There will be lots of ND options for the FS100. There will be Nikon adapters with built in ND's


Hi Alister,

Are you able to provide any more hints/details on when and where these Nikon adapters with built in NDs might become available? Are there any confirmed ETAs or have you only heard rumours that they are in development.
I hunted around the MTF site but couldn't find any upcoming adapter details or announcements.

Lack of built-in NDs is the biggest drawback of the FS100 IMHO, so a 3 or 4 step ND e-mount adapter would seem to be the must-have accessory for anyone serious about controlling exposure without compromising on either DOF or shutter speed.

This is a resolution test for my EX1 with the Letus adapter and without. Specifically for Alister and Piotr The chart was downloaded so this is unscientific but at least you can compare the two and get an idea how much resolution is lost by using the letus. Both pics are as they came off the camera with sharpness turned off. Sorry forgot to white balance the EX1 pic

There seems to be a drop off in sharpness towards the edge with the Letus, plus a reduction in contrast.

Brian

You mean the left top corner? Could be a slight misalignment in how I tightened the letus on. The contrast could be down to the letus image being overexposed.

Anyway the loss of resolution is neglible.

Mark

It doesn't look over exposed, although the clean EX is darker exposure wide. I'd expect the contrast to be lower, it's part of what gives the adapters a more film look.

The resolution does looks pretty good in the centre, however, compared to the clean shot on the EX1 the edges do look softer.

Needing a critical alignment is a potential issue when shooting on a tight schedule.

Sorry should have said the EX1 was less exposed Not over exposed a slip of the tongue. Re the contrast I think I may have used a different gamma curve accidently.

Alister- You said
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.

Needing a critical alignment is a potential issue when shooting on a tight schedule.

Once the letus is set up there is no need to take it off all you do is change lenses.

Mark

The other issue with the Letus is pure reliability. In vibrating models I've used, I've had the motors suddenly stop as connnections to the vibrating motor just gives out due to connection from wire. Also in hot situations, the vibrating motor would just stop. I haven't heard much mention of these issues from other users, which makes me wonder if out of all the adapters that were sold, that any of them were ever used for extended periods.

Hi Chris

I've not had an issue with my adapter yet. My last film was shot over 4 consecutive FULL days and two half days. I've used the adapter for extensive testing of lenses but that's about it. Do you think all letus adapters are prone to breakdown?

The EX1 offers a thousand lines of resolution 10 bit HDSDI out ND filters 2 card slots. Using a letus you will undoubtably get more resolution than the FS100 and the AF100

The FS100 offers 780 lines of resolution 8bit signal processing.8 bit out. No ND filters. The FS100 is touted as the F3's smaller brother because it shares the same sensor but are the manufacturers really just crippling the cameras to dilineate the markets into consumer and pro? Even the F3 has 35mbs rather than 50 mbs keeping it separate from more expensive cameras.

The AF100 offers 680 lines of resolution which is closer to 720p than 1080 with 8bit HDSDI out with ND filters but it's a smaller sensor.

I'm concerned the marketing implies one thing but is really another. I don't think there is anyway you could call the FS100 the baby brother to the F3. Maybe really it should be the replacement for the VG10?

Mark

QUOTE: "I don't think there is anyway you could call the FS100 the baby brother to the F3."

Exactly!!!
This is what I have been trying to tell people since I had the opportunity to shoot with an FS100 before NAB. The cameras are totally different. They share the same image sensor, and that is just about all they have in common. I don't know why Sony and everyone else lumps them together, because they have nothing in common at all.

Another opinion: I think Juan said at NAB that the F3 and the FS-100 were assigned to two different project groups. They each had their own budget, and they probably never talked to one another, and what the FS-100 group came up with was what they would have come up with if the F3 didn't even exist.

I came across a review of the Letus on In Review: Letus Extreme 35mm Lens AdapterMatthew Jeppsen, Matthew Jeppsen, Matthew Jeppsen (http://www.dv.com/article/16116) which quotes "50mm lens at f/4 I noted about 700x650 lines of resolution^.

I think in the end it comes down to if you like the look of a clean FS100 or F3 against the adapter look, which tends towards a slight promist feel. There are other aspects like sensitivity which will influence selecting a camera for a production. These decisions are personal, unless you're meeting HD broadcast specifications. The FS100 & F3 cameras have different markets

Needing a critical alignment is a potential issue when shooting on a tight schedule.

Once the letus is set up there is no need to take it off all you do is change lenses.

Mark

Dear Mark, you're defending a lost case here. Been there, seen that. Have had enough.

Optimally, I'd like to sell my Letus - but should it prove to be impossible, well... See the link in my sig.

It'd be a pity, cause I love my EX1 - but not the Letus. The FS100 would make such a nice B-cam for the EX1...

The FS100 was designed by and is built by the Sony Shinegawa factory which is responsible for Sony's PV products (pro video) and consumer products. The F3 was designed and is built at the Atsugi factory which is where all the broadcast gear is produced. The two teams are completely separate.

I'll run the charts through Imatest in the morning and see what we get.

Piotr
I'm not crazy about the Letus/EX1 combo.. I SHOULD only care about pic quality and usability But I don't I want in on the big chip show. But in the end my down to earth practical side errs on comon sense and what ACTUALLY gives the best picture and most usability is an add on and not the one stop solution that takes one step forward and three back.

I'm seduced by the new big chip cameras that offer the lenseless holy grail we've been waiting for for years. Unfortuneatly this isn't the pivotal moment it promised to be. Only the F3 offers the real deal the other two seem to be crippled to the point of non starters for my position,

I'm definatly going to look in on your posts when you get your FS100 and sell your EX1!

What grates with me is I have four Zeiss mark one primes 16mm film lenses that I'm sure would work well with the AF101 and all four at T1.4 Would make the AF101 a GREAT choice. But the reality is 680 lines 8 bit and many are seemingly reporting problems with highlights. Doh..

Mark

Not so sure David. It's an interesting hypothesis, but I think the MTF50 numbers are too high for a camera effectively using only 1280x720 samples. MTF50 of 772 LW/PH Horizontal and 756 LW/PH Vertical are too high, MTF30 is out at around 850/840 LW/PH which should not be possible from just 1280x720 samples.
Sorry Alister - I'd missed this post of yours.

But can I remind you of a point I think you have referred to yourself? That Imatest is only effective if the MTF50 point is below the Nyquist limit? From the Imatest site ( Imatest - Sharpness (http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness.html) ) , near the bottom:
Some observations on sharpness
........
*Sensor response above the Nyquist frequency is garbage. It can cause aliasing, visible as Moire patterns of low spatial frequency. In Bayer sensors (all sensors except Foveon) Moire patterns appear as color fringes. Moire in Foveon sensors is far less bothersome because it's monochrome and because the effective Nyquist frequency of the Red and Blue channels is lower than for Bayer sensors.

*Since MTF is the product of the lens and sensor response, demosaicing algorithm, and sharpening, and since sharpening typically boosts MTF at the Nyquist frequency, the MTF at and above the Nyquist frequency is not an unambiguous indicator of aliasing problems. It may, however, be interpreted as a warning that there could be problems
In other words, the Imatest software can't distinguish between real resolution and "sensor response above the Nyquist frequency" (aliases). It relies on a user separately knowing what the Nyquist frequency is, and if Imatest gives a figure for MTF50 of greater than that, the implication is that there are aliases present of greater than 50% mtf. The software is intended for systems where MTF50 is significantly lower than Nyquist.

If my hypothesis is correct, and the FS100 reads the sensor differently to the F3 such that it is effectively 1280x720 R,G,B samples (or thereabouts), then the reason for your Imatest figures of 772 and 756 (850/840 for 30% mtf) are quite simply that those figures are so high due to aliases. "Garbage resolution" as Imatest put it.

I think it would be very interesting to point an FS3 and an FS100 at the same zone plate, especially one with an out of band response. I'm pretty sure I know what I'd expect to see...... :-)

What grates with me is I have four Zeiss mark one primes 16mm film lenses that I'm sure would work well with the AF101 and all four at T1.4 Would make the AF101 a GREAT choice. But the reality is 680 lines 8 bit and many are seemingly reporting problems with highlights. Doh..Mark

But listen to Phillip -- a shooter with a reasonable level of skill can deal with the AF100 issues. If you really look at all the samples, the AF100 looks great. In fact, it always looks better with great color and nice contrast. The others offer only a tiny increment in resolution -- and when the re-spin of the VG10 arrives it will have the same resolution for only $2000. So, you are paying a lot for resolution in May that will be equalled in Sept.

As Philip rightly says, the point of a game involving imperfect cameras is to buy the camera wit the "most bang for the buck." In your heart you know which one that is given the lenses you own.

[QUOTE=Alister Chapman;1648541]The FS100 was designed by and is built by the Sony Shinegawa factory which is responsible for Sony's PV products (pro video) and consumer products. The F3 was designed and is built at the Atsugi factory which is where all the broadcast gear is produced. The two teams are completely separate.

Exactly!

The FS100 is part of the NEX (with E-mount) series consumer/prosumer series. Specifically it is the prosumer version of the consumer VG10.

The FS100 looks more advanced TODAY ONLY because the VG10 is almost 9-months old. Wait for the 16MP re-spin of the VG10 -- then the FS100 will look like an expensive version of a consumer camera.

What the two teams share is the ability to buy the same sensor from yet another Sony division. And the Sony consumer/prosumer group are using this choice of chip to build a "uses the same chip" marketing program. And, it does deliver 2-stops greater sensitivity so the marketing ABOUT THE CHIP is not a lie.

What grates with me is I have four Zeiss mark one primes 16mm film lenses that I'm sure would work well with the AF101 and all four at T1.4 Would make the AF101 a GREAT choice. But the reality is 680 lines 8 bit and many are seemingly reporting problems with highlights. Doh..

Mark

S16 is roughly 7mm smaller in diameter than the AF100 image circle. The chances of your lenses covering an AF100 are not very good. Test away, but doubtful.

Especially the 9.5mm Super Speed Distagon, which only just managed to cover Super 16..

Brian,

I measured the lense diameters a while back, can't remember the exact figures now and your right the 9.5mm would have vignetting and would have to reframe on that lens However the 25mm and 16mm, will be okay the 12mm may need a little reframing. Not good when the starting resolution is only 680 lines.

Steve
Are you sure they won't just discontinue the VG10? The VG10 seems to have a pretty awful picture when you could buy a 5D for about the same price?

Mark

Here is a link to a trailer I made using the EX1 and Letus
Vampire Gang Origins (2011) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828348/)

If my hypothesis is correct, and the FS100 reads the sensor differently to the F3 such that ..........
Alister, it does strike me that rather than the matter being debated on forums, are you in a position to put a question directly to Sony? To directly ask, "given the same physical sensor in the FS100 and the F3, are the photosites read out in the same way"?

AFAIK, the FS100 doing a full de-Bayer (as the F3) is not something they have ever claimed - it's just what people have assumed given the same physical chip.

In other words, the Imatest software can't distinguish between real resolution and "sensor response above the Nyquist frequency" (aliases). It relies on a user separately knowing what the Nyquist frequency is, and if Imatest gives a figure for MTF50 of greater than that, the implication is that there are aliases present of greater than 50% mtf. The software is intended for systems where MTF50 is significantly lower than Nyquist. ......

I think it would be very interesting to point an FS3 and an FS100 at the same zone plate, especially one with an out of band response. I'm pretty sure I know what I'd expect to see...... :-)

I agree with what you say, with the caveat that the plotted MTF curve normally gives very clear indications of aliasing and resolution above Nyquist as this tends to reveal itself as bumps or flat areas on the plot. The FS100 plots show a quite steep and uniform curve going down to MTF15 at system Nyquist, then there is a bump at about 1650 LW/PH on both the F3 and FS100 plots which corresponds to the out of band aliasing/moire see on the zone plates.

David. I have asked and fished for that very answer, but Sony will not say anything beyond "It's a bayer sensor and we cannot say more".

Zone plates show both the F3 and FS100 to have the same vertical resolution, but the FS100 having more horizontal aliasing. Out of band moire is very similar for both.

I measured the lense diameters a while back, can't remember the exact figures now and your right the 9.5mm would have vignetting and would have to reframe on that lens However the 25mm and 16mm, will be okay the 12mm may need a little reframing. Not good when the starting resolution is only 680 lines.

Measuring the lens will do you no good. You need to measure the projected image diameter set at the proper depth of focus. The light does not exit parallel, it converges to the focal point.

Zone plates show both the F3 and FS100 to have the same vertical resolution, but the FS100 having more horizontal aliasing. Out of band moire is very similar for both.

Alister
What do you measure the resolution at?

Mark

FS100 MTF50 was about 730 LW/PH. The results are earlier in the thread somewhere.

Here are the MTF 50 plots for the Letus on EX1 based on Marks frame grabs.

Vertical = measured 433 LW/PH, corrected 639 LW/PH
Horizontal = measured 503 LW/PH corrected 675 LW/PH

Well short of the 925 LW/PH of the EX without the adapter.

Hi Alister

I don't think you should use MY framegrabs to measure resolution as I downloaded it from the internet and printed it out. The idea was to give the figures for the the EX1 chart and for the EX1 with letus and that way you can judge roughly the difference between them.

Could you measure the resolution on my frame grab for the EX1 only as well? Or have you done this?

Mark

Alister

Did you test both pictures thinking they were both taken with the letus? Looking at the frame grabs it appears as if you have although I'm unfamiliar with this process.

Mark

The great thing about the Imatest process is that it does not use the trumpets or other traditional resolution measuring parts of the chart. All it needs a dark to light diagonal line. A very poorly printed chart will degrade the results, but most inkjet or laser printed charts will give a reasonably accurate result.

One plot is horizontal the other vertical. Both done from the letus chart.

Thanks Alister

I think it would only be fair to do the same test on the EX1 picture as we dont know what resolution is lost through my unscientific frame grabs.

Mark

I'll try and run the bare EX charts over the weekend.

FS100 MTF50 was about 730 LW/PH. The results are earlier in the thread somewhere.

Would a higher quality lens make much difference this figure?

I don't think so. The same lens gives well over 850 LW/PH on the F3. I've tried various lenses and get the similar numbers on the F3 and FS100 including Zeiss Ultras on the F3.

Here is a link to a trailer I made using the EX1 and Letus
Vampire Gang Origins (2011) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828348/)

Mark:

Re your earlier question about reliability, my earlier experiences with the Letus are based on a borrowed unit that was supposed to have been little used, and my own first original Letus35 (no flip) in which I had motor wire break off after a short time. I put up with it because it was the only game in town, and it was a pain.

Your trailer post above would be more helpful if it was shown in higher definition. But I think it still exhibits typical Letus softness. I am not saying it is objectionable, even -- it actually looks great in a lot of ways.
And that is what makes this debate about lines of resolution a bit ridiculous. What I care about is how my audience receives my work, not how many lines I get up on the screen. That is why the 5D, even with its lower end numbers and other disabilities is still playing in the game.

David, the FS100 is most likely a prosumer NEX. The consumer NEX VG10 is a 1920x1080 camera using a 14MP chip.

I really doubt there would be any reason to even think the FS100 was using the F3 chip to get a 1280x720 resolution. There would no logical reason to do this and then upscale to 1920x1080.

Plus, both the F3 and FS100 are 800ISO cameras. So, the "magic" that is used to get the extra sensitivity is being used by both cameras -- even more reason to believe the sensor (which we know to be the same) and the DSP operate in an identical manner.

However, one option never mentioned is that although the same DSP may used in the F3 and FS100, the power differences came from the clock-rate the chip is run at. To process 4:4:4 10-bit data means the chip needs to run much faster than when processing 4:2:2 8-bit data. You need to understand that the de-bayer -- done on 3.7Mpixels, can directly create YUV at either 4:2:2 8-bit (for HDMI output) or 4:4:4 10-bit (for HD-SDIi output). For 4:2:0 encoding, both 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 are decimated to 4:2:0.

Hi Chris


Some pics attached for you to have a look at.

Steve don't forget the FS100 is using 8bit signal processsing so that's going to cut down power consumption too.

I can't see any softness in the Letus only that the edge sharpening is TURNED off on the EX1?

I though Steve that you were suggesting that the "magic" was happening at the sensor level with pixels groups being read together off the chip as opposed to singly to overcome all the normal readout speed and heat issues associated with trying to read every pixel with DSLR type pixel counts? In which case the sensitivity would not change significantly if the debayer was less sophisticated.

If the sensor is read the way David is suggesting then the sensitivity would be the very similar to the F3.

I'm not convinced by either theory. I think the differences are just down to a less sophisticated DSP in the FS100.

I'd suggest you might want to reduce the detail correction levels or raise the frequency your using Mark to get rid of the thick black line around the guy's nose and the girls dress. I don't like the smooth lack of texture on the guys skin (the girl is better), nor the blown out skin tones. The images lack any real contrast only crushed blacks and blown whites, but very little in between. The girls hair is just a solid black mass on the right side, no texture or detail of any sort at all, makes it look like crushed video. Sorry, not to my liking, but that's just my opinion and others will of course differ.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

I though Steve that you were suggesting that the "magic" was happening at the sensor level with pixels groups being read together off the chip as opposed to singly to overcome all the normal readout speed and heat issues associated with trying to read every pixel with DSLR type pixel counts?.

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.

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.