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.

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.

The EX1 may be an old model but it deliver 1000 lines with a HDSDI output that has 10 bit 4.2.2.Mark

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.

I 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.

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.

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).

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

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.php/shullfish/story/single_chip_camera_evaluation/P0/

MORE NUMBERS GIVING MORE TYPICAL VALUES (numbers from PVC)

The F3 bins 16 DSLR-sized photocites together to get an ALMOST 2-stop greater sensitivity than from the DSLR photosites in the AF100..

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.

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.

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

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 (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/nab_2011_-_scce_charts/)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/video/collections-nab2011/video-nab2011_theater_nxcam_35mm/).

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 :)

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

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

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

A very valid point, IMHO.

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.

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!

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.

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

Possibly the best thing is to test a FS100 camera when it comes out, looking at stuff on the internet, with all sorts of compression, isn't the same as doing your own tests.

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!

Piotr how can you have considerable control over DoF Surely everythings going to be PRETTY much in focus at f16? Unless you have a really really long lens?

I have no time now to watch the video again, but I remember a fragment with a guy leaning over a balustrade... he was in focus, everything closer and further away - not. The aperture was certainly over F10; yes the lens was probably "long".

I guess this is the magic of the sensor size - and this is why I said this video is an eye opener!

I guess using a long lens at f16 is convenient if you had a lessor chip you'd have to put an ND filter on to achieve it. However if I had a shot like that I'd probably not worry to much about putting an ND filter on.

OR in the panny's case turning the ND button. Not really an eye opener or that important I wouldn't have thought? I would still prefer the Panny because I have the four stage ND filter giving me a lot more control for little extra work?

Mark

Mark, I'm afraid you still aren't getting my point.

If I say "eye opener" is because for somebody used to shoot with small sensor cameras like our EX1, shooting at F16 and still getting relatively shallow DOF has been unthinkable, hasn't it?

Piotr

Hi Piotr

Well yes but then thats cos the sensor is bigger and so expected on any big sensor camera! Sorry I may have been confused as I thought you were saying it as an advantage to just the FS100. When any camera even ours could put the background out of focus at f16 with a long enough lens!

Mark

shooting at F16 and still getting relatively shallow DOF has been unthinkable, hasn't it?

I think the whole DSLR revolution has made us think about glass like photographers do.

I've spent too long using all the tricks to keep an EX lens in its sweet spot somewhere above f4 and below f8, wishing I could be more flexible.

The merest fraction of Juan's presentation provoked an 'aha' moment: with film, we've been filling the shadows so the silver halide doesn't run out. In digital video, we're absolutely OBSESSED with the way highlights are handled - knee or cinegamma? And I've seen too much spilled milk over sharpening (in-camera or post?) and picture profiles (flat or 'look'?).

We want the lens choice and latitude of photography married to audio and motion of cinema without the electronically induced 'budget plastic' of image processing done badly, preferably at pocket money prices. Charts help, but pretty pictures - the sizzle rather than the sausage - is what earns us money. Has anyone else got to the point that some of these numbers are rather close to train spotting? :-)

OTOH, AF101 highlights on foreheads have scared me every time I see one at a trade show. FS100 stuff looks gorgeous, but how much of that is lens and lighting? F3 stuff, when I played with it, was 'effortless' and frighteningly clean, but recent examples seem oversaturated.

Each one of us has to take each camera we desire, and then play with it. Examine the footage. Make no assumptions. Analyse one's workflow. Haven't we learned from EX picture profiles that colour matrixes should not be reported as our cameras are all different? What portion of our PPs are 'spectacles' and which parts are 'shades'?

Less of the numbers, more of the images - the moving ones, not selective screen grabs. Our paying clients don't buy lists of condiments, they don't even buy sausages, they're just attracted by the smell. That's how DSLRs got so popular.

1) David and I are good friends, but any shutter speed above 1/125th with rapid motion will strobe terribly on a VIDEO camera. In fact, the shutter speed often needs to be reduced to 1/40th second. (Broadcast Engineering is about to publish an eBook of mine that explains the difference between FILM and VIDEO shutter speeds. They are not the same!) Without this fundamental engineering understanding, all talk about shutter speeds is really not useful.

2) A 1/2" chip is good to f/8. A big chip can go to f/16. But, one is encountering diffraction before the aperture is fully closed or open. Use these tiny apertures at your own risk.

3) All this talk totally misses the point. Yes, you can run a VG10 or FS100 without an ND filter by using a way too high shutter-speed with a way too small aperture. But the whole point of a big chip camcorder is to get a shallow DOF! To do this you simply have to cut bright sunlight down so an f/2.8 or f/4 aperture.

A shallow DOF is not simply a "filmic" esthetic. It is crucial to minimize "background" strobing when panning with a moving subject which one does to prevent "foreground" strobing. This is Cinema 101. (And, way too many folks posting do not understand film photography and so they think if the camera dial can be set to something it must be going to look OK.)

And, just to make things more complicated, as Larry Thorpe (of CineAlta fame) lectured me (nicely), visible strobing is a function of VIEWING brightness. So all this talk about cameras is still missing ANY discussion of of the viewing situation. That is why THX is not a marketing gimmick. If your viewing situation doesn't meet either SMPTE or THX requirements -- you simply are posting almost nothing of value.

<< Apple just hired the founder of THX. >>

That is why these damned internet posts of video are a waste of time. Very few of us have calibrated 709 spec laptops or monitors. Those who view via their home HDTV not only have likely not had it ISF calibrated, but the monitor is likely too small to meet either SMPTE or THX viewing angle requirements.

Size, as spelled-out in the SMPTE and THX specs is crucial because unless the screen size is REALLY big, at typical viewing angles, you likely can NOT see differences in resolution.

Worse, for interlace video, the deinterlacer in your monitor itself determines whether your flat-panel monitor shows 330 or 650 or 1080 lines of VERTICAL resolution. I'd bet none of the posters has actually measured vertical resolution using a test DVD.

That's why when I lived in NYC, camera comparisons were made in screening rooms. We went TO DuArt. Nobody in their right mind would make visual comparisons based upon home or even post-house viewing. (It's amazing how many post houses fail to calibrate their monitors using instruments.)

please do not over analyse everything. of course that is what is going to happen i am not naive but my test when it is finished editing later tonight is much more about the cameras themselves than pixel peeping.

2 similar cameras and two very different cameras. Hard to do them all justice

Looking forward to the tests Phil. Your impressions of the FS-100 particularly.

Hopefully you can post soon! Cheers.

AF100 vs F3 vs FS100 Part 1: The Real World on Vimeo

Yes, those buttons on the FS100... like the Z1, there are too many stuck all over it, JVC do much neater job in this regard.

In the end, people on a very low budget will still purchase the DSLRs, otherwise (unless totally obsessed by extremes of shallow DOF) these new cameras give more sensible options for large sensor video production.

Usability is so important its all very well having a fantastic picture but if you miss the chance not much use is it. According to Phil the Panny and F3 were pretty equal. Problem is the panny may have less than 680 lines of resolution.

An EX1 with Letus has 1000 lines 10 bit out built in ND filters and a full frame and once set up is as usable as the Panny.

If the big chip cameras were made to compete with the DSLR's they do that BUT the EX1 with film adapter still beat the pants of them and you also get the best of all worlds.

Until someone makes a large chip camera with 10 bit out decent resolution and try to include ND filters it will remain that way.

Mark

Until someone makes a large chip camera with 10 bit out decent resolution and try to include ND filters it will remain that way.

Mark

It's called the Sony F3 I believe

True but then the F3 is over £12000

I'd be surprised if you're actually getting those 1000 lines with an adapter fitted to a EX1. There are other aspects such as noise, sensitivity and dynamic range. For 10 bits the F3 would be the camera in this bunch.

None of these new cameras are perfect, so it'll a matter of selecting those features that are important to you and then accessorising the camera that ticks most boxes.

First gut impressions:

F3 - superb images as expected but the FS-100 matched this image almost every shot and displayed incredible low-light capability.
AF-101 barely held up against the above but did better than I expected. Horrible low light.
Canon 5D - Good bokeh as expected and low light but overall softer image and lacked punch compared to Sonys.

My gut feeling is that we all buy with a budget - except for James Cameron. So best bang for buck is the FS-100. As far as useability this does present a problem with no ND's and the stupid LCD position - both easily overcome though.

I go for the FS-100 so far....

An EX1 with Letus has 1000 lines 10 bit out built in ND filters and a full frame and once set up is as usable as the Panny.

If the big chip cameras were made to compete with the DSLR's they do that BUT the EX1 with film adapter still beat the pants of them and you also get the best of all worlds.

Mark,

Please take no offense, but your opinions are beginning to sound a bit like Steve's:) . I mean, what's the point in repeating again and again that something is better than a product which - like it or not - is important enough to deserve its own forum on DVinfo?

Don't get me wrong - it's nothing personal. What's more - as have been said, we're in the same boat, you and me! I love my EX1 just as you love yours, but I hate my Letus, and would be very happy if some FS100 supplier took my complete Letus Elite bundle as a trade-in...

Yes, you can get the elusive "35mm look" with Letus (or any other adapter of this kind) - but the hassle is not worth it. And as to the picture quality... Well, with the vibrating GG, forget about the 1000 lines! Not to mention further deterioration of the EX1 sensitivity and S/N.

Actually, after downloading the original file with Philip Bloom's low light comparison (starring his Dad and the cigar :)), I arranged a similar lighting scenario and shot myself lighting up a cigarette, with just a sole 40W home bulb placed to the left back of where I was sitting. I recorded the scene with my EX1/Letus combo, using my Canon FD 85mm F1.8 lens. Results?

Well, very "filmic"; nice shallow DOF. But the picture was so dark and noisy, it was practically unusable.

Yes - I could actually make it usable by rendering with the NeatVideo plugin, but this only adds even more hassle to the workflow. Try and do your own tests, and you will get convinced the FS100 is quite another league (I'm not mentioning the F3 as it's above my financial capabilities at the moment).

All in all, I know very well that everyone is prone to rationalize his investment - but let's get real: with the advent of large sensor camcorders, our 35mm adapters have become obsolete.

But Mark, here is the funniest part: what I have said above would only be valid if I actually could afford keeping my EX1 and buying the FS100 as the B-camera. Since - as I mentioned - I cannot afford that at the moment, I'm going to keep and use the EX1 with Letus for a while, just like yourself!

Only, I don't see a reason to try convince others than this is a "better solution" - no, it is NOT.

Piotr

Hi Piotr

I'd much rather have a nice large sensor camera in fact I've even got the loan If I do sound negative its only disapointment re the AF101 and the FS100 I so wanted one of them to be my next camera.

I do agree the large sensors are great at seeing in the dark and for that reason may seek to purchase the up coming Canon 5D markIII Or if there is a hack/way to get 25p on the Panny GH2 This may be a low cost solution to at least getting into the large sensor game.

I have to strongly disagree the Letus loses resolution by a large degree, so far all the tests I've done with setting up siemen stars etc have all been very good, although I couldn't tell you the exact resolution I'm confident it's better than 900 lines.

I'm a film maker and want the best quality I can get. 10 bit recording works well for me in post. I need to work quickly from setup to setup as lots to get through I can't afford to stand around and its bad enough without the camera holding us up. The letus once set up STAYS set up and so no messing about with ND filters or misplaced LCD screens. The Panny would work well but its low resolution and 8 bit out. The FS100 is 780 lines possibly 8bit processing and 8bit out with no ND filters and an LCD placed on top where you'd need a stepladder for tripod shots and err another monitor for shoulder mounted and although I would normally use another monitor anyway its not always possible in tight spaces or when in a hurry.

The bottom line is I'm being asked to explain my position My position is clear I want a tool I can use and am a little let down by the fact neither the Panny or the FS100 will be able to replace my awkward workaround. Bear in mind this is from perspective only Yours and others obviously differ and I would be the last person to talk you out of it. Good luck with your purchase I look forward to hearing more and will keep an open mind to any future testing like Phil Blooms up n coming second part.

Mark

Try doing an Imatest MTF50 run with your Letus. You can download a free fully functioning demo of the software and all the instructions are there on how to do a basic test, including a chart that you can print at home. The best I've ever seen from a Letus type device was approx 600 LW/PH. The problem is that a GG will reduce the contrast and contrast, resolution, perceived and actual sharpness go hand in hand.

When you buy high end lenses one of the key things that you are paying for is high contrast. Real contrast as opposed to in-camera black crushing etc. It is contrast that makes an image look sharp, that's how detail correction works, it increases edge contrast, it does not increase resolution.

I assume you have compared your letus setup side by side with say a DSLR? using the same lenses etc. If you have I'd love to see the evidence that shows the letus to have higher resolution or better sharpness (and contrast, less noise etc). When I compared the Letus extreme with a 5D MkII I didn't need charts or anything else to tell me why so many Letus owners were keen to buy DSLR's.