Abel Cine Measures Sensitivity & DR

Does the fs100 have a gamma setting that allows illegal levels like the f3 does? And would recording externally allow more dr than recording internally?
 
The more I see and hear about this camera the more happy I am that I have five grand stuffed away in my sock drawer and a pre-order deposit in for it at Abel Cine. This camera is going to be loads of fun to shoot with. 10 stops of dynamic range on the test bench, this sh*t is getting crazy!
 
The AF100 may have a bit more latitude, but I'll take what looks like cleaner images coming out of that FS100 sensor and the sensitivity over that extra DR.

What kills me is not having the HD-SDI out most of all. but too bad. You makes your choices, you live (shoot) with it. Until Panny release the AF200 :evil:
 
The FS100 has a different DSP (digital signal processor) than the F3, which makes it a completely different camera. It has the same sensor yes, but just about everything else is different behind that sensor. I just went through some of my old tests with the AF100 and in CineD I get very similar DR results - just about 10 stops.
 
Maybe we get 10.5 stops when using cinegamma 1 and raising Master black just a little and black gamma (middle, +5)
 
nyvz said:
Oh? My understanding as far as numbers that get thrown around for latitude for similar cameras was that under 10stops puts it in the range of 3 year old 1/2" cameras with ~9x less imaging area and ~9x smaller photosites. Compared to similar sized sensor cameras at competing prices, it is also less than most video-capable DSLR cameras despite their relatively small photosites and utilized imaging area while shooting video and even below the AF100 with its 1/2" sensor-sized photosites. Less than 10 stops is a figure that does not sound all that compelling in that context. Also, given that the FS100 is described as having the same sensor as the F3 which at the sensor level appears to be capable of capturing as many as 13-14 stops of latitude when considering performance in slog mode. Even the F3, which is apparently crippled in latitude by all non-slog gamma options clipping to white 2-3 stops earlier than at the sensor level, seems to be far ahead of the FS100 despite having the "same sensor". Anyone is likely to find these numbers suspect given those details, and I'm sure many of us were hopeful that we would not be sacrificing latitude by using such a new clean sensor and when moving from our $1500 DSLRs to this $5000 camcorder, but this test seems to imply we may be making compromises. It is hard to imagine how Sony could get so little performance out of a sensor with so much potential. Perhaps this can be optimized using different picture profile settings after more extensive testing?
Click to expand...

I feel the same than you. The more I hear about this camera the more I am disappointed. When it was first bandied around as having the same sensor as the F3, I was hopping for about the same image quality, with different form factor, professional features etc that would be the differentiating factor. I was not hopping for an slog quality f3 latitude but around the basic F3 performance. The same philosophy you see in the dslr camera world , same sensor/image quality but different functionality like body construction, framerate, autofocus etc. But the more details comes out of this camera, from the only 8 bit output and now DR show that it is much bellow the f3 in not only functionality form factor but more importantly image quality. I am sure that 12800 and more iso performance test videos and drooling will come to us in the near future but sincerely did we need better low light quality than the F3 (which is already unheard of) at the expense of dynamic range. Do people need to go to infra red filming, do anyone know about lighting, CRI index of poor sodium outdoor light, directional light etc... When filming mostly during sunny days when everything is blowing. Look at the complaints about the skin tone blowing of the AF100. The lowly gh2 does a better job at it and most dslr.

There is one thing I saw into that hdslr revolution is the look not only of dof but higher dynamic range of the photo cameras. This is what defined the look, some would say the film look, that became so popular. Now Sony would like us to abandon the DSLR for a 2 to 5 time more expensive camera for about the same image quality and contrary to the Af100 this one has to be rigged a lot like a dslr. Many will say a lot of blah blah blah about the electronic etc, but something that the dslr revolution showed is that the video world is greatly overpriced. Look at the $ 900 gh2, true hd quality, no moire/aliasing, hdmi output or the 5d mark2 a $ 2500 vista vision digital camera. So I am not a dreamer, tell me it is marketing and not price performance/technology that is driving those camera manufactures. You can even call it conspiracy for me it is just plain marketing. The gh2 is already a little marvel, I just hope the same level of image quality for the Canon 5d mark3 with better low light and dr hopefully (with the bigger sensor), to show again how the gear in the video world is so overpriced compared to current technology. Mostly to those people people that chant the gospel of those companies.
 
Danielvilliers said:
There is one thing I saw into that hdslr revolution is the look not only of dof but higher dynamic range of the photo cameras. This is what defined the look, some would say the film look, that became so popular. Now Sony would like us to abandon the DSLR for a 2 to 5 time more expensive camera for about the same image quality and contrary to the Af100 this one has to be rigged a lot like a dslr. Many will say a lot of blah blah blah about the electronic etc, but something that the dslr revolution showed is that the video world is greatly overpriced.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to think of the economics of the video world versus the DSLR world. DSLR's sell many 100s of thousands more than video camera. A professional video camera is made for a small crowd of people that would require such a device. A DSLR is made for everyone from professional photographers, to hobbiest, to your parents going on vacation. So a DSLR will always cost less, and be geared towards photography. If the GH2 works for you then by all means use it, many others need the functions of a video camera. It's all about the right tool for the job.
 
FS100: no DSLR moire, real audio,1080 60p, clean HDMI output, can take any lens, Real HD resolution, S35 sensor, extreme clean low light ability, long camera battery life, can use a variety of HDMI recorders for 4:2:2 high bitrate acquisition making it ready for BBC approval, apparently much better rolling shutter, so damn small and light I can transform it into whatever camera I want. Price is right considering I can't get most of these things on any DSLR and to get some of these things on a dslr I would have to purchase some add ons making them cost wise closer to the cost of the FS100. I can't wait to get my hands on this.
 
Last edited:
This happens with every new camera release.
As more information comes out some will rule it out because it does not reach their needs. As well they should because people know what they need and at 5k the camera needs to be as close to those needs as possible.

As many times as I heard “the same sensor as the F3” I think some of us [I did anyway] thought of this camera as a potential sleeper and it very well could be but we just need more cameras out there before we'll really know.


I have seen some good video from this camera so the numbers may not tell the whole story.
 
Danielvilliers said:
I feel the same than you. The more I hear about this camera the more I am disappointed. When it was first bandied around as having the same sensor as the F3, I was hopping for about the same image quality, with different form factor, professional features etc that would be the differentiating factor. I was not hopping for an slog quality f3 latitude but around the basic F3 performance. The same philosophy you see in the dslr camera world , same sensor/image quality but different functionality like body construction, framerate, autofocus etc. But the more details comes out of this camera, from the only 8 bit output and now DR show that it is much bellow the f3 in not only functionality form factor but more importantly image quality. I am sure that 12800 and more iso performance test videos and drooling will come to us in the near future but sincerely did we need better low light quality than the F3 (which is already unheard of) at the expense of dynamic range. Do people need to go to infra red filming, do anyone know about lighting, CRI index of poor sodium outdoor light, directional light etc... When filming mostly during sunny days when everything is blowing. Look at the complaints about the skin tone blowing of the AF100. The lowly gh2 does a better job at it and most dslr.

There is one thing I saw into that hdslr revolution is the look not only of dof but higher dynamic range of the photo cameras. This is what defined the look, some would say the film look, that became so popular. Now Sony would like us to abandon the DSLR for a 2 to 5 time more expensive camera for about the same image quality and contrary to the Af100 this one has to be rigged a lot like a dslr. Many will say a lot of blah blah blah about the electronic etc, but something that the dslr revolution showed is that the video world is greatly overpriced. Look at the $ 900 gh2, true hd quality, no moire/aliasing, hdmi output or the 5d mark2 a $ 2500 vista vision digital camera. So I am not a dreamer, tell me it is marketing and not price performance/technology that is driving those camera manufactures. You can even call it conspiracy for me it is just plain marketing. The gh2 is already a little marvel, I just hope the same level of image quality for the Canon 5d mark3 with better low light and dr hopefully (with the bigger sensor), to show again how the gear in the video world is so overpriced compared to current technology. Mostly to those people people that chant the gospel of those companies.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. In fact, I would have been perfectly happy if the camera was only 8 bit, had no HD-SDI, but it had the same internal recording look as the F3. I'd say about 95% of the times that I watch an F3 video I am amazed at how good it looks. Asides from the low light videos, I have yet to be impressed by any of the FS100 videos I have seen. It resembles more the AF100 than the F3, at least to my eyes. It's a shame, because I was initially very excited about this camera.
 
Cory Braun said:
I'm in the same boat. In fact, I would have been perfectly happy if the camera was only 8 bit, had no HD-SDI, but it had the same internal recording look as the F3. I'd say about 95% of the times that I watch an F3 video I am amazed at how good it looks. Asides from the low light videos, I have yet to be impressed by any of the FS100 videos I have seen. It resembles more the AF100 than the F3, at least to my eyes. It's a shame, because I was initially very excited about this camera.
Click to expand...

I'll make it look badass when I get mine next week... Just need that PL adaptor from 16x9 Inc.
 
I am not going to moan all my life about this camera. I am truly disappointed by it now that I know what it is, if the conclusion of the DR test are 100% confirmed. I do understand that for some functionality with a certain level of image quality is the good balance for the price. For me it is image quality the priority. Tomorrow you give me a box with only a button to press play and a 10 bit uncompressed 12+ stops DR output, like a film camera and I am happy. Perhaps because I am used to work in raw in my photo cameras and I would like to get a bit close to that quality and I am not talking about the resolution but everything else.

The radical design form factor of this camera would lead you to believe in this way (barebone system). A very medium format photo camera like form factor, with an upper lcd, very small form factor, etc... More so that from the first day Sony associated it with the F3 sensor. I might be a fool, but I don't think there is any innocence in that. They deliberately did that so that most would see it as a baby F3 having more or less the same image quality than its bigger brother.

If they said they had a Super 35 camera with X,Y,Z feature etc, I would have judged this camera by its own merits. In fact they made a much more clever approach than Panasonic. Many see the Af-100 as an upgraded Pana lowly (For some) panasonic GH1 or GH2 photo camera, that has video function bolted on it. On the contrary Sony associated the FS-100 to the higher end Cine Alta F3. Many, I guess like myself will be disappointed that it ends to the sensor by name and low light qualities. They are not in any other way comparable, form factor, functionality or image quality wise. We just got the badge or the cap.
 
What I learned from reading a lot of camera (video and photo) reviews is that DR varies pretty extremely.
I read GH2 reviews that stated 11,5 stops range (which it doesn´t have. Not even near this range) and reviews talking more about 9,x stops.

I think Abel Cine measured the true DR.

Are there more DR tests from Abel cine (aside from F3) available? Maybe from smaller sensor cams?
 
I'll go through the different gamma modes again when we have a full production camera. I honestly thought that people would have expected these results, but I can see that we all want a full report. So I'll work on one as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
You guys are awesome! :)
I would by stuff only from you if you had an european outpost!

Maybe you could do the full report on video rather than a written review, like on the F3.
 
Danielvilliers said:
I am not going to moan all my life about this camera. I am truly disappointed by it now that I know what it is, if the conclusion of the DR test are 100% confirmed.
Click to expand...

Daniel, your solution is simple. The FS100 is going to perform in the DR of the best prosumer cameras, but with a big sensor and fabulous low light capabilities. Its priced similar to them too. It performs within its price group with two extra super features.

All camera companies use a tiered pricing system. If those aren't the features you want, buy the F3 and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
People are never happy. If you want a camera that can shoot RAW with a s35 chip, pony up and buy a Red MX or a used Red MX. Focus on the content. This camera looks amazing! I own a Red MX and a 5D Mark II and I'm really excited about the FS100's capabilities.. Do I give a rat's ass that it only has 10 stops of DR? Hell no! Get real! If you want F3 performance, then shell out the $14,000 and buy an F3 then!! That simple! Or just build your own camera...
 
I love how people are bummed that the FS100 performs comparably to the AF100. Is it just me or isn't the FS100 basically sony's version of the AF100? Same price point. Same sort of codec, same 1080p 60 frame slomo, etc. And if you're gonna do that comparison, then you basically trade ND filters and HDSDI for a bigger sensor and much better low light performance. Take your pick. If you're bummed that it doesn't stack up to the F3, then cough up $14k and buy an F3. But don't call it a scam because you saw that it was the same sensor (which is true) and assumed everything else would be the same.

And most importantly, NOBODY has this camera yet. Even these DR tests are based on the preproduction model. Once the cam hits the streets, it's possible that someone will cook up a picture profile much like the superflat or cinemarvels that will give us a little more latitude. Until then, it's mostly just BS.
 
Can you make custom picture profiles on the FS100? because it seems that it's software limiting the DR as the sensor is the same on the F3.
That would be cool anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top