Upcoming hands-on comparison of F3, FS100 and AF100 from Philip Bloom

[Alister Chapman]

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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?

[Mark David Williams]

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!!!

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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?

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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.

[Alister Chapman]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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.

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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.

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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.

[David C. Williams]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by David C. Williams

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

[Chris Barcellos]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

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

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.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

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.)

[Mark David Williams]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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.