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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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!!!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, you said you can ignore contrast when you talk about resolution.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure why you insist on lessons? Surely you think I must at least have some knowledge?
-----------------------------------------------------
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.


-------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------


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.



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?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion.


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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Sorry but that's incorrect.

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

I came across this site on MTF.

Understanding resolution and MTF (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html)

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.

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....

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.)

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

If you check here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-avchd-nex-fs100/495251-fs100-f3-alisters-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 (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/video/collections-nab2011/video-nab2011_seminar_super_35mm_part1/)

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

This thread has told me all I need to know and I'd appreciate not being talked down too.

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.

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?

I don't really mean to inject myself into this debate, but I will point out that signal processing and output are necessarily different things; an 8 bit signal processing would output at best 6 bits, if my high school maths are remembered, it would take at least 11 bits to output 8.

Years ago there was a DV camcorder that had signal processing of 10 bits, and the resulting output had noticeable banding as it was something below 8 bits of output.

Just to make the point that output and processing are different things, and can't possibly share the same value ...

Cheers,
GB

Cheers GB

Well that's what is mentioned the camera has 8 Bit signal processing so therefore if what you're saying is right it only outputs 6 bits?

Thanks GB.

Mark, I was talking about recording the cameras output, not about the DSP.

The FS100's HDMI output is 8 bit and the F3's and EX1's is 10 bit.

I have been led to believe by those that should know that the internal processing of the FS100 is 12 bit, not as sophisticated as the F3's and using a simpler DSP.

There seems to be an assumption being made that the DSP and the output bit depths are the same, which certainly in the case of the F3 they are not and in the case of the FS100, I can't see how it's possible to use an 8 bit DSP to get a decent 8 bit output.
To get the kind of dynamic range being seen from the FS100 or F3 hints at the sensor output being at least 12 bit, if not 14 bit. You cannot simply ignore 4 bits of data without having a significant impact on the systems dynamic range. As there is little difference in DR between the FS100 and F3 it is my opinion that at the very least the FS100 DSP must do some processing on all 12 bits of sensor data.

Test Test Test

Would be nice to walk into a store take the camera outside and test maybe spend a few hours hook the camera up to a monitor film in low light test the highlights do some colour correction try some gamma curves Hook up to a recorder etc The likliehood though is it will be plonked on the counter shown where the buttons are and sweet talked by a salesman who shows you the glossy brochure and tell explains why it is better than the competition.

Objective Information can be gleaned from the internet where real users can upload clips give opinions and where you can judge those opinions by their honesty and integrity from past reviews like Alan Roberts for example. Please don't tell me Alan Roberts hasn't tested the FS100.. It was just an example.

Hiring a camera I agree would be a much better idea.

I have downloaded footage for these cameras looked at pics of what they can do seen the specs tried to uncover how they do what they do which is often hidden in some cases to deflect bad publicity and criticism. The next best thing to hiring one.

Just as an aside. With the EX1 I knew almost straight away from reviews this camera was the real deal and fairly rapidly had one on order.

It has been a long time since my maths been tested -- but with certainty I can say that if the processing takes place at 8 bits the output must be lower. Conversely, if the output is 8 bits ... the processing must have been higher. Someone that paid closer attention in school can doubtless give the precise relationship between process and output -- best I can recall is that a couple of bits of headroom is required.

(Hope all is well in Herts; been a few years since I lived in Hitchin but fond memories of springtime)

Cheers,
GB

Okay Alister so you don't know what the camera processor does only that someone led you believe it was 12bit.

QUOTE
There seems to be an assumption being made that the DSP and the output bit depths are the same
---------------------------------------------
No Not at all. The assumption is that WHERE information is provided the Sony FS100 is said to have 8 Bit signal processing and you said it has 12 bit. Now you say you were led to believe this and not the statement of fact you originally made.

Would be nice to walk into a store take the camera outside and test maybe spend a few hours hook the camera up to a monitor film in low light test the highlights do some colour correction try some gamma curves Hook up to a recorder etc The likliehood though is it will be plonked on the counter shown where the buttons are and sweet talked by a salesman who shows you the glossy brochure and tell explains why it is better than the competition. .

I'd go to one of the professional dealers, they usually have demo cameras and you can get good price deals from a number of them. Unless the dealer knows you, they mightn't let you take it away, but you can arrange to shoot some tests on their premises and take them away

Not all cameras are as simple to pick as the EX series, they've been around for a numbers of years and still regarded as a good bank for buck camera.

The only other place I recall seeing 8 bit mentioned is Philip Blooms blog, but it was rather loosely used rather than referring to the sensor DSP as such. I'd be surprised if that particular section is 8 bit.

Personally I don't know what the DSP is but it looks as if it could be 8 bit Phillip Bloom probably got his info from Kanta Yamamoto from Sony Europe. However I could be wrong Hopefully we will find out.

Sony NEX-FS100 (http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=article/Sony+NEX-FS100)
The FS100 shares its sensor with the F3, however the similarity ends there because its signal processing is 8-bit

Sony FS100?just my first impressions | Bengske.com - Photography: How TO Tutorials, Tips, Tricks and Techniques. (http://www.bengske.com/sony-fs100%E2%80%A6just-my-first-impressions/)
t has the same Super 35mm sized sensor as the F3 but different processing. It has no SDI out, just HDMI and it is only 8 bit 422 even though HDMI can do 10 bit 422 because the processor is only 8 bit. Compromises have had to be made to slash the price down from the F3.

Well if the processing is 8 bit then the output is necessarily less than that -- which would show up very quickly as banding in areas of solid colour/varying brightness. Blue sky, for instance, would rapidly pick up banding if the output was only 6 bit. There is no way around it.

So I think someone misspoke. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
GB

In that case, I would take the 8bit to be the back end processing rather than front end at the sensor. They usually would define it as being the sensor (eg 12 bit A/D conversion) rather than just in general terms. You can have different rates, eg the F900 was 10bit and then processed at 8bit

Personally I don't know what the DSP is but it looks as if it could be 8 bit Phillip Bloom probably got his info from Kanta Yamamoto from Sony Europe. However I could be wrong Hopefully we will find out.

Mark, even if Sony wrote it in the manual, it would still be VERY unlikely that the signal processing was 8 bit. Unless it is some new process being used, I would presume the DSP is at least 12 bit.

The chances of it being a miscommunication are FAR higher.

My source is a Sony engineer, I don't wish to say any more as that engineer may have revealed more than he should and I am under NDA. With the greatest of respect to Phil Bloom, he is not an engineer and technical stuff is not his forte. In addition knowing Kanta and his less than perfect english, it is very possible that there could have been a miss-understanding.

Exactly some new process could be the answer and partly the reason why power consumption is so low.

Time will tell.

I am curious to what everyone thinks gives the best film look, seeing that these camers have now been compared.

To my eyes the 5d2 looks the most filmic with the AF100 looking the most video-ish, or as some have coined it *the reality look"

To place things into perspective I think the Panavision Genesis also looks video-ish.

Early days yet, I suspect the widest range of options are with the F3 shooting S-log and you'll get a closer film look possibilities with that once you get into post.

Most film looking camera, the Arri Alexa. Unfortunately, Kodak have rather bland stocks these days, which are tending to look more and more like HD.

My source is a Sony engineer, I don't wish to say any more as that engineer may have revealed more than he should and I am under NDA.

Alister, I think you are spot on about the F3 and FS100. Why?

I have a decade old math model that I use to predict measured resolution based upon published sensor specs. So I updated it for the RED ONE. It predicts 3193 LW/ph and the consensus is 3200LW/ph.

So I input your F3 and FS100 measures plus Sony's 3.37MP (2456x1372) frame. We do not use any row or column skipping. We simply downscale H and V by 64% for the F3 and 55% for the FS100 which is the "over-sampling Juan talks about. During the down-scale, all pixels are de-bayered.

An HD progressive Kell factor of 0.97 is used.

The estimated F3 resolution will be 858 LW/ph by 852 LW.

The estimated FS100 resolution will be 737 LW/ph by 732 LW.

So the photosites are 4X larger. And, the estimates seem to match your numbers quite well.

There remains one issue -- why if Sony has told us the chip is 3.37MP (2456x1372) frame, why does Juan say he can't tell us the sensor's specs? What's left that we don't know?

PS1: My math model also estimates EX1 1080p at 1048 LW/ph and 1048 LW.

PS2: I suspect the VG10 may work differently. Need to do more work.

Steve, couple of questions.

What is TW/PH and where do the downscale numbers come from?

Could the bayer matrix be twisted somehow?

Now I am confused!!

In my understanding a picture pixel is a picture element consisting of 3 elements R+G+B.

Are you now telling me that Sony has pulled the same old gimmick they used to use to with the flat screens, using the combined numbers of RGB elements to lead me as a costumer to believe that the product has higher specifications that it actually has.

I have actually preordered a FS100 in the believe, that I got a genuine HD2 camera!!
If it for some reasons only resolves 750 lines horizontally I can live whit that, but if Sony is twisting the specifications to lead me to believe the camera is something it isn’t. I feel betrayed.
If the sensor is only 1.1 mp coming from 1.1mpR+1.1mpG+1.1mpB.
Then the specification should say sensor pixels used 1.1mp!!!

Does any of you actually knows the provided specks from Sony is the combined numbers of R+G+B on the sensor, putting the camera in the HD1 category, or is it something you assume from the resolution you can see from the camera?

Now you probably says it doesn’t matter if the sensor is HD1 or HD2 if the resolution is only HD1. Maybe it is so in theory, but my experience in real life is that a sensor with a high native pixel count is going to produce an optically nicer image than a sensor with lesser pixels. Giving they is mounted in a camera with the same optical resolution. What I am trying to say is, opsampling is bad, downsampling is fine.

I would take it that the sensor has a standard Bayer arrangement, same as the RED and the Arri Alexa, which has 2880 x 1620 Pixels for the image area.

Bayer filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter)

I'd assume that the Alexa has a lot more processing going on for its higher resolution figures.

Steve, couple of questions.

What is TW/PH and where do the downscale numbers come from?

Could the bayer matrix be twisted somehow?

Sorry Alister, my typo. Should be LW although I prefer TVL.

And yes, the secret may not be -- as I have been assuming -- the photosite count of the F3 sensor, but the arrangement of the photosites on the silicon die.

1) Some think the chip could be a Super 35 version of the ClearVid design we both know.

2) Some think the chip could be a Super 35 version of the Q67 design. Here is an edited comment on it.

"After complaining about Bayer Pattern sensors in digital cinema cameras, Sony magically think that rotating a Bayer Pattern 45degrees somehow makes it better. When you look at Sony's "Simulation" image, their Q67 is using 17.7mp compared to their Bayer example of 8.8mp. The Q67 is basically using twice as many pixels."

3) Some think the chip could be a Super 35 version of the "RGB Stripe" design. Here is an edited comment on it.

"About Sony's "Full RGB" solution they use in the F35. At high levels of detail, the RGB Stripe pattern produces rainbow patterns due to the lack of alignment between the three channels. This is plainly visible."

==========

The difference between the 64% value for the F3 verses the 55% for the FS100 may come from a pure marketing decision, or given there are many ways to debayer and some ways yield both higher resolution and lower artifacting -- I'm inclined to guess the F3 uses a more powerful algorithm. This likely requires a more powerful DSP. Conversely, the FS100 (and VG10?) use a simpler algorithm that requires a less powerful DSP.

I have a question for you about resolution measures for the VG10. Did you obtain any?

And, does anyone have from Panasonic the AF100's actual sensor row by column numbers?