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

[Brian Drysdale]

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

Independent film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[Mark David Williams]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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,

[Alister Chapman]

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

[Mark David Williams]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

You need to be for the BBC, I know producers who had to start a limited company as part of getting their programme commissioned. Also, to access a number of funding schemes as a production company it has to be limited.

A limited company is a legal entity, which is a requirement for many of the numerous contracts involved, otherwise they'd have to sign with an individual rather than a production company.

[Mark David Williams]

I remember as part of the British film council application for one of their funds I had to create a limited film company although on paper only. The biggest benefit to this is you as an individual are not as liable as you would be if a sole trader.

Be great to sell shares bit like crowd funding but sounds a bit more prestigious. In fact it's similar to what many independents do, set up a limited company, maybe in another country. Wherever the benefits ( Tax breaks) are best.

This is what I would do with my proposed film if I ever find those elusive investors. I think at that point though I wouldn't regard myself as indie anymore but a bonafide production company out to make an independent film.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

The EX1 may be an old model but it deliver 1000 lines with a HDSDI output that has 10 bit 4.2.2.Mark

The EX1 has three 2 million photosite chips that 6 million samples to the encoder. So the logic works like this:

1) you want a big chip for the potential of a shallow DOF.

2) three S35 chips is beyond us, so a single chip is used.

3) therefore, if one wants the luma resolution one gets from the EX1, which I do, one must use a sensor that has the photosites to capture a pre-debayered frame with adequate samples to deliver, after debayering, a recorded image with 1000-lines.

4) We know that a 1920-pixel image can carry 1000-lines of real detail assuming everything before encoding carries REAL detail. 2000 pixels is a nice number.

5) RED uses a 70% pre-debayer to post-debayer factor -- for each axis. Looking just at horizontal resolution, that means there must be a minimum of 2800 photosites per line to obtain 2000 pixels. Let's assume 3200 because if we divide by 16 and multiply by 9 we see the sensor must have 1800 rows. That means the sensor must have almost 6 million photosites.

The specific numbers don't matter -- what we see is that to get maximum FullHD resolution, a single chip camera must have a sensor that has LOTS of photosites. When a camera does not have enough photosites, its recorded resolution will measure much lower than does the EX1.

However, once one has a chip with 10-12 million photosites -- EZ these days -- one can have a 4K2K camera. Such a camera is able to deliver, after the file is converted to FullHD, far more resolution than an EX1.

In fact, there's enough resolution to enable an editor to pan a FullHD window around inside a 4K2K frame. There's enough resolution to enable an editor to zoom a FullHD window into a 4K2K frame. IMHO, buying anything less than a 4K2K camera in 2011 is a waste of money. Wait for IBC before buying anything.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

I I think at that point though I wouldn't regard myself as indie anymore but a bonafide production company out to make an independent film.

I guess it sounds more hip to call yourself an "indie", although it's still an aspect of the same sector, if with very much lower budgets, assuming you're hoping to sell the film.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Back to the topic, I've downloaded Phil's low light sample (where his Dad is lighting all the cigars in the world), and after watching them on my 50" plasma I must say that:

- the F3 is gorgeous
- the FS100 is not far behind
- the difference between the above 2 is much, much smaller than between the FS100 and the AF101
- the 5D is the worst, by far.

What I mean is that the noise (and I am a little paranoid about noise - those who followed my threads on the noise from EX1/nanoFlash know that) is very film-like on both the S35 cameras - almost no chroma noise, just some grain...While it's very videoish (still acceptable) from the AF101, it becomes unacceptable with the Canon (not only is the chroma noise visible, but it takes an ugly pattern of horizontal smears).

[Mark David Williams]

Piotr
I just downloaded the half a gig clip.

Wouldnt this be a different story if using the Hdmi out? I can't see a reason I would ever use the on board codecs of any of these cameras? Also can you really compare these like this as there not exactly scientific.

At ISO 3200/6400 I couldn't see much chroma noise in the (EDITED in Canon 5d) but I could see noise in the blue channel. Far more than the others. In fact extra noise here would add to the film look I imagine..

Mark

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Mark,

the http://nino.macbay.de/PhilipBloom/arnie_low_light.mov download I tested is 2.42 GB, with the QT bitrate of 73,7 Mbps 422. I realize it was originally recorded in different native codecs, and only rendered out like that by Phil - but where did I say my assessment was scientific?

I DID say I was mainly looking for noise, as I'm biased :)

However, I can imagine the FS100 HDMI 422 output recorded as 100Mbps L-GoP (or 220 Mbps I-Fo) on the nanoFlash could only be better!

[Mark David Williams]

Hi Piotr

I think the point is it is well understood the codec in the 5D is not so good. Even so I could only really find ordinary noise in the blue channel? And agreed there was some more.

Looking at the AF101 and the FS100 From reviews this is what I understand. A movie sensor size is 24x18mm and so needs to be that size for the same dof control.

FS100
780 LINES
One card slot
8 bit processing and 8 bit Hdsmi 4.2.2 Out
No ND filters
Sensor size 23.4x13.2mm,

AF101
Sensor size 17x13mm
680/630 LINES
ND filters
8bit HDSDI out

EX1
1000 LINES
ND Filters
Hdsdi 10bit out

Clearly the EX1 is the much better camera unless dof control is important. With the EX1 and letus I lose about 4 stops depending on the lenses I use and so really I'm starting at f4 But I do have a full camera frame or slightly larger and so can compete with the FS100 and most definately the AF101.

With the AF101 the Dof is only about 1.5 stops better than my EX1 alone and I can imagine you would need to have very fast lenses although perfect for me with mark one primes at T1.3 But I can't live with the LOSS of defination 320 lines minimum and 8bit out. Although the AF101 is a very usable camera.

With the FS100 Again its working around a Mattebox and messing with filters and so may as well mess around with the Letus Also would be a resolution drop of 220 lines and again 8bit out.

The canon 5D offers better dof control than all of the above and to my mind gives a beautiful film look only bettered by the F3 But still the 5D has better DOF control than all of them and if you want a tool for this is actually the best.

My conclusion to all this is if I want the best picture and the best for post then an EX1 with Letus beats them both.

Also I think waiting for the Canon 5D Mark 3 could be the better bet.

Mark

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Just for the records, Mark, I'm in the same boat as you (see my signature).

However, there are 2 aspects that make the AF100 attractive to me:

- much less noise than the EX1
- much less hassle to control DOF compared to EX1+Letus.

That said, if I considered buying the FS100 it would only be an addition, not a replacement...

Piotr

[Mark David Williams]

Hi Piotr

Yes I know we're in the same boat!

I'd like to buy a large sensor camera. I think to me and you the idea of having a camera where you can fit the lens you want and have complete control of DoF is very enticing. I'm also looking for an addition to my EX1.

Has the Fs100 got less noise? Has there been any tests?

I also have to pick up on the idea its less hassle than a Letus? The fact you have to use ND filters even an adjustable one and then place a Mattebox in front means you have to keep sliding the mattebox forward in order to adjust the ND filter. Could be very annoying when filming outside. If you have the letus at least you can use the Cameras internal NDs and once setup you're set.