Abel Cine Measures Sensitivity & DR

From my own two eyes, I'd say the FS100 has a significantly better image than the 5D Mark II in a number areas including noise/low light and detail (especially horizontally), and a lack of significant aliasing, moire, etc. That and the fact that it is a real camcorder as opposed to being a stills cam is enough for me. So it doesn't have more DR than a 5D Mark II? So what? It's the same and far better in every other respect. Same goes for AF100 - same DR, worse picture every other way.

For $2500 you do not get a proper video camera out of the 5D2. I know, I own one. Its wonderful for what it is but it is saddled by limitations, softness, noise and aliasing that practically kills it as a meaningfully useful tool in many situations.

All of that said now... I agree... Sony could likely have pulled more DR out of this sensor (well clearly they have in the F3) at the same cost. Marketing comes into play. I have no doubt that in a year or two we will see a better camera at a better price. Same features cheaper or more capability such as S-log at perhaps an intermediate price point between the FS100 and F3 or maybe even cheaper? Who knows. In the meantime there is no doubt based on the specs, the tests, and holding one in my hands that the FS100 has the 5D Mark 2 beat as a digital cinema camera. And in the right hands, working around its limitations, the 5D2 can still hold up on a big screen. So that's saying a lot.
 
it's not the sensor that's limiting the DR, but the processing chip which is an 8-bit processor vs the F3's 10-bit processor and everything past the sensor is different between these two cameras
There will probably be more S35 EXMOR chip cameras after the FS100, maybe even coming down to the consumer level cams, but the processing chips will also be different from the FS100 which will make it very different from each other
 
rgdfilms said:
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...
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
cheezweezl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amen to that too. Freaking out over a chart isn't useful. All we have seen thus far is amazing pictures in low light and regular light that slot in between an AF100 and F3 nicely, and beat a 5D2 in many respects. But the proof is in hands-on a production camera, and that has yet to happen. Soon, we all hope... soon.
 
Washington Irving said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who knows? Exactly my point. I know that my ex1 has a crazy paint menu for a cam that price. The only thing I have read is that the FS100's menus aren't as deep. But still there must be something or else there wouldn't be programmable picture profiles. I know I am going to get mine and immediately start looking for the sweet spot.

Now that the camera is almost here, we have another wave of BS coming. People will look at the image right out of the box, and slam it. It happened with the ex1 before those people realized that you have to paint Sony cameras. Panasonic makes really nice presets that can be used immediately. Sony cams generally don't look tat great with default settings....
 
If it was all just the sensor then RED would not be able to keep improving their processing software and then encouraging people to go back to their old files to see how much better they can look. A sensor is incredibly important, but it is also just the start. As noted, the important limiting factor here is that it is an 8-bit limiting output, which means that one simply cannot process the image in the same way as on the F3 without experiencing excessive banding and other artifacts. Sony chose to do this so that the camera could use an inexpensive (SD cards) and well-accepted codec format (AVC-HD can be edited native on most systems).

The camera looks a lot better than some of you seem to have prematurely concluded. There's Dynamic Range and then there's Dynamic Range. Andy will do some more testing as I'm sure will many others, and you should do for yourself as well. It's a sweet camera and used properly will deliver terrific images at a great value, at least IMHO.
 
speedracerlo said:
it's not the sensor that's limiting the DR, but the processing chip which is an 8-bit processor vs the F3's 10-bit processor
Click to expand...

The chip wordlength is definitely not 8bit. It's the ultimate stream format (codec) that is 8 bit. Video chip needs to have much greater bit precision to able to do its tasks properly.
I agree the chip itself and its algorithms are probably different in F3 and FS100. I just wonder whether the difference in DR really arises from the chip limitation or if it's Sony's deliberate strategy
 
Bottom line... Cameras have progressed to the point that if you can't get a quality result out of a modern camera in 2011, it's not the cameras fault.
 
Washington Irving said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can customize the picture profiles, there is less adjustment than found on the F3 but plenty to play with. Once we get the full production unit I will do another test on Video going over the different gamma modes again. Like cheezweezl said it might be possible to dial in a flatter look for more range.
 
I've read that the 5d has 10 stops but I assume that that is with a super flat profile. I'd be happy if we can push the FS100 to 11 stops with a similar profile. I guess that DR becomes subjective at that point and depends on what each user finds to be usable.
David W. Jones said:
Bottom line... Cameras have progressed to the point that if you can't get a quality result out of a modern camera in 2011, it's not the cameras fault.
Click to expand...
I can and have been achieving results that satisfy me and my clients. But I do a lot of work trying to flatten the image out both in post and in camera. I recently shot with a red MX and the extra dynamic range meant a lot less work to achieve the look i wanted. Now that camera is priced and specced well above the FS100, but the FS100 is priced and specced higher than a DSLR so I had hoped that the DR would have been higher also. It doesn't make it a crap camera by any means. The image and the specs are excellent. I had just hoped it would be more, but the camera's not out yet so arguing about it is probably premature anyway.
 
My question is, what is the sensors native ISO? On the F3 everyone was told it was 800, but you could set it to -3 to sacrifice some dynamic range for a cleaner signal. A sensors native ISO should not be affected by the processor right? Because the actual photosites can only hold so much of an electric charge (or something to that effect).

If the F3 and the FS100 have the same sensor and that sensor starts to clip at 800 ISO then shouldn't the dynamic range tests be done at +3 db on the FS100? Just to see (it may very well be that the dynamic range that the FS100 is capable of processing is within the clipped range so Sony decided to start one step lower for the cleaner signal, I am just curious.)
 
I watched this comparison video of the F3 and the FS100 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3V8HdXsj0c ) and made two screenshots.

Look at this comparison picture:
http://www.bilderload.com/daten/compareVP6QD.jpg

For me DR seems very similar. The sky and shadows have similiar details. This was in Gamma REC709 on both cams.

Now look at cinetone 1 on the FS100:
http://www.bilderload.com/bild/112695/cine12B8C0.jpg

Just looking at it, not measuring anything, cinetone 1 seems to be more contrasty with considerably less dynamic range.

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
I think the F3 looks far nicer. Gotta tweak up those FS100 picture profiles...

I am not seeing a huge DR difference though. Just that the default FS100 profile looks lousy as expected and the cinetone aren't much better (but probably grade nicely)
 
I don´t find it taht lousy. Standard Gamma just looks flat and desaturated. Almost like a LOG File. F3 looks more like a finished look.
 
FelixGER said:
I don´t find it taht lousy. Standard Gamma just looks flat and desaturated. Almost like a LOG File. F3 looks more like a finished look.
Click to expand...

I think any ungraded flat profile (or for sure LOG) looks lousy. It's meant to be graded. We do not live in a flat desaturated world (for the most part :) )
 
Mitch Gross said:
If you can really judge these things after it goes through YouTube compression then you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Click to expand...
I don't think the H.264 compression present on Youtube or anything else massively effects the colors one is seeing. That's what is being seen and judged. And I've seen and shot plenty of flat/neutral and LOG to know.

Besides, you of all people know that ungraded Flat and especially LOG looks lousy. It's designed to be graded; don't need YouTube to tell us that. :)
 
Earlier in this thread I made a studiously ignored comment about wide DR being of little value if the roll to blown was not acceptable

Im not sure what compressions this image has been subjected too (I grabbed and cropped it from Mr Blooms AF/F3 vid)

But I guess it is a good representation of how an image may look (Ive seen the same on early dig stills cameras)

Note the 'roll to blown' around the light source bottom left - there is no Roll just a horrid haloed chop yellow-white - nothing in between - and that means you have to avoid blown like the plague and cant ETTR and that costs usable DR and noise in the real world..

Crop from the F3 image..

rolloff.jpg


Aditional Edit

A camera that produces an image like this MOCK UP woud be described as having a smaller DR, but because of the smooth 'filmlike' rolloff is IMO far more useable because you dont have to stop down (pushing you mids into the noise floor) to avoid the bad roll off at the top end..

rolloff2.jpg


And the levels in PS..

rolloff3.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top