Sony NEX-FS100 Camera Test

[Les Wilson]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Jean Daniel Villiers

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

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

The F3 has 10 bit because of HDCAM SR.

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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

The F3 has 10 bit because of HDCAM SR.

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

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

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

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

Steve,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

====

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

With what lens?

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

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

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

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

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

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

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

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

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

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

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

[Steve Kalle]

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

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

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

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

The 10% number is directly from Apple's white paper http://images.apple.com/finalcutstud..._ProRes_WP.pdf

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

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

[Jean Daniel Villiers]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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

The F3 has 10 bit because of HDCAM SR.

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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

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

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Erik Phairas]

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

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

[Mark David Williams]

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

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

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

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

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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

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