First downloadable MTS Files from FS700

Not too keen on the results from the high-contrast test. But without knowing how the camera was setup, it's hard to make much of a judgement call.
 
I think it´s no cinegamma. When looking at scopes, histogram, it goes down to 0 IRE. I assume cinegammas are flat.
 
These are poorly done tests, in my opinion. I wish that the rolling shutter test was a more real world test, and not violently jerking the camera like that. What does doing that prove?

And the ISO settings test includes no info whatsoever about what ISO settings were used at which points in the video! Very lame.

This man deserves to have his FS700 confiscated by Sony right away.
 
Jeeez, that was most certainly shot at the Sony booth when someone put an SD card in the camera and shot the Sony model right ahead. That´s no test^^

But as it´s MTS files, it finally shows that there is no visible aliasing and resolution seems to be very very good. I couldn´t judge that from all those vimeo videos, no matter how creative they are.
 
Jeeez, that was most certainly shot at the Sony booth when someone put an SD card in the camera and shot the Sony model right ahead. That´s no test^^

But as it´s MTS files, it finally shows that there is no visible aliasing and resolution seems to be very very good. I couldn´t judge that from all those vimeo videos, no matter how creative they are.

I have to kind of disagree there. I've downloaded the MTS, looked at some frames and looking at the channels. I find the frames really horribly compressed, worse compression than my FS100. I think this would be masking the underlying resolution quite a bit. I've sharper more detailed frames out of my camera.

It does look like those high contrast aliasing errors are not present anymore which is great.

I also think that the benefits of 4k downsampling are going to be pretty hidden in a 4:2:0 AVCHD stream.

cheers
paul
 
I have to kind of disagree there. I've downloaded the MTS, looked at some frames and looking at the channels. I find the frames really horribly compressed, worse compression than my FS100. I think this would be masking the underlying resolution quite a bit. I've sharper more detailed frames out of my camera.

So that means this time an external recorder will make a bigger difference than with the FS100?
But why is the stream worse compressed than on the FS100? I don´t understand why Sony is doing that.

I also recognized that the noise looks worse than on the FS100. I mean the structure of the noise. It´s not that fine grain like.
 
I have a feeling this guy popped in a sd card in to the camera at NAB as has been suggested. On top of that the recorded bit rate looks too low as compression goes south once the camera starts to move. I'm still set on the FS700. These tests just make the cam look bad as did the XL-H1 test done years ago by an individual who popped in a tape at NAB and did this same thing.
 
So that means this time an external recorder will make a bigger difference than with the FS100?
But why is the stream worse compressed than on the FS100? I don´t understand why Sony is doing that.

I also recognized that the noise looks worse than on the FS100. I mean the structure of the noise. It´s not that fine grain like.

It's preproduction i assume, i'm sure if Sony saw what he was doing they'd have stopped him. Perhaps they've not finished tweaking the compression.

Either way i would imagine that yes, an external recorder would be more useful. However ideally you'd want a recorder that records full RGB (4:4:4) that the HDMI is putting out. Every single RGB pixel. Because in theory, being down sampled, each one of those pixels are real, whereas the 1080p from the 100 you're dealing with debayering and so it would be slightly soft.

Also the OLPF for the 700 will be optimised for 4K, and by downsampling you're achieving a much better result. Much better.

In theory...

cheers
Paul
 
Back
Top