FS100 for dummies

M

morgan_moore

Major Contributor
Some silly questions about the camera..

-does it have an internal mic

(I see this as useful for synch audio only)

===

the codec

what is the pain level in transcoding for editing in FCP

====

S
 
1) hmm a crap mic like on the EX1 or canon DSLR would be good !

2)

I have no experiecne of AVCHD , Ive only ever shot two cams EX1 and canon DSLR(s)

Im a newb to editing..
(either H264->.prores via stream clip (canon) or XDcam unwrapped)

I dont L+T at the mo - just get my prores or XD clips and drag it into a 'Bin' in FCP

Basically will I need a time consuming process (like a tracnscoding a DSLR) or be editing in 2 mins from getting the clips on my pooter (EX1)

Thanks

S
 
Nobody is asking sillier Qs than me :-) I know it ships w/a shotgun mic, and I suppose the 'pain' is somewhat dictated by your hardware. What kind of computer do you have?
 
olindacat said:
Nobody is asking sillier Qs than me :-) I know it ships w/a shotgun mic, and I suppose the 'pain' is somewhat dictated by your hardware. What kind of computer do you have?
Click to expand...

I have a mac 10.5.8, 2GHz 6 gig of ram, probably 5 years old and FCP

there is no pain with the EX1, Im editing in two mins

S
 
In about a month the new FCP will come out and the transcode will happen in the background while you use the avchd to edit immediately.

For now a prores transcode from AVCHD is the best option.
 
Yes you must transcode (recommended to ProRes but you can use anything), yes the workflow is similar to DSLR that needs the same transcode (in FCP), Yes the native ISO of the chip has been reported at roughly 800 and is extremely good in low light (see www.philipbloom.net for examples, he did a detailed real-world test recently - similar to F3, beats AF100 and 5D Mark II).
 
So it could take an hour or so to get editing - at least I wont be fiddling with sound files and PE too !

(BTW I think 6 gig is the most for my machine but like I said the EX1 is ready to chop out of the camera)

this could influence the ability of the cam to do fast turnaround - I guess thats where a Prores recorder might help - or buying an F3?

-----

I understand base is '800' ISO

so how many DB of gain is 1600, or 3200
 
I believe that is correct, that gain 0 is 800ISO. If you look at Philip Bloom's comparison of the AF100/FS100/F3/5D that he posted recently, he gives estimates of what the gains mean (he believes) on the FS100. Also, in the pre-production there is no negative gain settings (so nothing below ISO800) and I for one hope they do add some negative gain settings in the final version. Without this, ND filtering is going to be a MUST outdoors, period.

There is no internal microphone. I asked for the same exact reason. Because of this, I plan on designing a small XLR to mic connector that is intended for ONE thing, just sync sound without the bigger mic it comes with. Not that the mic is bad, I have no clue, but most of the time I just want something to match if I am using another sound person OR I have XLR coming from a Rode NTG-2 anyways. My idea is the mic is installed into the XLR connector. Will be easy to make.

With AVCHD you can edit directly in Premiere, you can log and transfer into FCP, you can transcode with something like clipwrap or handbrake (or others), or hopefully, the plugin from apple that handles AF100 footage will work with FS100 footage as well (since they are both AVCHD).
 
Hmm

Im suspicious of the new FCP - if its like stills software Lightroom and Aperture, it can get you in a right mess - if you have 20+TB of media in your own on and offline structure

Suspicious of stuff working in the background, generally

AFAIK the 'work' of the transcode (H264-pro res with DSLR) still has to be done, Id prefer to set it go and have dinner rather than have a computer working (or not working) as I edit

I have been very happy with my simple directory based workflow

Streamclip has worked for me well even though it takes time

Google AVCHD and mac gives pages and pages of stressed camcorder users !

S
 
First off we don't really know how the background transcoder is doing its job in the new FCP. I'm sure you'll be able to turn it off and do it the old fashioned way.

Avchd is not an editing codec no matter what editing programs work with it natively and might cause problems with transitions and any post work.

It has been proven over and over that transcoding AVCHD to a better 10 bit codec gives you more wiggle room in post.

If you're still suspicious and stressed, then buy a recorder that encodes in a format that doesn't stress you. Although pulldown removal for true 24p might rear its ugly head if you're the impatient type.
 
Last edited:
mico said:
First off we don't really know how the background transcoder is doing its job in the new FCP. I'm sure you'll be able to turn it off and do it the old fashioned way.

Avchd is not an editing codec no matter what editing programs work with it natively and might cause problems with transitions and any post work.

It has been proven over and over that transcoding AVCHD to a better 10 bit codec gives you more wiggle room in post.

If you're still suspicious and stressed, then buy a recorder that encodes in a format that doesn't stress you. Although pulldown removal for true 24p might rear its ugly head if you're the impatient type.
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe that has been shown to give you more wiggle room because the incoming file doesn't dictate how the footage is handled inside the software, which is typically float based from what I see. The important distinction is intermediate files. If you go in and out of different applications, AT THAT POINT, it is important to be using a high quality codec to preserve as much information as possible, like 10-bit. However, as I said, if you never leave the application and do all your work to the original file in that tool, you'll be fine.

I have tested this MANY times with AVCHD files in Premiere pro with heavy grading to see what the final outcome was.

Since I do use multiple passes in and out of my editing software (as I do a lot of VFX with Maya, After Effects, Motion, Blender, etc) I have edited many times directly with AVCHD files coming in, then export to ProRes 422 ALWAYS.
 
Then you should tell cineform that they got it all wrong.

From Cineforms website:

Chroma Interpolation: 4:2:0 → 4:2:2. Background: Most HDV and AVCHD camcorders record chroma (color) in a format known as 4:2:0. Without diving too deep, 4:2:0 chroma is half the color resolution of more professional 4:2:2 formats. When Neo Scene detects 4:2:0 chroma it properly interpolates the source chroma to 4:2:2 for more accurate color processing during editing and effects work. And if you ever "key" your material, CineForm’s chroma interpolation will substantially improve your resulting visual fidelity.
 
Im pretty sure the codec is 'thin'

I dont have great expectations of a deep gradeable codec from this camera - im pretty good at lighting to control DR in a scene

I just want reasurance that there is a simple workflow to get from AVCDH to a FCP friendly codec like Prores

Ideally Prores as that is what my back catalogue is in

Using todays tech how can one get to Pro Res on a non intel mac and how long will it take?
 
Last edited:
You are missing what I am telling you, the NLE editors do not work with the material internally as AVCHD. That is the source format. Once that data is read in and used, it is converted to an intermediate file format, just as audio applications take EVERY 16-bit and 24-bit and convert to a 32-bit float variant on most systems, or a 48-bit int variant on ProTools|HD systems. Internally, the video data is handled as a float.

I've run the same material through Premiere and AE as both AVCHD and ProRes 422 to confirm the SAME filter settings on both using Keylight and other tools and the results were the same. Once something has been converted to 4:2:0, converting it back to 4:2:2 can't give you lost information. And given the internal processing engines of the NLE I have used do not work with the source codec but an internal codec, then the quanitization and bit-depth concerns are totally dependent on the internal processing (which they would be no matter what input source you are starting with). Furthermore, you are limited by the bit depth of your plugins as well.

Now, this is for Premiere and After Effects, maybe this is not the same with all NLE, but my understanding was that Final Cut works the same way (although I have not confirmed that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top