No, no, no, no! Definitely don't do that as when you go under 1/48 with 24fps it will start to look "videoish". Too blurry. Film needs to to be slightly juddery.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FS100 w/ Nanoflash Testing
- Thread starter Kholi
- Start date
No, no, no, no! Definitely don't do that as when you go under 1/48 with 24fps it will start to look "videoish". Too blurry. Film needs to to be slightly juddery.
Jean-Philippe
Well-known member
Having only been able to do one comparison so far between the nanoflash at 80mbs with long gop recording, and the internal avchd at 24mbs.
I am very pleased to say that the nanoflash is definitely better than the internal recording
color rendition 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 is not really different at all (at least not to me)
sharpness and visible detail is noticeably increased however
looking at a spiderweb in my nle and having the two clips one over the other (avchd 24mbs and nano at 80mbs)
Its surprising to see that a lot of the web has just been thrown away by the avchd compression
and looking at the exact same spot with the nanoflash footage and seeing the missing parts makes me very glad i decided to purchase the nano
Can you post some still grab to show us?
I'm looking at s35mm film right now, going through it frame by frame. On my next monitor is RED material. Nope. No difference in motion. What is this magical "videomotion" that you guys see? Is it only on the FS100? Because stuff shot on that looks pretty good to me too. I just saw the AF100 film The Raid in a theater, looked pretty good motion wise too.
If there are no examples and people can't give a reason, then it falls into the audiophile tomfoolery category. "You just can't hear it!" "hmm, ok..."
No, it falls into the category of you not being sensitive enough to it to tell. It's that simple. I already explained that if you do not have two mirror images (or video) to explore then those who can't see it still won't see it. If it's fine to you, then you're all squared-away.
No, no, no, no! Definitely don't do that as when you go under 1/48 with 24fps it will start to look "videoish". Too blurry. Film needs to to be slightly juddery.
And, if you can't tell the difference in motion between formats, you probably could pick out a change from 1/40 to 1/48.
Having only been able to do one comparison so far between the nanoflash at 80mbs with long gop recording, and the internal avchd at 24mbs.
I am very pleased to say that the nanoflash is definitely better than the internal recording
color rendition 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 is not really different at all (at least not to me)
sharpness and visible detail is noticeably increased however
looking at a spiderweb in my nle and having the two clips one over the other (avchd 24mbs and nano at 80mbs)
Its surprising to see that a lot of the web has just been thrown away by the avchd compression
and looking at the exact same spot with the nanoflash footage and seeing the missing parts makes me very glad i decided to purchase the nano
You can also see it pretty blatantly when you move the camera. Try a pan on a wide with both then compare. When the scene's static without a lot of very fine detail (like spider webs) they are pretty identical, but lots of detail the 220Mb/s streaks ahead quickly. Glad you got your hands on it!
The color representation, I noticed, wasn't much different but a little more flexible when you start to shove it around. And some colors were slightly more vibrant, but that may not be due to the 4:2:2 at all and just recording from the HDMI.