Couple of FS100 Projects

[Kholi]

But yet the issues you mention are minimised or removed by using one..

Not entirely true. I used one in my testing, tested a TON of picture profiles in controlled and uncontrolled environments, did AVCHD and NanoFlash 220Mb/s and I arrived to the same conclusion as Dan.

The rewards are not seen until you try to pull secondaries while gradeing, or raise the gamma in a shot with a flat surface the same issues you noted, but with the recorder the issues you noted are much easier to sort, taking the FS into much more workable place in post.. did you even test it with a recorder?

d

I did, as I stated, and I wasn't the colorist. I took all of my footage to a DI theater (Resolve and 18ft Screen painted by a 2K Christie) and posted there, with a colorist from Modern, and let him have at it. What we found was that, even though some of the clips were botched due to IR pollution, the material that was lit, indoors at a location and a fair amount of the daylight material that wasn't contaminated could not be moved about much. Noise was definitely finer, though, and compression artifact were generally less but the AVCHD in camera is so well implemented and clean already that in MOST cases (if the camera was on sticks or not challenged) you could barely tell a difference in the image played back to back or a/b'd.

Dan really isn't saying that the camera produces a bad image, he's just saying that it wouldn't work for their process and I get him, personally, even though I'm still going to use it for what I need to do. And, I had a few more issues with it than he listed.

Everyone sees something different.


I also agree on his sentiment that the FS100 was literally put in a place (budget-wise) for Low-budget filmmaking. Look at the roster of people that Sony chose to champion the release? Compare it to the F3, which one is the low budget option?

It's not offensive, that's just what it is IMO. You can use it for whatever you want, of course, but it was designated for that user base.

 

[Dermot]

\If this camera is not best for low budget filmmakers, corporate stuff and just-for-fun projects, what is it for?

I use mine (with a BMD recorder) to shoot plates for VFX and elements for grades, adding to my folder of sky's to use as replacements
d

 

[Dermot]

I did, as I stated, and I wasn't the colorist. I took all of my footage to a DI theater (Resolve and 18ft Screen painted by a 2K Christie) and posted there, with a colorist from Modern, and let him have at it. What we found was that, even though some of the clips were botched due to IR pollution, the material that was lit, indoors at a location and a fair amount of the daylight material that wasn't contaminated could not be moved about much. Noise was definitely finer, though, and compression artifact were generally less but the AVCHD in camera is so well implemented and clean already that in MOST cases (if the camera was on sticks or not challenged) you could barely tell a difference in the image played back to back or a/b'd.

I'm a colorist primarly... colorist/finishing artist/VXF supervisor .. i also have a 16 foot screen hit by a Christe2200, and a number of software packages on the desk with a color surface, and yea Resolve is one of them, it's good tools if i bit limited.. and not the one i turned to on the day i'm talking about

So i put up a scene shot to both AVCHD and ProRez,

First i graded them minimaly, like a first pass, ballanced the shots out... On the first pass the DP could call the diffrences, no one else could accuratly.. this supports your experience completely

Then i hit them with secondaries, masks, tracks, hightlight effects, digital makeup, noise reduction, selective sharpening... all the stuff we do for real... be it shot on Alexa, Film, F3, Epic... or FS

Played the two scenes back to back... Unlike your experience EVERY SINGLE person in the suite could tell one from the other without knowing what order they were in, 100% all of them, every single person.... everytime, accuratly

I'm guessing that when you were at Mod, they did a first pass and stopped there?

The folks at Mod are welcome to my files.. graded in P3, 16bit TIFF, they are pretty much usless without a P3 callibrated display tho

d

 

[Kholi]

So i put up a scene shot to both AVCHD and ProRez,

Maybe there's a major difference in the NanoFlash XDCam422 and the ProRes material coming out of the BMD recorder. I've never seen a comparison between the two, but there's a possibility.

Then i hit them with secondaries, masks, tracks, hightlight effects, digital makeup... all the stuff we do for real...

I'm missing what you're saying here: so one had a second pass and one did not? Or both had a second pass and people could immediately see the differences between the two finished the exact same way?

In what areas? Noise and banding? I did say Noise was finer, there's an entire thread I started on the NanoFlash stuff and I did say that it was worth using an external recorder, despite that--when the camera's static, the AVCHD implemented in the FS100 is almost indistinguishable from the 220Mb/s NanoFlash material.

FYI, we did move to secondaries and still weren't very impressed with the results. However! Nirv is probably right in that maybe some people are expecting too much from what it is. At least for me, I'm sure that's the case.

If you're offering the files up for one person to see, might as well upload them to vimeo for everyone to see. There were interested FS100 owners here in this forum looking in on the NanoFlash thread, and I'm sure a lot of them would be interested in seeing how you work with your material, along with the differences in the BMD recording and internal. That's valuable to people looking to upgrade to another camera or wanting to stretch their images a bit more.

Aside from all of that, both Dan and I said that it's still a pretty good camera regardless of where we landed. Nobody's saying it's bad or it can't do this or that, it was just where we ended up at.

 

[Dermot]

I did a first pass "base grade" and saved that off, took a coin flipped it, and put the files in the order that the coin toss told me too.. then put 10 seconds black, coin toss again, rinse and repeat for a third time

Then i did a second pass, gradeing to something closer to finished scene, some of the things i did can't be done in Resolve tho, you'd need a Pablo or similar to complete them... then did the coin toss thing again three times..

So what i had to show was a 1 min scene running back to back, four versions, one AVCHD first pass, ProRez first pass, then AVCHD second pass, ProRez second pass, each pair of two versions repeted three times in random order

What were the diffrences in the second pass that everyone saw? On the AVCHD - it was an overall feeling of "not good" from the non industry folks we talked into watching... to me and the DP, it was - tearing on the secondaries were imedatly visable, digital makeup could not be refined enough to remove zits without collataral damage, and extra softening to remove banding on the walls..

I could have roto'd and masked the AVCHD to make up for the blowing up secondaries, but the time spent in the gradeing suite would have paid for a small truckfull of recorders... that's a discription of why it makes sense to spend $600

I can't have this test in the wild, and i would not want it seen on anything but a P3 display anyway, that what we worked in, and what it''s meant to be displayed on.. to send it to another bonded facility with the understanding that it is only used for in-house technical eval is one thing, sending a clients tests to Vimeo is quite another...

I'm not sure what the Nano records to, but i'd hope that it is close to, or better than ProRez?

Tests are not that hard to replacate, took us most of a Saturday to work through it tho, but most post houses are happy to run tests as a part of a gig... just really test the heck out of it...

d

 

[Kholi]

Not sure how close the XDcam422 220Mb/s comes to BMD's flavor or ProRes, that's a good question.

All in all, I'm definitely not saying that your'e wrong or anyone else is. Just that it didn't really play well for me, and I am definitely willing to accept that it's just me and not having enough experience with it. I feel this way about just about everything sub RED MX/Epic, which is my problem and noone elses.

Thanks for the info, Dermot.

 

[blackdogdylan]

Not sure how close the XDcam422 220Mb/s comes to BMD's flavor or ProRes, that's a good question.

in my experience, the difference between 220 & 280 on the nano is too subtle to detect. I would think 220 should be equivalent (visually) to ProRes HQ.
some tests on the interwebs have found that not all 3rd party implementations of ProRes encoding are created equal, with some devices showing much greater noise... not saying that's the BMD (I don't remember the specifics) but it is something to consider with regard to ProRes.
I've found 220 on the nano to be excellent and very flexible in post. as to some of the other content of this post, I would just reiterate, I would not expect that going crazy dialing in a look in a PP would give you MORE latitude. in my experience, it's a dangerous rabbit hole when taking it to a proper finish. keep it simple and the colorist will thank you ; )

-d

 

[Dermot]

All in all, I'm definitely not saying that your'e wrong or anyone else is. Just that it didn't really play well for me, and I am definitely willing to accept that it's just me and not having enough experience with it. I feel this way about just about everything sub RED MX/Epic, which is my problem and noone elses.

I think it's likely that the how visiable the diffrences are is in lock step with how aggressivly you grade

If i had the time i'd try moveing the test to;
709, and playing it on a 24" and a 42" class A mon
sRGB/full range/ProRezHq and testing it on a 15" laptop
sRGB/h264/640x360/med size and test it on an iPad

I'm definatly a fan of Epic... wonderful images...

 

[Kholi]

Dude... iPad is such a wonderful way to look at footage. I keep tellin people to use one for dailies, the viewing experience and image representation is amazing. Almost feel like its deceitful sometimes!

 

[Gary W]

(However! Nirv is probably right in that maybe some people are expecting too much from what it is).

What Nirv said was that it's a great camera if you take the time to learn how to use it correctly. Just
using profiles and expecting them to give you what you want is unrealistic. This camera is a great camera
for what it is and much better than the AF100 which by the way is still 8bit. I have access to about
six AF100's to use, but I choose the FS100 every time, and in my opinion it's a much better camera
believe me I have worked with them both.

The grading I do in Resolve with this camera and with good results is graded from the in camera AVCHD
codec, not an external recorder. Danstone talks about moving to a better camera and then list the
AF100 as the choice. What I am simply saying is if he thinks he's getting better results with that camera
then he's clearly not using the FS100 correctly on the scenes he is shooting to get the most out of the camera.
Don't blame the camera, blame the operator. Spend more time with it learn it better, and get better results!
It's that simple.

 

[Kholi]

Couldn't agree more.

The footage from the FS100 doesn't hold up any less good to any other 8 bit format. How you use those 8 bits during capture are important but it's much easier to blame the camera than it is to learn to work within the limitations of a format. From HDV to HDCAM 8 bit formats need care at every stage of the pipeline. I can make FS100 footage fall apart in grading in the same way I can make HDCAM footage look like arse.
----

Combine the FS100 and a 422 high bit rate recording device and you've got a camera that can compete with any of the top end 8 bit broadcast cameras on image quality for a fraction of the price. Beyond that into the realm of 10 bit and RAW is an unfair comparison as the sky's the limit, but if you bought a camera for about £5000 and expected Cinealta or Alexa performance then is that the fault of the camera or you?

This is what I was referring to. I read his posts.

But, take the time to learn the camera... good idea... some of the issues that I had were the same ones that longtime FS100 users like Rick Burnett had/have as well. Highlights.

Does that mean Rick needs to learn more about the camera? Of all the people that post about it, I personally regard him as one of the experts, especially in the area of highlights.

At the end of the day, it's JUST a tool and people will dislike it, disagree with others opinions. I don't think there's any reason to get upset about it, just let the work prove it out.

 

[Gary W]

This is what I was referring to. I read his posts.

But, take the time to learn the camera... good idea... some of the issues that I had were the same ones that longtime FS100 users like Rick Burnett had/have as well. Highlights.

Does that mean Rick needs to learn more about the camera? Of all the people that post about it, I personally regard him as one of the experts, especially in the area of highlights.

At the end of the day, it's JUST a tool and people will dislike it, disagree with others opinions. I don't think there's any reason to get upset about it, just let the work prove it out.

No one is upset at all, in fact I'm estatic that I have a camera that gives me such great results on my projects, but if your going to post things about a camera's performance make sure you have all the facts. Some people take a lot of time to
learn how to use their camera and get the most out of it.
If many people are getting good results, and a few are not then it would figure that the few should learn the camera better so that they can get the same results as oppose to posting that the camera is not capable of doing the job.

 

[danstone]

Again, I think it comes down to the eye and what we find acceptable. I'm willing to bet that if every single one of us sat in a room and watched the same FS100 clips, half of us would say, "that looks horrible" while the other half would say, "wow, that's a beautiful image." The latter are the target demographic for this camera.

We didn't go farther with testing of an external recorder because another camera (the AF100) gave us more of what we were looking for. It's not a better camera at all-just better for us in this situation. Why would we want to try to fit a square peg into a round hole when we found a round peg? Or, I'm this case a more oval-ish peg.

 

[keith.uk]

Again, I think it comes down to the eye and what we find acceptable. I'm willing to bet that if every single one of us sat in a room and watched the same FS100 clips, half of us would say, "that looks horrible" while the other half would say, "wow, that's a beautiful image." The latter are the target demographic for this camera.

It would be handy if you could post a couple of clips containing the kind of thing that you found unsatisfactory. If you don't have time to do befores and afters, perhaps you could upload just the befores. You've clearly found some things in the footage that you find unacceptable. If you could upload a clip or two, it would be helpful to others in deciding whether what is an issue for you is also an issue for them.

 

[ARTnVIDEO]

danstone,

I'm honestly wondering why you have 50 post, and only three threads that you post in, (not a big deal) but all of the your post are in the three threads that you started, (again not a big deal) but all three threads could be seen as ( Let's continue to point out, the fact that I cant stand the FS100 ) threads. I mean, your saying how much you like or can use other camera's more than the FS100, but you have no activity in any of the other parts of this forum board... You have no post in the af100 section, my point is, you seem either anti FS100, or Pro anything that is not the FS100.

Again, I'm honestly wondering why your only activity on this board is:

1. FS100 looks so video-ish
2. Sensor reflection/ghost image
3. Couple of FS100 Projects - all FS100 complaints, and nothing else?

 

[ARTnVIDEO]

I'm thinking if your company uses other camera's for projects, you'd have at least some sort of input on the other camera's. ( besides in the FS100 section ) maybe I'm wacko?

 

[Gary W]

No ARTnVIDEO you have a great point. What we have is someone blaming their lack of skill and knowledge
of use on one of the best camera's built today in the sub 10K range.

Danstone quit posting you grips, and take the time to learn how to use your camera like the rest of us.
There is enough talent and information on this forum to help you do just that, if you don't want to par take
of it then that's your own problem. Get an AF100 who care's

This forum is an FS100 forum for people who are working closely with others to get the best preformance out of their camera's. It's not a forum for people who want to complain about things they can probably fix if they took the time.

 

[Kholi]

No ARTnVIDEO you have a great point. What we have is someone blaming their lack of skill and knowledge
of use on one of the best camera's built today in the sub 10K range.

Danstone quit posting you grips, and take the time to learn how to use your camera like the rest of us.
There is enough talent and information on this forum to help you do just that, if you don't want to par take
of it then that's your own problem. Get an AF100 who care's

This forum is an FS100 forum for people who are working closely with others to get the best preformance out of their camera's. It's not a forum for people who want to complain about things they can probably fix if they took the time.

The forum is for anyone that's interested in the FS100, and especially anyone that owns one. Dan Owns an FS100, he's completely qualified to post his findings and questions. I went and read through EVERY page of all three of those threads, and what it looks like to me is an owner trying to sort out issues that he hasn't encountered before. And, within those threads, a few other people encountered the same exact issues as Dan.

What's the problem?

 

[Kholi]

I'm thinking if your company uses other camera's for projects, you'd have at least some sort of input on the other camera's. ( besides in the FS100 section ) maybe I'm wacko?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...images&p=1986140820&viewfull=1#post1986140820

Yeah, I just shot something with the Scarlet last week and noticed similar reflections. They weren't nearly as bad as my FS100, which actually shows features of people's faces being reflected, but they were there.

On a side note, the Scarlet was such a pain on set that I almost switched it out for the FS100 - and that's saying a lot.

Just looks like an FS100 owner participating in the FS100 section to me.

 

[ARTnVIDEO]

Understood, but my point is: there are flaws with every camera, and yet danstone has found that the fs100 is the only camera that needs 3 threads on why it's not this and that. The title of the first thread he started was: "the fs100 looks so video-ish" say what you want but there has been several people telling him to try this, and that, but danstone has comes off, as being closed to whatever suggestion is made. I'm no professional, and I'm here to soak up whatever I can, but the guy just seems kinda negative to me. The whole "the fs100 looks so video-ish" is crazy subjective, and then before long here is another thread about reflection issue, and now it's why his company refused to buy 9 more fs100's. Your right he can post whatever he wants, I'm far far from PRO, I was just stating my opinion, as I noticed he has no threads or post in the AF100, or anyother section, but maybe the other cams need no fixes/critique? I guess, take my whole spill with a grain of salt.