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

[Mark David Williams]

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

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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

[Asif Khan]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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

[Alister Chapman]

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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

[Mark David Williams]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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.

[Alister Chapman]

See this thread http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-avc...ml#post1644474
For some frame grabs.

[Mark David Williams]

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

[Alister Chapman]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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!