A second look at the FS700

Now, is that G-Log on the FS700 using CineTone or CineGamma? Not wishing to pixel-peep, but do I see the merest hint of 'that' yellow on the cheek and eyebrow on bottom right image? It's just that it's not there on the 'No PP FS700' portrait.

But perhaps I'm seeing things, because 'that' yellow has been the bane of my FS100 life and it's become an irrational fear. :)
 
are your Glog setting the same for the 100 and the 700 or is the 700 different numbers and setting for glog 700
 
No, I modified my GKLog profile for the 700.
Major difference is the gamma.
On the FS100 i use the 709 gamma, on the 700 Cinegamma 4.
Also the color settings are different.

Frank
 
This is still a pre production unit.
As soon I get my hands on the real production model, with the final firmware version, I gonna publish some PPs for the 700.

Frank
 
Yes and no, the still comes as a JPEG, so there is some compression going on and it´s 8 bit.
When we assume, the recorder records 10 bit raw - that would be better, even when they compress the raw slightly to go over the 3G SDI.

Frank
 
Hey Frank. This thread has been inactive for a bit, but did you end up testing the FS700 more?

Since you've used the FS 700 more than anyone, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on it.

Thanks again for your insights.
 
Cinegamma 3
gene_can_sing said:
Hey Frank. This thread has been inactive for a bit, but did you end up testing the FS700 more?

Since you've used the FS 700 more than anyone, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on it.

Thanks again for your insights.
Click to expand...

I was planning to shoot a short film on the FS700 last weekend, but sadly I had to give it back on last Thursday, cause Sony needs it elsewhere.
So I shot it on my good ole FS100.

That means, no more testing for the moment, after what I did on the first page on this tread.
But I try to answer any question, if I can.

Here is one more thing I can provide - comparison of the new gamma modes.
The FS700′s Cinegammas 1 and 2 are comparable to Cinegammas 1 & 2 in the PMW-F3.

Apples and oranges in front of a blown out (on purpose) window.

I suspect the sensor is actually capturing a far greater dynamic range than the standard or
cinegammas can comfortably deliver, which bodes well for the future RAW option.
If you use a 4K sensor and then down convert electronically the optical filter is operating well
above HD frequencies and the electronic low pass filtering can be much sharper than an optical filter.
The end result is better contrast in HD at high frequencies.

Note the differences in the highlight rolloff on the teapot on the right.
1. Still gamma
2 .Cinegamma 3
3 .Cinegamma 1
4. Cinegamma 4
5. Cinegamma 2
6. 709

1still.jpg4CG3.jpg2CG1.jpg5CG4.jpg3CG2.jpg0Non.jpg

Frank
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top