harder in my view to make a great looking film that involves more natural lighting, natural vista's or conventional daytime scenes. These must be shot well as you can't hide the flaws with a dark. crushed grade.

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

We're talking about very shallow dof here You have to look at areas that are in focus and judge that
Alister

This is a test for resolution Not a test for contrast or how bad you think my colour correction or crushed blacks and overblown highlights which are if that is the case "choices" and not because I'm trying to hide the Letus shortcomings but because I liked the mood atmosphere and tone.

Any shadows in any format can be crushed out of existance. To say the Letus completely kills high frequency contrast is not true.

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

Mark, I have used lens adapters a lot. They are an effective tool to get a particular look. Your shots look nice and moody. I like the look, but they do show a lot of technical flaws too. Chromatic aberration, lack of sharpness and loss of resolution being the most obvious ones.

For my money, adapters have had their day and there are better methods, both technically and artistically, to get the cinema look if you are on a budget.

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

Mark,

I realize this kind of look might have been your intentional choice, but nevertheless - in accordance with what Alister said - I remember using the same trick to mask imperfections of my old good V1E, HDV camera years ago...Sending everything noisy and / or lacking full resolution to oblivion by just crushing blacks severely is all so easy to do.

With the EX1 picture (without the Letus), I never need to do it any more. With the Letus on though, I'm often forced to use the old trick again! Now compare this to the artistic freedom the S35 cameras are giving you, thanks to their phenomenal low-light capabilities AND the total DOF control...

I understand your situation very well; we've both invested into our adapters and glass, and we'd love to preserve the investment. But why rationalize it by saying this is a better overall solution to the new S35 machines? C'mon, I'm sure you know better than this :)

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

Hi Piotr

I've attached another picture for you to check for noise. This is straight from the camera as my colour correction is not being appreciated. I seem to be fairly lucky in that I don't seem to have had the same issues you have with noise. I would be worried about noise with the FS100 though as the camera is likely to have considerable noise reduction applied and could be the reason for its low resolution etc.

May I say the last thing I'm trying to do is protect my investment because as I've mentioned I really would like to get into the big sensor game.

Unfortunatley so far the choice is between the AF101 which is four thirds 8bit out and 680 lines of resolution but it does have ND filters and HDSDI out.


The FS100 is 8bit internal processing 8bit hdmi out with no filters an LCD on top making it very awkward for some shots.


Then again I have my EX1 1000 lines 10 bit out with ND filters that is ahead in the game in all areas except low light. I simply can't find justification for moving sideways and down. I wish I could and looking to be persuaded but so far I can't see a reason apart from low light capability but how many times do you need to film in extreme darkness if you want a chap lighting a match unless you want overblown flares you will have to still light the dark.

EDIT
One thing I have noticed is fringing around the girls shoulders. Same thing Alister noted as detail settings. Maybe in this shot the EX1 was zoomed in to far for some reason anyway not worth going into it on this thread.

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

The fact that the letus kills high frequency contrast is completely true. It's built in to the design. It uses a vibrating ground glass which randomly refracts the light passing through it which will reduce the resolution of any image projected onto it through dispersion and reduce the contrast through scattering. In addition the vibration adds additional scatter which will also reduce contrast and resolution at the frame rates typically used in video. A ground glass is the tool of choice in optics for reducing contrast. The only way the letus can not have an effect on contrast is by using a clear glass, but then of course it won't work as designed.

Consider this. If the GG stops vibrating what do you see? You see the grain structure of the GG. This appears as a texture. What is a this texture? It's small variations in brightness across the image caused by the varying dispersion and scattering across the GG. To eliminate this undesirable texture the GG is vibrated at a high frequency to blur the texture. This means therefore that subtle variations in brightness or contrast are getting blurred together to even out the image. So it's clear to see that the vibrating process alone must reduce the contrast in the image as its blending small changes in light and dark. To try to claim otherwise is nonsense in my opinion.

Are you really trying to say that the images don't look sharp just because your using an ultra shallow DoF? So what is supposed to be in focus. Ultra shallow DoF can make one part of the image perhaps appear sharper than it really is because of the dramatic difference between in and out of focus. This is one of the key areas people don't really consider. A higher resolution image needs less shallow DoF to achieve a similar effect as the ratio between in and out of focus increases with any true resolution increase. The circle of confusion decreases as resolution increases. This also applies to screen size and screen resolution, the larger the screen the greater the effect. The Circle of Confusion is governed by resolution and screen size as much as aperture and focal length.

Again going back to the Sony F65 demo footage, the scenes had shallow DoF, yet you could still see detail in the background due to the foreground starting off at a much higher true resolution.

You cannot ignore contrast when you talk about resolution. I wish people would understand that the two go hand in hand. It is ONLY through contrast that you see differences in resolution as it is only though contrast that you can see edges etc. If you don't have the contrast, you can't see the resolution.

Sure it's your choice if you want to crush your blacks etc. What I am saying that if you've got good high frequency contrast then you can crush your blacks but still retain subtle details that prevent blacks from just becoming solid blocks of nothing.

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

Roberts' finding of the Green signal being equal to Red and Blue, unlike that normally associated with a Bayer filter, suggested to me the Bayer chip was sending all photosite data to the DSP. (Yes, I'm now assuming the parts can all run at 60Hz, which given the Sony $400 camera can record 1080p60 seems very reasonable.)

I believe it is the DSP which groups 8x8 blocks into one of 3.7 MPixels that are then de-bayed down to 2MP. By combining the 8x8 in the DSP, the signal is boosted by +12dB (electronic binning) and all of the pixels output (2MP) have an equal strength of each color.

This new DSP process would yield a better than a Bayer balance amoung all three colors and a +12dB gain increase and, perhaps, a -6dB decrease in noise.

My assumption is that the DSP chips are the same and run versions the same firmware. The F3 DSP firmware does all processing at 12bits (from your reports) and does 4:4:4 processing which is output HD-SDI. The FS100 firmware does all processing at 8bits (David's reports) and does 4:2:2 processing for output via HDMI. When recording 4:2:0, both 4:4:4 and 4;2;2 are converted to 4:2:0.

I can imagine the conversion from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 will look better than a conversion from 4:2:2 further increasing the quality of the F3. And, of course, the HD-SDI output will be really be much better.

One could calculate the data flow difference at 60Hz between 4:4:4 at 12bits and 4:2:2 at 8bits to see how much faster the F3 DSP would need to run. But, I'm not sure one could say much more than the FS100 should consumer less power. I don't think this will prove anything. Just be of interest.

PS: Both would look much better than the current VG10 which I assume simply pulls about 12 million photosite 16:9 window from a approx 14 million photosites (these are Sony specs) into the DSP where they are processed in the traditional way. No increase in gain at all. Green should be stronger.

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

I prefer the straight from the camera look, but you've still lost most of the texture from the darker areas of the girls hair, eyebrows, eylashes etc and you can't see any detail in her iris's. It all looks slightly soft. These are the low contrast areas that a high resolution image should reveal.

It does still look like you have some detail correction or sharpening going on. I wonder if turning detail on but setting the level to -20 would look any different? Or setting frequency to +99 to get the thinest possible edges.

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

That's the EX1 alone, once you put something into the optical path, unless it's of the highest quality, without particles to scatter the light, there's going to an impact on quality of the image. In certain circumstances you can be putting this in front of your built in zoom lens when the aperture is wide open, so you have things like drop off in the edge resolution to factor in, plus an overall drop in the image quality from the lens.

As I mentioned earlier, you should test the camera and compare the results with your EX1. 8 bit can produce great results and many high end productions have been shot and continue to be shot using 8 bit, "Monsters" was shot 8 bit using the internal codec.

It's understandable that you don't want to buy another camera, but the EX1 Letus combo does have it's own limitations. You might like the images created, but that's another matter to the resolution figures.

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

Sorry Steve but I just don't buy it that Sony have suddenly found a way to read 14 million pixels worth of data 60 times a second and then group and process that data in an 8 watt camcorder when every other camera reading more than 4 million pixels suffers from heat and power issues requiring fans, heatsinks and a lot more power. The Canon DSLR's overheat even with pixel skipping. Red Epic has some of the noisiest fans I've ever heard (although they don't run when shooting, unless you have long takes). Arri's Alexa (which has pretty much the same pixel count as the F3/FS100) contains a massive heat sink. The F65's CMOS 20.4 MP sensor has a massive fan cooled heatsink to keep it cool, why doesn't the FS100 or F3 need fan cooling?

Considerably more data with considerably less power and heat are two things that just don't normally go together.

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

Obviously you will lose some resolution from the Letus combo but the point is how much? I've posted frame grabs that although unscientific show the differences between the Letus/EX1 and just the Letus. Unscientific because I downloaded a chart printed it off on bargain bucket paper and shot it Now I posted it with a warnig that it was only a comparison between the two However Alister measured its resolution using the MTF 50 test which somehow seems to be lower for all cameras than other tests seem to show.

Alister you want to mix resoltion up with contrast as part and parcel so I am sure that resolution and contrast is diminished by using the EX1/ Letus combo which the EX1 has a staritng resolution of 1000 lines or whatever test you use. So do we lose as much resolution and obviously contrast if your going to say resolution is part and parcel as the 730 lines you resolved on the FS100 well your test proves maybe a little even though it was a test on my printed card downloaded from the net.

Is your explanation of high frequency light being killed meaning all of it some of it as this is not a percentage figure more just a suggestive use of words that all high frequency light is killed. Have you done tests can you link to something that explains this more scientifically?

QUOTE
Are you really trying to say that the images don't look sharp just because your using an ultra shallow DoF? So what is supposed to be in focus.
---------------------------------
Your criticism of the lads facial hair not being in focus wheras his nose was In other words you have to look for the areas on a picture that is in focus. Therefore I supplied you a picture where the facial hair was in focus.
--------------------------------------
QUOTE
Ultra shallow DoF can make one part of the image perhaps appear sharper than it really is because of the dramatic difference between in and out of focus. This is one of the key areas people don't really consider. A higher resolution image needs less shallow DoF to achieve a similar effect as the ratio between in and out of focus increases with any true resolution increase. The circle of confusion decreases as resolution increases. This also applies to screen size and screen resolution, the larger the screen the greater the effect. The Circle of Confusion is governed by resolution and screen size as much as aperture and focal length.
---------------------------------------
Alister can we please stick to the subject these educational diversions kind of deflect from the topic?
--------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Again going back to the Sony F65 demo footage, the scenes had shallow DoF, yet you could still see detail in the background due to the foreground starting off at a much higher true resolution.
----------------------------------------------------
Which F65 demo?
-------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
You cannot ignore contrast when you talk about resolution.
----------------------------------------------------
Of course you can. Maybe the MTF50 test uses contrast and maybe why it gives different results to other tests. It is unfair to add other variables as an answer to a specific line of investigation In this case resolution.
---------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
I wish people would understand that the two go hand in hand. It is ONLY through contrast that you see differences in resolution as it is only though contrast that you can see edges etc. If you don't have the contrast, you can't see the resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------
This doesn't seem to make sense of course you need contrast and the best glass on your lens but contrast is used as a term to how much something is seperated from something else whereas resolution is used as a term to describe how much is resolved. Of course the two go together but you can measure one without the other on a black and white chart. Are you saying the resolution tests are wrong?
------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Sure it's your choice if you want to crush your blacks etc. What I am saying that if you've got good high frequency contrast then you can crush your blacks but still retain subtle details that prevent blacks from just becoming solid blocks of nothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If we're talking about blacks, the big sensors win because they see in the dark better.
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
I prefer the straight from the camera look, but you've still lost most of the texture from the darker areas of the girls hair, eyebrows, eylashes etc and you can't see any detail in her iris's. It all looks slightly soft. These are the low contrast areas that a high resolution image should reveal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is subjective and the contrast comes back when you colour correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
It does still look like you have some detail correction or sharpening going on. I wonder if turning detail on but setting the level to -20 would look any different? Or setting frequency to +99 to get the thinest possible edges.
-----------------------------------------------------
Detail is turned OFF.

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

Brian
It's understandable that you don't want to buy another camera, but the EX1 Letus combo does have it's own limitations. You might like the images created, but that's another matter to the resolution figures.

I got very enthusiastic about these new cameras and wanted in until I looked a little closer and realised they don't match up the the EX1 letus combo.

"Monsters" was shot 8 bit using the internal codec.

Is this justification for buying an 8bit camera over a 10 bit? 10 bit really only comes into its own for colour correction. Monsters was also transferred to film which would have helped make it look more filmic. It also had a very good post house work on it.

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

It depends where you do your colour correcting, if you do it mostly in camera, as DITs often do on the HDCAM range, you can get a wide range of looks in camera. The advantage being you can see how the costumes and art direction respond and you can make creative decisions there and then. I used an Amelie look on a short film and the director was delighted because the camera was responding to colours in unexpected ways and we could push some visual aspects further than we would've otherwise have dared.

I'm not sure how you can compare cameras looking at heavily compressed on line videos

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

Mark, you cannot measure resolution without contrast, and without contrast you have no resolution. They are inextricably linked.

What is contrast? It is a difference in colour or brightness between two parts of an image. At the most basic level, if you have no contrast, you cannot see or measure the differences between those parts of the image. High contrast is what makes an image look sharp, how quickly a dark area of an image becomes a bright part determines how "sharp" the image appears. If the contrast between those two areas is low they will appear less sharp than if the contrast is high and similarly if you try to measure the resolution, eventually as you reduce the contrast it is no longer possible to measure the resolution as it is no longer possible to discern one part of the image from another.

But it goes deeper than that because even thick, blocky areas of picture information will suffer and look softer if the contrast is low because the edge contrast and thus clarity of these will be lower. This is why the MTF of a system is so critical. It determines what the viewer will see and perceive. It is a far more accurate measure of image "sharpness" and "detail" than resolution alone. MTF is a measure of the quality of the detail that is captured and it is the quality of the captured detail that counts more than the pure amount. You could capture all the resolution in the world, but if you can't see it due to low contrast, it's worthless.

While you can arguably restore some contrast in post by pushing whites and pulling blacks you will never have all the micro contrast that true high contrast system can capture. If it wasn't there when you captured it, it certainly won't magically appear from nowhere in the grade. That's why the girls hair has turned into an area of solid black with no texture.

It is probably differences between micro contrast with the F3 and FS100 that lead most of the people that I know that have seen them both side by side to say the F3 looks much nicer and richer but they are not sure why. It's the same in Photography.

You cannot dismiss the circle of confusion when you are talking about subjective sharpness and image quality with super shallow DoF. Your pictures would appear very different if they did not have the ultra shallow DoF. They would look much softer overall. It's not a distracting discussion but a very important consideration.

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

QUOTE

Mark, you cannot measure resolution without contrast, and without contrast you have no resolution. They are inextricably linked.
------------------------------------------
Did I say they were not?
-----------------------------------------------
QUOTE

What is contrast? It is a difference in colour or brightness between two parts of an image. At the most basic level, if you have no contrast, you cannot see or measure the differences between those parts of the image. High contrast is what makes an image look sharp, how quickly a dark area of an image becomes a bright part determines how "sharp" the image appears. If the contrast between those two areas is low they will appear less sharp than if the contrast is high and similarly if you try to measure the resolution, eventually as you reduce the contrast it is no longer possible to measure the resolution as it is no longer possible to discern one part of the image from another.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure why you insist on lessons? Surely you think I must at least have some knowledge?
-----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE

But it goes deeper than that because even thick, blocky areas of picture information will suffer and look softer if the contrast is low because the edge contrast and thus clarity of these will be lower. This is why the MTF of a system is so critical. It determines what the viewer will see and perceive. It is a far more accurate measure of image "sharpness" and "detail" than resolution alone. MTF is a measure of the quality of the detail that is captured and it is the quality of the captured detail that counts more than the pure amount. You could capture all the resolution in the world, but if you can't see it due to low contrast, it's worthless.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Your talking about resolution and confusing it with contrast. Yes when we get right down to the blocks you have grey dark areas some more contrasty than others that help build resolution but that is still resolution and you can increase the contrast to build this if you want. If the contrast is so bad then this is a problem with the contrast NOT resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE

While you can arguably restore some contrast in post by pushing whites and pulling blacks you will never have all the micro contrast that true high contrast system can capture. If it wasn't there when you captured it, it certainly won't magically appear from nowhere in the grade. That's why the girls hair has turned into an area of solid black with no texture.
----------------------------------------------------------------
No it didn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE

It is probably differences between micro contrast with the F3 and FS100 that lead most of the people that I know that have seen them both side by side to say the F3 looks much nicer and richer but they are not sure why. It's the same in Photography.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Is this opinin or fact?
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE

You cannot dismiss the circle of confusion when you are talking about subjective sharpness and image quality with super shallow DoF. Your pictures would appear very different if they did not have the ultra shallow DoF. They would look much softer overall. It's not a distracting discussion but a very important consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look lets keep to one thing at a time and leave the lessons out?

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

I saw this mentioned on Phil Blooms site that you could look at an EX1/Letus combo as a pre-production version of the F3.

I'd go further although not as nice a form factor the combo it does offer full frame 10 HDSDI bit out. The loss in resolution from the combo may take it down to what the F3 gives out or a bit less. The nice colour the F3 gives I'm sure will be duplicated on a picture profile soon..

I think it's time Sony and Panasonic decided to either decide the new cameras are consumer and price them accordingly or up the spec if they wish to sell them at £4000 + Couldnt be a better time for Scarlet to enter the fray!!!

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

The Scarlet is 2/3", the old 35mm version will be part of the Epic range with a base price similar to that of the F3.

"EX1/Letus combo as a pre-production version of the F3" sounds more like rhetoric than based on reality. The advantage is the 10 bit HD SDI, which may be lost with your optical trade off involved in using the adapter.

Any figures I've seen for the resolution take the EX1/Letus combo below that of the AF100, plus you've got all that extra glass in the form of the built in zoom lens which won't do you any favours when you've got flare or heavy back light. The design is basically a compromise to achieve a shallow DOF.

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

Brian

The Red Scarlet may very well have two options with one for a larger sensor I think we should wait and see.
QUOTE
Any figures I've seen for the resolution take the EX1/Letus combo below that of the AF100,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which figures have you seen?

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

There are no plans for a large sensor Scarlet at the moment, RED are busy with their other projects, so I wouldn't hold my breath over that. RED have announced that the large sensor Scarlet is now an Epic, plus a price

I came across a review of the Letus on In Review: http://www.dv.com/article/16116 which quotes "50mm lens at f/4 I noted about 700x650 lines of resolution^. Well, more or less the same as the AF100 I remembered the 650 figiure.

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

I think if you use the letus just for close ups some mids for shallow dof shots and remove it for wide and some mids then the resolution and look competes with the large chip cameras. I think the frame grabs I put up show MORE than enough resolution and no need to make the talent look pot marked cratered and lined.

Without the letus on you get the defination you need in wides and mids More so than any of the large sensor cameras we have been discussing including the F3. Even just using the 1/2 sensor you can get shallow dof in some closeups. There are certainly many things to consider good and bad. The large sensors come with their own problems not least 8bit proceesing in the FS100 and 8bit out Moire issues LOW defination which is more of a problem when you want the background in focus etc.

Overall I believe the EX1 combo is a viable alternative to the F3. Maybe better in some respects and certainly beats the AF101 and the FS100 for all round film making. The EX1/Combo offers a versatilty that combines run and gun HIGH resolution with full size sensor operation and a 10 bit HDSDI out and on board tools that compete with the F3 Unless of course you want to record 4.4.4 out but then you'll need loadsa money.

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

Yes, you said you can ignore contrast when you talk about resolution.
Because you keep saying you can have resolution without contrast, which you can't.

I said...
You cannot ignore contrast when you talk about resolution.
----------------------------------------------------
You said... Of course you can.

Sorry but that's incorrect.

You clearly don't get it. You can have a million LW/PH resolution camera, but if the contrast is not good enough to reveal the detail, it's completely pointless. At the same time you can have a camera with a 100 stop range, but if it can only show black and peak white it is also completely useless. You need both in equal amounts for a good picture, resolution and contrast. One cannot exist without the other. How do you think detail correction works? Most people would agree that on the whole it makes images appear sharper. How does it do this? It increases the CONTRAST on edges by drawing a black or white line around. The resolution does not change, only the edge contrast. As I said the letus kills contrast and without contrast you simply cannot have visible resolution, yet you are adamant that contrast is irrelevant. And contrast effects not only the limiting resolution but also low frequency resolution.

Opinion.
Oh dear, if your not even prepared to understand the way ALL these things interact and vary the way the viewer perceives resolution and image sharpness then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

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

Sorry, but this is pure inexperience speaking. Your between 3-4 stops short on sensitivity, 2-4 stops short on dynamic range, 9db short on SNR, less resolution, 2 or 3kg heavier and 10-20 centimetres longer.

If you ever actually try an F3, you will realize how wrong you are. Run and gun with an EX/Letus o_O

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

Adding to what David said, our EX1/3 cameras are very noisy as is and leaps and bounds noisier than the F3 and FS100. In addition, all of this noise in our EX1/3 mitigate the benefits of a 10bit output. (I say 'our' because I own both an EX1 & an EX3).

Alister, can you answer this quick question: with cost being equal, would you rent a Letus Relay & Ultimate for an EX3 or an AF100 to shoot a TVC? (and recording to a nanoFlash) Thanks

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

Just for comparison with Marks images, here is one from the Canon 5D mark II, a frame grab I made from the original file, with no correction. Shot with Nikon 50 mm F1.4 at around F5.6. Had a cheap variable filter to get a shallower depth of field.

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

Indeed, you can have a higher resolution, but images don't look sharp.

I came across this site on MTF.

Understanding resolution and MTF

The director of "Monsters", commented that his EX3/Letus gave him a sore back, which isn't what you want from a camera rig when you're shooting a lot of hand held.

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

Alister, if you are correct, then I don't understand Juan's comment that the FS100 grossly oversamples for fine detail. If the camera has about 4 million big photosites and uses the about 3.7 million before de-bayering -- where is the "gross oversampling?" EVEN CONSUMER SINGLE-CHIP CAMERAS USE ABOUT 3.5MP BEFORE DE-BAYERING. COMPARE THIS TO 6MP FROM THREE 2MP CHIPS. IT'S SIMPLY NOT "GROSS" OVERSAMPLING!

Moreover, Sony has NOT SUDDENLY found a way to read 13.5 million pixels worth of data 60 times a second. Lets look back to January 2008: "Sony has now developed the IMX017CQE high-speed/high-resolution CMOS sensor that can output 6.4M-pixel images at 60 frame/second."
6.4M effective pixels (2921H × 2184V)
Pixel size: 2.5 μm unit pixel
12-bit column A/D converter readout
Supports 60 frame/ssecond transfer video capture
High-speed output interface: 12-bit parallel LVDS with 432 MHz high-speed data rate
The IMX017CQE provides readout modes: a 6.4M-pixel, 60 frame/s mode that outputs 10-bit data at a pixel rate of 432 MHz and a 2×2 ADDITION mode that supports high picture quality moving images.

>>>>>>> 2816 x 1586 (16:9): which is 4.5MP @ 60Hz THIS IS ACTUALLY MORE PIXELS THAN 3.7MP SO THIS CAMERA "OVERSAMPLED" MORE --- 3 YEARS AGO!

>>>>>>> 1920 × 1080 60 fields per second video: If 60 frames/second were being read-out with 4.5MP three years ago, then it certainly is possible for 13.5 million photocites to be read-out in 2011. That would require a part to run less than 3X faster.

Leap ahead to 2011: Cyber-shot® Digital Camera HX100V ($400)
Pixel Gross : 16.8MP
Effective Picture Resolution : 16.2MP
Still Image Size 16:9 : 12M (4,608 x 2,592) or 2M (1,920 x 1,080)
Video Format : AVCHD 1080/60p
Power Consumption (in Operation) : Approx. 1.3W

DO WE THINK SONY IS DEBAYERING 2MP AT 60Hz OR 12MP AT 60Hz? I HAVE NEVER SEEN A SINGLE-CHIP CAMERA DELIVERING FULLHD WITH ONLY A 2 MILLION PHOTOSITE CHIP. NEVER. THEY ALWAYS HAVE OVER 3 MILLION. SO I HAVE TO BELIEVE THE 12MP MODE IS BEING USED.

Lets's look at other cameras.

THE GH2 READS-OUT 14MP (4976x2800) AT 60Hz WITHOUT ANY SKIPPING.

SO WHY CAN'T THE SONY READ-OUT 13.5 MILLION PHOTOSITES? AND, IF A $400 CONSUMER AND A $1000 CAMERA CAN READ-OUT 12MP-14MP AT 60Hz THEN I SEE NO REASON WHY A $4000 CAMERA CAN'T READ-OUT 13.5 MILLION PHOTOSITES.

Therefore, in 2011 there seems to be no reason to assume 13.5 million photocites can't be read-out from a Sony developed chip given the have been working on super fast sensors for more than 3 years! The fact RED has a hard time is not evidence Sony can't. Sony does sensors better than anyone.

ABOUT the DSP not being able add 13.5 samples and output 3 at 60Hz. This is a very weak argument since we both know Sony has been at the forefront of DSP-based processing of samples from sensors! The DSP in the V1 created an image based upon samples from photosites arranged in a diagonal manner. There was no image coming from the chips -- only 6 million samples. Yet, the DSP created an image at 60Hz.

Bottom-line, you have the right to doubt Sony can do it -- but no other explanation supports everything Juan claims and matches all of Roberts' data. (And, saying you are "confused" or "doubt" Roberts' data is not good enough any longer since there are no published data that refute his data.)

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

Sorry, but this is pure inexperience speaking. Your between 3-4 stops short on sensitivity, 2-4 stops short on dynamic range, 9db short on SNR, less resolution, 2 or 3kg heavier and 10-20 centimetres longer.

If you ever actually try an F3, you will realize how wrong you are. Run and gun with an EX/Letus o_O

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not according to Alan Roberts report as for the camera being heavier and longer Who cares if you're saving a lot of money. I never said run and gun with an EX1/Letus you detach the letus and run and gun with the EX1..

Alister
Are you going to do the test with the EX1 picture only?

I'm looking at this as a tool to do a job and what I'd pick and why.

So far the EX1/ Letus combo offers the best deal.
BOTTOM LINE
If I was to make a feature right now and I could only choose one camera it would be the F3..

If I had to choose between the Sony FS100 or Panasonic AF101 or an EX1/Letus combo.

With EX1 only you get 10 bit out 1000 line resolution. You can use this configuration for shots that need no shallow dof or close closeups that do
With EX1 PLUS Letus you get 700 lines 10 bit out which aint far off the resolution of the new cameras.

VERDICT
The EX1/Combo offers the better deal for all round film making.

Mark

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

Of course, you may not get the full potential resolution if you're shooting with your lenses wide open and that figure would also be dependant on how well the EX1/Letus rig is set up.

In the end, it's up to each person to decide which camera is right for them and what they want to film. However, you'd be better testing your lenses on each camera yourself and then comparing the results, rather than comparing resolution numbers from different tests by different people over the internet.

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

QUOTE
In the end, it's up to each person to decide which camera is right for them and what they want to film
However, you'd be better testing your lenses on each camera yourself and then comparing the results, rather than comparing resolution numbers from different tests by different people over the internet.

----------------------------------------------------------
There is just one test that holds REAL weight and that is Alan Roberts and Phil Bloom looks at technology from a camermans point of view.

Others tests favour certain cameras. Or language that does.

I'm not going to buy expensive charts and then seek to borrow cameras so I can test them so I can be sure of the results and certainly if I did and showed these results others would undermine them to sell theirs. This has happened to Alan Roberts being underminedand now testing seems not worth the paper its written on with the exception of a few still trusted.

Instead I joined this thread and confirmed what I suspected. The Sony FS100 and the Panasonic AF101 do not win over an EX1/Letus combo and there are numerous DSLR's that outperform them in many ways. I guess the reason I've joined the debate is because I really wanted the two cameras to be better than I knew they were so I could move up and not held back by one step forward three back that these two offer.

The debate about the big manufacturers crippling cameras and holding back technology has been going on for years Indeed Jim Jannard set up Red because of this.

This is disapointing because it seems we are returning to this. I believe maybe the EX1 was a blip when Sony felt threatened by RED and perhaps no longer do so. If this is the case then the EX1 may be a Camera to keep hold of.

Anyway.... All my own personal opinion. My advice to others is be wary, its confusing but get the tool you need for the job you are doing.

Mark

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

You don't even need charts, you can just push the cameras into those dark corners performance wise and compare them. The final selection would a personal selection depending on your visual style and what you intend to use the camera for.

You're the first person to say that DSLRs outperform them in many ways. The GH2 seems to be the only one that people seem to be making a case for in that regard and that tends to be image quality compared to the AF100.

I'm not saying that large sensor cameras are the answer to everything, they're not. Just as a shallow DOF isn't the only way to direct the audience where to look in a frame.

Yes, the EX series are extremely good bang for buck.

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

Brian

Why do you think I have access to any camera I want to test? I don't.

I didn't say DSLR's outperform them. I said numerous DSLR's out perform them in may ways.

Mark

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

You can go to a dealer and test their demo cameras.

In which way do these DSLRs outperform them many ways? Certainly the DSLR's give better stills and if you want an extremely shallow DOF a FF35 stills camera will do that aspect better, but it will still have the other weaknesses for shooting video.

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

You can go to a dealer and test them?

None of the dealers here stock them let alone have demo ones. The price of these cameras leave them in the professional domain an area I don't think they deserve.

How do DSLR's outperform them?

FS100 8 bit signal processing and HIGH cost compared to say a 5D that is 14bit £1600 and a much bigger sensor. The 5D may not measure as well in tests but it gives a gorgeous picture that although subjective I think is the best out of all of them.

AF101 Again High cost and an even smaller sensor.

All the DSLR's outperform the AF100 and the FS100 in cost. An idea I have considered is using an EX1 in conjunction with a 5D especially considering the awaited mark 3

Mark

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

If you check here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-avc...s-video-2.html

Alistair has mentioned that the FS100's sensor processing is 12 bit.

However, the 5D also does a lot of line skipping etc and Alan Roberts doesn't even regard it as broadcast quality, It does give nice images, but it has a lot of moire, which restricts it. Plus a very compressed codec. If you want do colour correction, this is isn't the camera do heavy duty correction

Doug Jensen does a good summing up on the FS100, a camera which is very much aimed at the DSLR user.

Sony VideON | Sony Super 35mm Seminar at the 2011 NAB Show - Part 1 (NEXFS100U) | NAB 2011

Go to dealer that does stock them when the FS100 come onto the market or rent one for a day, you're not far from London.

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

QUOTE
If you check here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-avc...s-video-2.html

Alistair has mentioned that the FS100's sensor processing is 12 bit.
----------------------------------------------------------
Others have said 8bit signal processing.
-----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
However, the 5D also does a lot of line skipping etc and Alan Roberts doesn't even regard it as broadcast quality, It does give nice images, but it has a lot of moire, which restricts it. Plus a very compressed codec. If you want do colour correction, this is isn't the camera do heavy duty correction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And what I said was " An idea I have considered is using an EX1 in conjunction with a 5D especially considering the awaited mark 3"
USED in conjuntion as another tool in my arsenal of tools In other words for specific tasks.
------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Go to dealer that does stock them when the FS100 come onto the market or rent one for a day, you're not far from London.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This thread has told me all I need to know and I'd appreciate not being talked down too.

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

10 bits of low contrast, noisy, soft, reduced dynamic range Letus footage, or 8 bits of low noise, high contrast, sharp, high dynamic range footage?

No contest, if shallow DoF is the goal, I'll take quality over quantity thank you.

The 10 bit argument is a red herring with the EX1 anyway. The EX1's noise will limit how far you can grade long before the 10 bit output brings any advantage. You need a noise figure better than 56db for 10 bit to make a worthwhile difference in most cases as any more noise than this and the noise is larger than the 8 bit sample size, so all 10 bit does is record the noise more accurately. You should try grading both 10 bit and 8 bit EX footage, recorded with the same relative bit rate. You will see that there is no real difference to how far you can push either. A higher 8 bit, bit-rate helps reduce quantisation ver the built in codec, but 10 bit over 8 bit makes little difference for acquisition with the EX1/EX3.

IMHO the FS100 walks all over the 5D as a video camera. Better dynamic range, ergonomics, HDMI output, no line skipping, lower noise, less skew. But I'd still rather a 5D over a Letus. The Mk3 will still be a stills camera at the end of the day so it will likely still have many of the same issues as the Mk2.

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

Alister
So are you now saying the FS100 is 8bit signal processing? How did you come to believe it was 12bit if that is the case?

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

Sorry, but your own real life tests count more than a thread on the internet or as saying on a well known cinematography site goes;;

"Test,.. Test... Test"

The most that this discussion thread points out are the issues that you may come across, need to test and see if they're significant for what you're trying to do.