First installment of SCCE shoot out to be released today...

MUCHHHHHH better coverage and explanation this time around, now we're talking. It still wasn't clear about some specifics, but finally got to answer some things that needed to be addressed. I still find it odd that most of the people who comment are from the DSLR side of things, is there no one caring about the upper range? Just something I saw to be consistent between the first one and second one. Lots of opinions from DSLR shooters, and not so many from F35, RED, or Alexa guys. It might just be the places where they were screened though. oh well. Either way, much more informative with background details about focus, and all the other things.

I would like to point this out though... I got reemed for bringing up topics concerning that maybe they didn't do some tests right in the first one, and I got people yelling at me saying things like there's 150 people at the top of their game, and the best DP's and yadda yadda... and yet something that should have been caught right away wasn't... a light was off for the Alexa test and miss matched. It just kinda proves my point, that no matter what, human error is a factor in these tests. If you miss a light being off which is something everyone on set including gaffers and DP's can see, you can miss something else being off like a simple setting in a camera that is much less noticeable.

Just a little vindication for me thats all. Nothing is perfect, and I like for people to understand that no matter how big the test, something that dramatically effects the footage COULD be wrong and no one catch it. The more complex something is, the harder it is to keep track of everything.
 
That second installment is very interesting. The graph of resolution actually makes sense now (unlike the first one.)

I did notice that it was repeated "The F3 and up..." were in a class of their own. However, I thought the F3 beat the pants off of the F35.
 
Duke M. said:
That second installment is very interesting. The graph of resolution actually makes sense now (unlike the first one.)

I did notice that it was repeated "The F3 and up..." were in a class of their own. However, I thought the F3 beat the pants off of the F35.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was very shocked with the performance of the F35. I just don't think it hold up to the other high end cameras, or even the F3. The top dogs, in this test, to me, were definitely the Alexa and RED MX. I am absolutely not a RED fanboy, but the MX in these tests is very impressive. With the coming of the EPIC, I am hoping that, maybe, the rental cost of RED MX cameras may become much, much more affordable to us bottom feeder types. I like the look from that camera, in these tests at least.
 
I think that though the F35 doesn't hold up to these tests as well, it holds a more filmic look as a whole. It may not be as clean as the F3 but it has maybe a little more organic 'feel' to it.
 
I'm very happy that the F3 is being held to be in the same league as cameras costing 2-5 times as much. Maybe at the lower end of that league but still its performing very well even without S-Log.
 
Duke M. said:
I'm very happy that the F3 is being held to be in the same league as cameras costing 2-5 times as much. Maybe at the lower end of that league but still its performing very well even without S-Log.
Click to expand...

Being an FS100 owner, I am disappointed that it was not available for the tests, but seeing other tests comparing the FS100 to the F3 leads me to interpolate that it would have faired well; at least between the AF100, F3 and the HD-DSLRs.
 
From the side by sides that Philip Bloom did I don't doubt that the F100 would likely end up between the F3 and AF100, both above the DSLRs, in most of the tests.

I am shocked by how poorly the Phantom Flex and Weissman (? spelling) did in most of the stress tests so far, for being such expensive cameras.

I'm ecstatic to see that the tests used actual signal to noise ratio to measure sensitivity and we can see from the graph that the signal to noise ratio of the F3 is near the top compared to all cameras and tied with the best of them in sensitivity and SNR. Our eyeball perception that the images with pumped up gain were no more noisy than most cameras without gain was actually correct.
 
Last edited:
looking at the charts and looking at the real world test
the dslrs have almost the same resolving power as the af100 and YET look too soft on a real world test.
 
Duke M. said:
From the side by sides that Philip Bloom did I don't doubt that the F100 would likely end up between the F3 and AF100, both above the DSLRs, in most of the tests.

I am shocked by how poorly the Phantom Flex and Weissman (? spelling) did in most of the stress tests so far, for being such expensive cameras.

I'm ecstatic to see that the tests used actual signal to noise ratio to measure sensitivity and we can see from the graph that the signal to noise ratio of the F3 is near the top compared to all cameras and tied with the best of them in sensitivity and SNR. Our eyeball perception that the images with pumped up gain were no more noisy than most cameras without gain was actually correct.
Click to expand...




keep in mind these cameras are able to give you over 1000 fps a second high speed.with that being the priority, other things start lagging behind. doesn't mean you can't get an amazing image out of it though. same with a lot of these cameras, but some of the best of the best footage i've ever seen/worked with was off a phantom hd gold.
 
tom.wong said:
keep in mind these cameras are able to give you over 1000 fps a second high speed.with that being the priority, other things start lagging behind. doesn't mean you can't get an amazing image out of it though. same with a lot of these cameras, but some of the best of the best footage i've ever seen/worked with was off a phantom hd gold.
Click to expand...

That's when a cameraman knows how to get the best out of the camera by playing up to its strengths and avoiding its weaknesses, such as avoiding the situations in the stress tests.
 
bingo.

anybody who is truly good at what they do can make a good looking image. the whole point to any test though, is to see how much you have to work to get that good looking image. and with the stress tests you see that clearly there is a major difference in higher end cameras, rightfully so. so you can just do what you want to do, and the camera will hold up to it, rather than you having to figure out how to compensate FOR the camera. saves time, money, headache, and let's you concentrate on other important areas. story, acting, etc. etc.
 
+1.

My working theory is that those with low budgets need it easy because we are usually wearing several hats already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top