Upcoming F3 vs FS100 vs AF100 | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.net/2011/04/24/upcoming-f3-vs-fs100-vs-af100/)

Really looking forward to this.

Yep, me too!

Can't wait, but then I and Den Lennie will have a FS-100, my F3, a VG10 and a Canon 550D to play with on Tuesday :-)

Hope he compares brightness and noise levels at max gain.

I hope he compares how 25p looks as I have had a lot of trouble with my af101.
It just does not look right to me, at least compared to my ex-3. A lot of judder.

I needed the camera for a production, but I wouldn't mind selling it and get a f3 or fs100 instead.

We shot everything with the FS-100 at 24P today.

Alister, I think I heard something about a wedding over there on Friday. Is too late to talk the bride into letting you shoot some video of the ceremony with the FS100? Seems like a good opportunity to show event videographers what the camera can do in a typical wedding.

PS. You might need to rent a tux.

You know, even when I told them I would use the very latest camera and do it as a freebie they just didn't seem interested in having me stand behind the Bishop to get a close up of the wedding vows.

I heard that they are using some co-operative made up of 3 local cowboy outfits, the BBC/ITV and Sky instead. What do they know, I could have picked up the required 60 cameras and 8 HD OB trucks on ebay, crewed it with DV-Info'ers and then split the Blu-ray sales between us and the royal family. I'm sure with such an extended family they would have wanted plenty of copies.

Philip's first impressions, before the full review:

Sony FS100…just my first impressions | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.net/2011/04/26/fs100/)

Having used a pre-production FS100 myself, I can agree with most of Phil's impressions of the camera. However, he says " . . . HDMI and it is only 8 bit 422 . . ."

I have no way of testing it myself, but I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. I have been told personally by Juan Martinez at Sony USA that the HDMI output is 8-bit 4:4:4.
And if you don't have a recorder that can handle 4:4:4, then the camera will automatically send 4:2:2.
At least that is what I have been told by the man who should know.

Bloom's review puts Nigel's earlier review in proper context. So many on this and other forums were quick to damn the FS100 based solely on Nigel's review. I thought his review complaining about too small controls seemed a bit nit-picky and rushed.
It's good to see the FS100 vindicated by Bloom and many others.

And I still haven't received my wedding invite. Do you suppose it got delayed through the international shipping?

Which camera is which? F3, FS100, AF101 on Vimeo

1st F3
2nd FS100, milky skies, trees oversaturated.
3rd AF100, shadow detail lost.

1st F3 << great resolution, but text on white sign board is blown out. So the shadow detail was obtained at the loss of detail in bright areas.

2nd FS100 << leaf detail lost and concrete has green tint. Text on sign board almost read! But, shadow detail less than F3.

3rd AF100 << Perfect saturation, but shadow detail is gone and text on white sign board is blown out.

That's what I see, but there are so many camera settings involved.

=========

"just HDMI and it is only 8 bit 422 even though HDMI can do 10 bit 422 because the processor is only 8 bit."

I think this should read, "... just HDMI and it is 8 bit because the the DSP output is 8-bit."

When RGB data are converted to YUV, once an AVCHD encoder were to encounter 4:4:4 data, it would convert them to 4:2:0. Given the desire to save cost, it makes perfect sense to never create 4:4:4 YUV -- unless Sony really really wants to support recording via HDMI.

Another possible cost saving strategy, use a cheaper HDMI output chip that only does 8-bits and 4:2:2.

We'll have to wait testing to know for certain. One wonders why Philip thinks HDMI is 4:2:2?

This is real interesting!

Low light test: FS100 F3 AF101 5DmkII on Vimeo

Wow, cool test.
The F3 and 5D look great.
What's amazing is how good the FS100 looks at 30db! As an old school video guy, the thought of ever shooting above 9db is a pariah, but I could use that high gain on the FS100.
The AF100 doesn't appear to be in the same league with the others - very noisy.

Looking at the pic on Bloom's website of all 3 video cameras next to each other, the FS100 looks so much smaller. Very compact design.

Yep, I think Sony has a winner here. It's starting to look like it really has excellent bang for the buck. I want one.

A new one

Arnie vs the Cohiba: Low light comparison between the FS100, F3, AF101 and Canon 5DmkII on Vimeo

Answer from Bloom himself: "Well the first one is the AF101, then the F3 and then the FS100. I recommend downloading this file to see it at a better quality."

These shots (at 3200) says it all especially when you consider the worst one is 2X more expensive. And, the cheaper one is more sensitive..Also look at the ugly oval bokeh on the expensive one.

My favourite image from the unscientific low light tests was the 5D mark ll which looked to me the most filmic of the lot! Roll on the 5D mark lll I was actually quite surprised and got the cameras completley wrong.

I'm not sure what you're comparing. The angle of view is different so you don't see the oval bokeh on the AF100. The AF100 clips the highlights more, which are variable anyway between takes anyway depending on how the match flares up.

In the end the cameras have different specs and price, so you test them and find the one that suits you and your post work flow.

To be honest, I don't think you can compare an F3 with S- log (which this test isn't, but the potential exists) to a 5DII other than one is cheaper than the other.

Bokeh has zero to do with camera, whether it's $5 or $5000

The user comments on vimeo speak for themselves. There is unanimous agreement that F3 & FS100 look best in this lowlight test.

To be a fair test, it would seem to me that these cameras should be shot with lenses that provide a similar angle of view for the particular sensor size. An 85mm on the Canon 5d should be about 42 mm on the AF 100, and around 55mm to 60mm on the Sony F3 and FS 100 (estimates only.) Depth of field for the canon is shallower because of sensor size. Also, I don't see a reference to picture styles, etc.,.

I think point of these tests is that all of these cameras can be adapted to low light shooting. So now, the question for me as a 5D/T2i owner is do I get enough out of the new rigs for my shooting needs, to change course. Not sure of the answer yet.

I put the footage on my timeline and I have to say I love the F3 What I originally thought was over saturation is really lovely colour. For me though the price is out of my league. I think the FS100 is more in common with the Panasonic apart from low light where the panny has no chance. But the fs100 is minus the ND filters and other disabilities. I get the feeling this all going to change very quickly with new products and it might be an idea for me to hold fire for now.

At this moment in time I reckon my EX1 with letus plus a future 5D lll is my best option as I can't have the F3.

Still Phil Blooms tests may change all that.. I often wonder how and why I get hung up on cameras like I do but I'm not alone in this obsession and they certainly are not the passport to making great films by a long way.. I was watching calamity Jane today totally absorbed into a simple story more so than many low lit hard to see blockbusters with state of the art effects. Got to admire the camera makers getting me at it!

Mark

"I think the FS100 is more in common with the Panasonic apart from low light where the panny has no chance."

Look back at the pix I posted of the F3 and AF100 at 3200ISO. Which has more visible detail? It's the AF100. So where on earth do you get the idea the AF100 "has no chance."

Since the AF100 delivers a great image -- more low light detail and far better handling of a high-lights (no blowing out) than the F3 at both 2000ISO and 3200ISO, there's simply no real-world need to spend 3X more.

If you have the money, the F3 gives you bragging rights that you can capture an image without adding gain. But, to claim the AF100 "has no chance" in typical -- even extreme -- dark situations is to ignore what the test shows.

And, the test isn't just about dark. The most interesting is how badly the F3 image disintegrates when the light gets too bright. It's a totally distorted image.

Clipping highlights is one point that does gets commented on about the AF100. This particular test has too much variation, you can get major light level changes depending on how much the match flares up, so you're not comparing like with like between takes. At 3200 ISO the F3 match has a large flare up, while the AF100 doesn't.

Mitch Gross at Abel Cine did a dynamic range test on the F3 and found it to be 12+ stops, which is the league of much more expensive cameras.

Steve

What I mean't was the f3 can see better in the dark. That's not to say you couldn't get an excellent picture from the Panny which can see in the dark better than my EX1 probably. I have a set of zeiss mark one primes which are all t1.3 that I'd love to try and use on the Panny and I'm sure I could make beautiful films using the hdsdi out. In many ways I prefer the Panny as when your on a shoot you really need the camera to work for you not the other way round.

I guess I'm sort of confused as things stand as to what camera I would choose they all have pros and cons. With an EX1 and adapter I can make lovely images in fact maybe better in my subjective opinion but the problem is you have a really long camera that takes time setting up as well as setting focus zoom on the EX1 and constant checking and then the focusing of the prime lens and sometimes forgetting the Letus is on or off. But you have all the EX1 tools at your disposal.

In order to save time and make life easier I'm looking at options. I asked a lot of questions about the Panny and was concerned about some areas I think the fs100 leaves me again with extra work around the Matte box and to my mind at the moment gives a picture comparable to the Panny but with great low light capabilities and a bigger frame but as the panny is again meaning compromises and working around it then why not go for the 5D but then with all that extra work might as well stay with the EX1 and letus. Although could just buy the 5D because of its low light capabilites and work out a much compromised workflow with both cameras..

Yep this is all very confusing.. One step forward two back.

Why is it this way?

Why do I need an outside recorder add ons and workarounds? Why can't manufacturers make a camera with 4.2.2 10 bit out or even a recorder on board that records decent bit rates at ten bit. If the cost is in the development surely a fully loaded camera will become a massive hit and sell loads of units. More sold means more profits and development and setup costs paid.. But then no one would upgrade in two years so another fail safe would likely be built in like a three year shelf life. . Heh heh..

Manufacturers should think more outside the box and say okay the camera CONSUMERS want can be made and we either make it or someone else will and then look to NEW areas like equipment that can be added IE Lenses Matte boxes tripods grip etc Maybe make the cameras so THEIR GRIP equipment is compatible. Maybe they have to come to terms with the camera upgrades has to be smaller and sales will drop to a more consistant lower level. Maybe some of the companies may need to merge

This whole thing needs a rethink and the consumer needs to be placed first in order to promote and ensure a market that maximises their profits and our satisfaction Because as it stands were all getting a little confused. Mislead even, as well as messing about with workarounds and getting fed up with the whole thing. I wanted to invest and update but now I feel that with all the sitting on the fence by manufactureres and strategic selling that doesnt fully cooperate with customers expectations,

I might sit on the fence too..

I think you should bear in mind that the current fashion is for modules and even the high end cameras are tending towards clip on external recorders, with an on board proxy recorder.

All cameras involve working out a system/rig that works and increasing specs can put other people out of the price frame. In the end, you can't satisfy all the people all of the time.

Mike, I think you really need to test drive some of these cameras before making your decision. I'm quite sure they will all considerably out-perform the Letus/EX combo in almost every respect. Web clips do not tell the full story and it's a shame to see decent glass not being put to good use.

Why are people plumping for modules to a Cam-corder?

Because demands are not being met and those demands are in the codec. What people want are higher bitrates some want more and that would be a niche market for outside recorders.

Most want a camera though that is broadcast quality. The BBC specify 50mbps for the EX1 so most would be satisfied with that but why not make it a 100 mbps in high quality and 50 in low? How much EXTRA money would it cost manufacturers to give that from the start?

I can assure you lugging around a Ki pro and setting up its own table recharging batterries etc in the name of fashion does not make me feel good in any way at all.

Working out what you need within a certain price frame is the sort of thinking Manufacturers and sellers would love with customers neatly fitting into their profit plan.

But the reality is you can buy a cheap dslr now that proves for little money big chips can work. But manufacturers let their customers suffer with workarounds when for little money they could make it all easy for there customers eh? If Panny can make a big chip for their GH2 sell it for £700 then modify it and add a £3000 premium for the af101 why not give 10 bit HDSDI out? Why not do that..

I may not have any right to complain Maybe I should feel lucky that I can buy a camera at all..

Maybe I should thank my lucky stars I have food on the table and a house. But I would be going against the grain as I believe existance is about bettering ourselves at whatever level also looking for opportunitys and YES getting annoyed when irremoveable barriers bring us to an annoying place. I guess though when this happens its human nature to get annoyed... If everyone sat quietly and allow salesmen to simply say what they want and us all to quietly accept it then the spirit of progress would well and truly be broken.

In the end its a business and good luck to those who take risks and invest they are entitled to make whatever they can. However if what they bring to the table customers can clearly see an elephant sitting in the room then annoyance can follow and loyalties can get frayed. For those who work for companies that have elephants in the room who try to promote it will unfortunatly be seen with a little less respect. Maybe that is also part of business fulfilling customer expectation and needs.

However having said all that I can see that as this technology is becoming more affordable by ordinary consumers then more profits can be made and maybe we the old school will become non imprtant as a new breed of customer not genned up enough but happy to accept a new line of crippled cameras as new and exciting, take over..

Of course ONE obstacle to the Status Quo remains.... Jim Jannard...

Mark

What I mean't was the f3 can see better in the dark. ... In many ways I prefer the Panny as when your on a shoot you really need the camera to work for you not the other way round.

Exactly, the F3 with NO gain is wonderful in really really dark situations. But, in typical low light situations, absolute sensitivity may not worth the $$ IF one is a bit short on money.

What I couldn't really tell is how much noise was present with the AF100 at 3200ISO. When it was so dark it was hard to see noise and then it got so bright it was hard to see noise. I'll wait for Phillip's report.

The F3 tests where they walk around in a city at night mean nothing because it's really bright in a big city at night. People think its dark, but its not. The real killer test for noise is an ordinary living room lit with a few hundred watts where there is a wide range of gray shades. Noise shows up in the mid-grays which are found in the fabric of couches and pillows.

But I love your concept of a camera that works for you. From what I hear, most EFP shooting is, because of cost pressures, really like ENG. I understand that those shooting Hollywood movies who use a RED can deal with huge rigs, but I wonder how many of those people are looking at any of these cameras. Conversly, dressing up any of these cameras with $$$ of cool looking gear, doesn't mean these cameras will ever be used for making movies. (That's called "aspirational" marketing.) Until these gadgets came to the market, most folks wanted to cameras to be highly mobil and super fast to use.

Hi Alister

I'd like to think you are right but I can clearly see a huge difference between the images of the F3 and the FS100 at least the limited clips from Phil Bloom. What I can see from the F3 is really beautiful colour that will be a dream in post. What I see from the FS100 is comparable to the AF101 except a bigger frame.

If I could have any camera then the F3 is AWESOME. But to my mind at the moment and from looking at your film then I have to say neither the fs100 or the af101 delivers

The EX1 may be an old model but it deliver 1000 lines with a HDSDI output that has 10 bit 4.2.2. It also has built in ND filters as well as a host of tools. If you put the letus in front then obviously you are placing glass and losing resolution but then that could be a good effect as mostly you want little dof often for c/u of people. Wideshots you take the letus off and get the full benefit of the EX1 resolution at 10 bit out..
Also with the fs100 your placing ND filters which in itself will take the resolution down too.

All in all from a spec point of view and from the SDI out the EX1 still offers the better deal unless of course I can be persuaded I'm wrong which is soemthing I really am open to!

Mark

Hi Alister

I'd like to think you are right but I can clearly see a huge difference between the images of the F3 and the FS100 at least the limited clips from Phil Bloom. What I can see from the F3 is really beautiful colour that will be a dream in post. What I see from the FS100 is comparable to the AF101 except a bigger frame.
Mark


True. F3 is by far the best in this lowlight test. Folowed closely by FS100. Panny and 5d are behind that by a big margin. Almost everyone except one poster here agrees with that assessment .... see comments on vimeo (link below)

Arnie vs the Cohiba: Low light comparison between the FS100, F3, AF101 and Canon 5DmkII on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/23022451)

ND filters should not reduce resolution unless they are of poor quality.

Every example of Letus footage that I have seen has been soft and full of diffusion, whether you want it or not. I think the very way that Phil Bloom was quick to abandon his Letus kit for DSLR's is very telling.

When I compared the FS100 and F3 side by side I found the difference between the internal recordings is very, very small. Again, I say you need to see the pictures for yourself on a decent monitor and without the added softening and artefacts add in highly compressed web clips.

Asif

I was talking about image quality in general Even though the Panny may have lacked you could soon relight with very little effort and you you could run it through neat video so most of the low light capabilty could be worked on. For me the 5D actually gave the best image in low light However I would be willing to bet the F3 in post would be amazing.

Alister

You would need to buy top quality NDs. Could you post a couple of uncompressed pics from your timeline of the film you made by the river from the FS100 and the F3? Would love to have a play with them in AE.

Should also add that I really like your site!

Best

Mark

Attached is an image from my film Vampire gang Origins using an EX1 with letus adapter. Sorry the focus may be a tad soft as actors move slightly in frame and the image is compressed.

Why are people plumping for modules to a Cam-corder?

Because demands are not being met and those demands are in the codec. What people want are higher bitrates some want more and that would be a niche market for outside recorders.

Most want a camera though that is broadcast quality. The BBC specify 50mbps for the EX1 so most would be satisfied with that but why not make it a 100 mbps in high quality and 50 in low? How much EXTRA money would it cost manufacturers to give that from the start?

I can assure you lugging around a Ki pro and setting up its own table recharging batterries etc in the name of fashion does not make me feel good in any way at all.

Working out what you need within a certain price frame is the sort of thinking Manufacturers and sellers would love with customers neatly fitting into their profit plan.

But the reality is you can buy a cheap dslr now that proves for little money big chips can work. But manufacturers let their customers suffer with workarounds when for little money they could make it all easy for there customers eh? If Panny can make a big chip for their GH2 sell it for £700 then modify it and add a £3000 premium for the af101 why not give 10 bit HDSDI out? Why not do that..


I think there's more to modular design than the recorder, you can find that on the threads about pimping the F3 into a different form factor. Professional 35mm motion picture cameras do that as part of their modular design. People need to convert the cameras for different tasks.

There's also more to just sticking a recorder onto a stills camera sensor. The stills market keeps the camera price down, but once you convert it into what RED call a DSMC, the costs go up because you're processing more data, which have knock on effects like heat. The stills photographers won't want to see the costs go up, so the stills manufacturers keep the processing load down to what can be handled by a camera dealing with say a motor drive frame rate.

So, in the end, it's a balancing act and the large sensor video market isn't that large compared to the stills market.

Sony could convert the EX1, but like any other manufacturer they have other products. Although, I suspect if another manufacturer came out with a broadcast standard 1/2" camera, Sony would respond.

If you want to shoot a very low budget feature film on a large sensor camera the time has never been better.

See this thread http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-avchd-nex-fs100/495251-fs100-f3-alisters-video.html#post1644474
For some frame grabs.

If you want to shoot a very low budget feature film on a large sensor camera the time has never been better.

I DO need financing for a proposed feature.

All these cameras make great pictures and! I got to see my film on a 40' screen in the west end. It LOOKED fantastic.

However I would use 35mm . All these cameras that try to imitate film are no match for the real thing IMHO.

If I did choose to make a feature with a large sensor though it would simply have to be the F3 If I couldn't afford it then realistically I don't have the budget for a feature and compromising like these means a lack of quality that would bury it anyway.

I watched monsters on DVD a little while ago. The director used an EX3 with a letus ultimate. I was very impressed with the image and their colour correction, actors and music but to my mind the over riding look of 35mm spells this is a motion picture a REAL one.

Mark

I should have both the FS100 and F3 at the BPV show in Haydock: bpv.org.uk (http://www.bpv.org.uk/) and I'm sure there will also be some 101's.

I DO need financing for a proposed feature.

All these cameras make great pictures and! I got to see my film on a 40' screen in the west end. It LOOKED fantastic.

However I would use 35mm . All these cameras that try to imitate film are no match for the real thing IMHO.


Funding is always a problem and yes nothing really looks the same as 35mm film, but the new digital cameras are getting there, if not quite the same. The Alexa seems about the closest so far.

Given the current budget limits, unless you've more than a couple features or good connections and high end commercials under your belt, current digital technology allows you more on screen art direction and a larger name. Although, the latter tend to come before other elements fall into place, "Monsters" had a couple attached, even if not A lisr.

The actors were NOT attached Gareth Edwards had worked for the BBC on special effects.

The two actors were introduced by Vertigo Also the film cost was probably nearer a couple of hundred thousand when you add in the travel costs wages etc Also the Music and post.

None of this was really indie although it appeared that way. All had professional experience. Were budgeted and backed up. The fact they used an EX1 camera and little crew did not make this indie. To my mind it made it a professional film aimed at a curious public who want to believe they can do it too.

The sound design really added a professional touch and without all the post work that went into it would never have got to the level it did. Monsters was touted as made for £15,000 which was a propogated myth that helped the film an awful lot. I think the cost of this film that had only had two actors two editors a director and a line producer and sound guy actually proves how little of the budget really goes on the camera.. I believe Vertigo may have promoted the movie in this unusual way in order to make money from there point of view for very little outlay.

The idea the money was throwaway and surplus to Vertigos needs seems to show a good attitude for up and coming film makers however it may have been cleverly designed to make a nice little pot for a future more realistic film plan.

Depends how you define "indie", the term traditionally means a film not made by the studios, short for independent. People have picked it up and used it for their films, even if they're making them as a hobby. In the UK the term also covers production companies outside BBC & ITV.

The actors would be an element so far as Vertigo are concerned, it's all part the business of putting together a film.

I guess meanings change for me Indie means a film made by anyone who gets a film made outside of any kind of studio setup. IE most films entered into festivals I would certainly not have labeeled Vertigo as Indie film makers!

It's usually outside the major studios, so most feature films are independent.

Independent film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film)

From their web site: "Vertigo Films is a UK Media company founded in 2002 to create and distribute commercially driven independent cinema". There are many companies that do this, it's a big part of the film industry and producers/directors with projects should go to the film markets to meet these companies.

Film entered into festivals are usually independent, although not always. The studios do have their festival moments if they feel it'll work for the film and pre-release studio films can be the opening or closing film at a festival.

In general terms though I believe most would tie an indie film to the word independent to mean made by an individual who is a step up from being a hobbyist.

I think a studio film would be regarded as a limited company like Vertigo or any other professional who could also call themselves independent but without it being shortened to Indie Of course I may be wrong Maybe many film production companies inside the UK and not part of BBC or ITV consider themselves Indie as well as independent.

If I was a professional film company I would not want to promote myself as Indie although would be happy to be regarded as Independent because of the connotations Indie has.

Have we a new seperate word? Indie and independent or maybe not!

Interesting.

Mark

Indie has been a used for many years in UK television as an abbreviation of independent, it's been used by television executives when talking to independent producers . It's an understood term in the film & TV industry, although formally they tend to use the full word independent. However, that doesn't mean they won't talk about the indie sector when they're down the pub.

In the industry all production companies are limited companies, it's not a defining term for what might be a studio. You can't make an independent production for UK television without being a limited company,

errr, I've been commissioned to make programmes for UK and international TV and I'm not a limited company.

Yes Alister I believe you would fall under my perception of what I would see as "Indie" Although I wouldn't see Vertigo as an Indie company although as Brian has pointed out they are IN THE strictest sense. As are all the production companies in the UK apart from BBC and ITV.