Not sure whether to post this in the FS100 or F3 forum. But thought i'd try here first.

Has anyone got a sample of 10bit output vs 8bit from the F3, this seems like the larger failing of the FS100 but on a practical level i do wonder how much difference.

I remember when the EX1 coming out people doing lots of tests to determine whether the output was 10bit and really finding it difficult to tell (yes it was)

So any shots of a nice graduated sky for example?

many thanks
paul

If your looking at the raw camera output then you will find it just about impossible to see a difference with normal monitoring equipment. This is because internally the cameras process the images using more than 8 bits (probably at least 10 on the FS100, the EX3 is 12 bit) and then convert to 8 or 10 bit for output so you should have nice smooth mapping of graduations to the full 8 bit output. Then consider that most LCD monitors are not able to display even 8 bits. The vast majority of monitors have a 6 bit panel and even a rare 8 bit monitor wont display all 8 bits as it has to do a gamma correction at 8 bits and this results in less than 8 bits being displayed. 10 bit monitors are very rare and again as gamma correction is normally required there is rarely a 1:1 bit for bit mapping of the 10 bit signal, so even these don't show the full 10 bits of the input signal. So it becomes apparent that when you view the original material the differences will not normally not visible and often the only way to determine what the output signal actually is is with a data analyser that can decode the HDSDi stream and tell you whether the 2 extra bits actually contain useful image data or are just padding.

Where the 8 bit, 10 bit difference will become apparent is after grading and post production. I wrote a more in depth article here: Why rendering form 8 bit to 8 bit can be a bad thing to do. | XDCAM-USER.COM (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/05/why-rendering-form-8-bit-to-8-bit-can-be-a-bad-thing-to-do/) but basically when you start manipulating an 8 bit image you will see banding issues a lot sooner than with 10 bit due to the reduced number of luma/color shades in 8 bit. Stretch out or compress 8 bit and some of those shades get removed or shifted and when the number of steps/shades is borderline to start with if you start throwing more away you will get issues.

on a practical level i do wonder how much difference............

So any shots of a nice graduated sky for example?
Bit depth is not the only way to get banding, and it's far more complex than is generally realised.

Banding can also be caused by compression, and I've said before how you can easily demonstrate that. Use Photoshop, and form a black to white horizontal gradient. It will be 8 bit - but shouldn't show any banding. Now save the image as a JPEG in the most compressed form and see what happens. Hey presto - instant severe banding, even though it's still 8 bit. The vertical striping is caused solely by compression.

Noise can also have a big effect on banding, and here a bit of noise can be an advantage, it "dithers" the pixel values, so if post is done the effect of noise can be to mask the problems Alister refers to. This is why 10 bit only really becomes important for acquisition in very low noise cameras - and that tends to be only the most expensive.

The tendency is to think that even if little difference, 10 bit can only be better, can't it? Even if only by a little bit? Again, there is a little bit more to the answer. For the same compression quality, you must have a 25% higher bitrate for 10 bit than 8bit, with all else equal. It therefore may be that for a given bitrate, you will get less banding at 8 bit and lower overall compression than at 10 bit and higher compression factors.

A couple of great answers. I understand both and really i'm thinking or pondering whether the 10 bit of the F3 is actually worth double the price. I would normally take everything into 32bit linear and work with footage there if i'm doing any serious CC. Add a touch of noise and it can work wonders. I'd never work in an 8bit codec, first step is transcode to cineform or something similar.

It might be that it's better to get near uncompressed 422 off an FS100 rather than record to SxS on an F3 for most practical applications.

444 seems pointless as it's a bayer imager anyway, so the full resolution (compared to an EX1 for example) isn't really there.

FS100 with a recorder could be a better overall bet for me

cheers
paul

There are more differences between the FS100 and F3 than just the output bit depth. The F3 has higher dynamic range and better image processing that gives the images better verisimilitude (IMHO). in addition the F3 offers far greater image control through the picture profiles than the much narrower adjustment range offered in the FS100.

Because both cameras have such low noise levels the internal recordings end up being remarkably free of artefacts. If you are shooting progressive, the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is small, it's not a night and day difference. Interlace is a different story with a much more significant difference.

There are more differences between the FS100 and F3 than just the output bit depth. The F3 has higher dynamic range and better image processing that gives the images better verisimilitude (IMHO). in addition the F3 offers far greater image control through the picture profiles than the much narrower adjustment range offered in the FS100.

I realise that on paper but do we have any solid side by side samples that actually show this? From my memory of the few comparisons i've seen it's been nigh impossible to see any substantial difference (most because most side by sides are shown post compression). I'd love to see some full res side by side still demonstrating better range and processing. I don't know whether anyone has done this?

cheers
paul

I realise that on paper but do we have any solid side by side samples that actually show this? From my memory of the few comparisons i've seen it's been nigh impossible to see any substantial difference (most because most side by sides are shown post compression). I'd love to see some full res side by side still demonstrating better range and processing. I don't know whether anyone has done this?

cheers
paul

Well, you're right that compression can make accurate comparison more difficult, but if anyone is in a position to speak to the respective capabilities of the FS100 and PMW-F3, it's Alister Chapman.

My FS100 – F3 review. | XDCAM-USER.COM (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/04/my-fs100-f3-review/)

Frame Grabs from FS100, F3 shoot. | XDCAM-USER.COM (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/04/590/)

Updated notes for FS100 – F3 Video Review. | XDCAM-USER.COM (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/04/update-to-fs100-f3-video-review/)

If you'd prefer to hear it from Philip Bloom... Large chip camcorder comparison: AF100 vs F3 vs FS100. Includes FS100 review in Part 2 | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.net/2011/05/05/bloomshootout/)

Those frame grabs don't seem to work (or rather the link doesn't). Is that just me? I've seen the other comments but there's little empirical evidence that i could see for myself.

The frame grabs might be it though!

cheers
paul

Just checked and the link is working.

Just checked and the link is working.

Alister,

Thanks but still no go for me. Click the link and i get a page can't be found

http://www.xdcam-user.com/?attachment_id=587

That's the link it's trying to get to. I don't know whether anyone else can confirm this or whether it's something local to me?

cheers
Paul

I checked the link, it came up:

"Not Found

Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help".

OK, my apologies, I've checked again and my admin privileges on my site meant I was getting the link while regular readers were not.

Here's a new direct link: http://www.xdcam-user.com/samples/fs100-f3-frame-grabs.zip

I suggest people listen to Alister when he says there are big differences between the F3 and the FS100. I have been saying the same thing since before NAB when I first got my hands on an FS100. Now that I actually own both cameras, the differences are even more apparaent to me than ever. If anything, Alister is being too soft on the differences.

Anyone who thinks that by buying an FS100 they are somehow getting an F3 at 1/3 the price is just fooling themselves.

And before anyone asks, no I don't have time to post example footage or frame grabs comparing the cameras. Either take my word for it or do your own testing if you don't believe me . . . But you have been warned. The F3 is a baby F35 or 9000PL. The FS100 is a DSLR killer. Two different cameras for different uses, different expectations, and different budgets.

I suggest people listen to Alister when he says there are big differences between the F3 and the FS100. I have been saying the same thing since before NAB when I first got my hands on an FS100. Now that I actually own both cameras, the differences are even more apparaent to me than ever. If anything, Alister is being too soft on the differences.

Anyone who thinks that by buying an FS100 they are somehow getting an F3 at 1/3 the price is just fooling themselves.


Most people aren't in the position to actually compare both of them. Whilst in terms of fitting into a traditional shooting workflow the F3 reigns king. When it comes down to actual image quality i've seen nothing yet that really shows major differences. I am not comparing Slog or anything like that, just a base F3 vs FS100 in terms of sensor and the image quality you can get out of it. I think Alister himself states they are very close in his review.

Thank you for taking the time to post but could you perhaps take a little more time and give some concrete examples of where you feel the differences are?

EDIT: I've downloaded those sample frames which are great. However none of the exposures between the cameras seem to match (which Alister explains is due to the LCDs of the two cameras not matching). Two of them have the FS100 clipping (with more shadow detail) whilst the house one is closer, the F3 a little over there. I haven't been able to find out what lenses were being used and whether they matched. The F3 lens seems to resolve higher - is that the lens or the camera at play here? The colours on the F3 seem a little too vivid, so again i'm not sure whether there was an attempt to matching settings or not? Also the detail setting seems higher on the F3 (the edge sharpness effect) and the compression is better on the F3 (which might be preserving more detail. It's certainly doing that in the shadows)

But if you monitor externally and record externally - i've still seen nothing that really makes a case for a quality difference between them to such a degree. Purely from image quality - not handling or workflow.

many thanks
paul

QUOTE: "I am not comparing Slog or anything like that, just a base F3 vs FS100 in terms of sensor and the image quality you can get out of it."

I'm not comparing S-LOG or anyting like that either, just the naked cameras. Not only is the picture better on the F3 (I challenge anyone to prove that statement is false) but so are the features and controls the F3 offers -- which are critical components of getting the job done consistently, quickly, efficiently, and reliably. The F3 is in a totally different league from the FS100.

The F3 excels in handling highlights because of the Hypergrammas and other sophisticated paint menu settings, dynamic range (even though some people say they are equal), the accuracy of zebra and peaking displays, file naming parameters, camera data files, sharing picture profile files, picture cache, timelapse, Assign Button options, overall build quality, speed and efficiency of the XDCAM workflow vs. NXCAM workflow, HDMI only vs. HDSDI + HDMI, and the list goes on and on.

However with all that said, can a person still get great images from an FS100? Absolutely. Will some people not mind giving up the features and controls of the F3? Absolutely. Will most FS100 buyers be perfectly happy with their camera choice? Absolutely. All I'm saying is that you should know what you are buying, and realize that you aren't getting BMW performance at a Chevy price. There lots of reasons why the F3 costs more, and in my opinion, is worth more. Different cameras for different folks.

When it comes down to actual image quality i've seen nothing yet that really shows major differences. I am not comparing Slog or anything like that, just a base F3 vs FS100 in terms of sensor and the image quality you can get out of it. I think Alister himself states they are very close in his review.

But if you monitor externally and record externally - i've still seen nothing that really makes a case for a quality difference between them to such a degree. Purely from image quality - not handling or workflow.


The fact that both cameras share the same chip means there's going to be a similarity in look. But to get back to "8 bit vs 10 bit," you're not going to see a substantial visual difference in ungraded footage recorded 8 or 10 bit.

10 bit on the F3 (even without SLog) is going to give you more room to push the images in post.

Under ideal controlled lighting the differences between the images are going to be minimized. The F3 is going to shine under circumstances that aren't ideal.
In circumstances where you can control your lighting and

Thanks Doug and James,

The crux of my point is that if you remove the internal compression and do your post in 10+ bit depth are the images from both cameras really that different.

Doug, you have a super strong opinion on this and made some black and white statements around the highlight handling - are you aware of anywhere i can see this? Something like that *would* make a big difference to me.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the ergonomics or the feature set - the F3 is obviously better.

cheers
paul

Unfortunately, you won't have the 10 bit images in the first place from the FS 100.

Although it's not the full F3 range, I don't know if anyone has tested Andy Shipsides set ups yet.
Sony NEX-FS100: Dynamic Range Test | CineTechnica (http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/06/17/sony-nex-fs100-dynamic-range-test/)

Of course, it's more than just numbers and if you look at the single sensor evaluation video The Great Camera Shootout 2011: SCCE ~ Episode One | Zacuto USA (http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-one) you can see cameras that have the same dynamic range handling highlights rather differently to each other.

The crux of my point is that if you remove the internal compression and do your post in 10+ bit depth are the images from both cameras really that different.


You can do "post processing" on the FS100 in 10 bit, or 12bit, or 32bit floating point. Ditto for the PMW-F3 or any camera, that comes down to your post hardware - and doing such can be useful if you're stacking a lot of filters or effects.

BUT. The FS100 only *outputs* an 8 bit feed via HDMI. Your source is never going to be better than bit on the FS100. On the PMW-F3 the SDI output is 10bit. That means 1024 graduations for each color channel instead of 256 (well, not quite, you can't use 0-15, but still, it's close).

Forget 8 bit, 10 bit, codecs, whatever.

The F3's output just looks better IMHO. It appears to have a richness, depth and realism to the image that just isn't quite there with the FS100. That's why I used the word verisimilitude in my first post in this thread. You look at the pictures and perhaps you can't quite pin down exactly what it is, but the F3 just plain and simple looks better. I believe it is down to improved micro contrast, less obvious processing and smoother highlight handling.

Don't get me wrong the FS100 is a great little camera and a great piece of kit for the money, but it's not in the same class as the F3 and no external recorder will ever make it into an F3. I just purchased a second F3, for the money I could have purchased two FS100's and some accessories, but that just would not have given me the image quality I get from the F3.

Forget 8 bit, 10 bit, codecs, whatever.

The F3's output just looks better IMHO. It appears to have a richness, depth and realism to the image that just isn't quite there with the FS100. That's why I used the word verisimilitude in my first post in this thread. You look at the pictures and perhaps you can't quite pin down exactly what it is, but the F3 just plain and simple looks better. I believe it is down to improved micro contrast, less obvious processing and smoother highlight handling.

Okay, i get the idea :)

On your still frame examples did you use the same lens on both cameras, to eliminate that difference?

There is more detail in the F3. The detail circuits seem a little higher but there is more there. I would have thought it would have been the lens. It's true that the debayering could be different but why on earth would sony develop two debayering solutions for one sensor. I can understand cutting the outputs and more consumer compression - but at that deep firmware level why double their engineering effort...

Maybe i'll see if i can hire both and see for myself.

Cheers
paul

The cameras are made by two different divisions of Sony, aimed at different markets. They're saving on the sensor development and production costs, but the rest is what each design department believe will work in their products for a particular selling price. The F3 customers are prepared to pay more for those extra percentage points of image quality, so it's worth Sony's while putting in the extra effort to use higher spec processing.

Yes in my samples, both cameras used the same Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens.

.........but why on earth would sony develop two debayering solutions for one sensor.
The simple answer is to save money. Have one sensor for economies of scale, but develop two methods of reading the data and processing it. One doing it as well as possible (but complex and hence expensive) the other more simply - but at a far more affordable price.

I wouldn't be surprised if the FS100 didn't debayer as such - rather directly derived a RGB value for each photosite quartet:

RG
GB

And there's evidence that it may from some of the alias fundamental numbers. Such an approach wouldn't be expected to give as high resolution as a full debayer - but would be better in other respects such as price and (especially) power consumption. And just compare power consumption of the FS100 and the F3......

I don't find it at all surprising that the F3 looks better than an FS100 - it costs a lot more. That's not to say the F3 looks at all bad - far from it - but you get what you pay for.

The simple answer is to save money. Have one sensor for economies of scale, but develop two methods of reading the data and processing it. One doing it as well as possible (but complex and hence expensive) the other more simply - but at a far more affordable price.

I wouldn't be surprised if the FS100 didn't debayer as such - rather directly derived a RGB value for each photosite quartet:

RG
GB

And there's evidence that it may from some of the alias fundamental numbers. Such an approach wouldn't be expected to give as high resolution as a full debayer - but would be better in other respects such as price and (especially) power consumption. And just compare power consumption of the FS100 and the F3......

I don't find it at all surprising that the F3 looks better than an FS100 - it costs a lot more. That's not to say the F3 looks at all bad - far from it - but you get what you pay for.

That's an interesting thought.

I would have thought most of the cost in the firmware/hardware design is R&D. The actual manufacturing costs for F3 vs FS100 can't be that different.

So there's evidence of more aliasing in the FS100, can you point me anywhere to find out more?

Also, rather than start a new thread as there's some very knowledgable people here, can i used E mount lenses on the F3 fairly easily? I have a lot of weird and wonderful lenses and E mount adaptors here. Would be nice to know they could by used in some cases...

thanks
paul

So there's evidence of more aliasing in the FS100, can you point me anywhere to find out more?
No, not saying there is more aliasing, it actually looks pretty good for lack of it, but any camera will have some, and the pattern may be seen as a bit like a fingerprint, giving away facts about the sensor and the way it's read.

The intensity of the aliases will change with lens, focus etc etc but the shape of the patterns won't. It doesn't matter what lens you put on etc, the shape and patterns will remain the same. I haven't been able to see like by like comparisons of zone plates from the two, but I suspect the patterns differ between the two cameras. Which is interesting.

The real point is that the quality is not solely defined by the sensor - it's a combination of the sensor, the way it's read, and the way it's processed. Quality wise the FS100 is pretty good for the price - but it doesn't surprise me that the much more expensive F3 is better.

The actual manufacturing costs for F3 vs FS100 can't be that different.


You obviously have not had your hands on both cameras.
Could you build a Mercedes for the same price as a Fiat after all the R&D was finished?
There's no way the manufacturing costs are anywhere near being close on these two cameras.

The alias patterns for both the F3 and FS100 are extremely similar, the only difference is the FS100 aliases are a little stronger. I've done side by side zone plates with the same lens on both cameras.

I've done side by side zone plates with the same lens on both cameras.
Which is what I've not seen, so I'll defer to you, Alister - I've been having to go on different tests done at different times. It does then leave me wondering why there is such a difference in power requirements between the two cameras?

Is there any chance of seeing the results you talk of?

Which is what I've not seen, so I'll defer to you, Alister - I've been having to go on different tests done at different times. It does then leave me wondering why there is such a difference in power requirements between the two cameras?

Perhaps the compression is a lot more power hungry. The FS100 would be using cheap and cheerful mass produced AVC compression hardware.

paul

Perhaps the compression is a lot more power hungry.
But the EX1 is quite power frugal - same compression as the F3.

You obviously have not had your hands on both cameras.
Could you build a Mercedes for the same price as a Fiat after all the R&D was finished?
There's no way the manufacturing costs are anywhere near being close on these two cameras.

But the EX1 is quite power frugal - same compression as the F3.

Fair point, i haven't compared the figures. How different are they?

cheers
paul

The F3 is more power hungry than the EX1, mostly due to having to power 3 x HDSDi outputs, one composite video plus HDMI at the same time. It also has a small (but very quiet) fan that runs when the camera gets hot.

Fair point, i haven't compared the figures. How different are they?
The manuals quote 24 watts for the F3, 5.6 watts for the FS100 - the F3 appears to use well over 4 times the power of the FS100 in normal operation.

If that was solely down to powering HD-SDI outputs (the FS100 is powering HDMI itself), surely it would be sensible to provide a means of disabling them when not in use? (Most of the time, for most people?) And other cameras with HD-SDI don't seem to neccessarily have such power requirements.

When the dual-link connectors are turned off (yes, you can disable them), the F3 only uses about 18 watts. As a comparison, my F800 uses 45-50 watts even when the SDI connectors are turned off.

When the dual-link connectors are turned off (yes, you can disable them), the F3 only uses about 18 watts.
Thanks - 18 watts is still more than 3x the power consumption of an FS100 though........

The power difference does not surprise me one bit. The FS100 and F3 are as different as night and day except for the actual image sensor.

Just about every high performance product I can think of (cars, computers, digital cameras, appliances) will use more energy that a lower-performance equivalent. There's a hell of a lot more computer processing being done inside an F3, plus you have both a viewfinder and LCD, and two SxS card slots that each require a lot more power than an SD slot. Also, I think by it's very nature, a 12v camera is going to consume more power than a 7v camera.

Although I am shocked by how long my FS100 will run on a single battery, I am still completely satisfied with the battery life on an F3. Anyone who is not happy with how long modern batteries will power modern cameras has not been in the business very long. Wow, people are really getting spoiled. :-)

Although I am shocked by how long my FS100 will run on a single battery, I am still completely satisfied with the battery life on an F3. Anyone who is not happy with how long modern batteries will power modern cameras has not been in the business very long. Wow, people are really getting spoiled. :-)

Wow these people are spoiled. My Viper uses somewhere around 70 watts just for the camera head (no recorder). When I go out to shoot, I usually bring 12 Anton Bauer Dionic 90s for the day for the Viper.

The amount of power sipping the F3 does is very welcome. My Dionic 90 will power my F3 for hours upon hours, with a recorder built in!