FS700 Firmupdate - after that really better low light qualities?

B

benn

Well-known member
I heard that after the firmware update 3.0 the low light qualities of the FS700 become better. Do the owners of the update made this experience?
Is it worth to spend 500 € for that? (Apart from the 4K stuff)
Benn
 
I have to say since getting the sigma 18-35 f1.8 Ive been getting very pleasant s-log footage since the upgrade. Not saying low light Is better than before but the S-log feature sure does help with the DR. The new upgrade is definitely worth it IMHO.
 
There is only one way to get better real low light performance and that is a more sensitive (expensive) imager. You can play around with SW to eliminate noise but this will also degrade the picture so you try to counter that etc etc, you don't get a true organic picture, whatever that really mens but you can see the difference.

Exposed properly the FS700 is really remarkable in this price class IMHO.
 
Well, S-Log 2 gives it a bit of a low light boost. If you Vimeo TobyLoc's S-Log 2 tests and Matthew Allard (Sic?) tests, there's for sure a difference. Matthew shot some stuff at 20,000 ISO and it looks pretty good for 20,000. That's completely unthinkable with cinegammas.

With that said, you really need a recorder to take advantage of S-Log2.
 
gene_can_sing said:
Well, S-Log 2 gives it a bit of a low light boost. If you Vimeo TobyLoc's S-Log 2 tests and Matthew Allard (Sic?) tests, there's for sure a difference. Matthew shot some stuff at 20,000 ISO and it looks pretty good for 20,000. That's completely unthinkable with cinegammas.

With that said, you really need a recorder to take advantage of S-Log2.
Click to expand...

OK, so I have the day off and I'm doing 7Q pixel peeping Armageddon. I think I might be wrong about the better low with S-Log2. From my eye, it seems like ISO 2000 on S-Log2 is about the same brightness as ISO 640 on Cinegamma 4. Has anyone else experienced this? Seems like the ISO for S-Log 2 is a bit inflated. It's definitely not 1 1/2 stops brighter as it should be over Cine 4.

But then again, Mathew's low light tests look pretty good though, especially the really high ISOs

 
Last edited:
I agree! When playing with the 7Q I shot by chance 2 nearly identical shots with sLog and Cine4.
Canon 16-35 on metabones adapter (no speedbooster) f 3.5 at 35mm, both AVCHD
Screenshots in FCP 10.1.1 (don't look in detail at the mess in my printing corner)

sLog ISO 2000

slog2.jpg



Cinegamma 4 ISO 640

Cinegamma4.jpg
 
gene_can_sing said:
OK, so I have the day off and I'm doing 7Q pixel peeping Armageddon. I think I might be wrong about the better low with S-Log2. From my eye, it seems like ISO 2000 on S-Log2 is about the same brightness as ISO 640 on Cinegamma 4. Has anyone else experienced this? Seems like the ISO for S-Log 2 is a bit inflated. It's definitely not 1 1/2 stops brighter as it should be over Cine 4.
Click to expand...

I might have to retract what I just said since the first time I only looked at the 7Q screen.

I went back for a 2nd look and on the 7Q monitor, S-Log 2 at ISO 2000 looks almost the same in exposure as Cine 4 at ISO 640. However, I glanced at the FS700 LCD screen, and Cine 4 at ISO 640 was considerably under exposed compared to S-Log 2 at ISO 2000, at least 1 stop. So I can really notice the exposure difference on the camera LCD screen, but there is barely exposure difference on the 7Q.

Is this because the 7Q is taking the feed from the RAW output vs. the camera LCD? I suppose it's not really that big of a deal since you are suppose to use S-Log2 with the 7Q.

So maybe there is better low light with S-Log2.
 
How are u comparing? Different Gamma Curves are differently exposed. Slog2 and cine4 are in relative terms absolutey the same in "brightness". Slog2 is just rated at iso2000 and is about the same amount "underexposed" (1,5 stops) in comparison to a cine4 at iso640,
 
It would make sense that they would be the same. They ought to be the native ISO of the sensor. I don't understand why one is called 640 and one is 2000 though, i must be missing something. It's as though they are specified *after* the gamma is applied so they're more 'effective ISO' rather than the actual ISO the camera is rated for.

cheers
Paul
 
Tom Welsh of Get Deluxe said that he noticed a massive difference once he upgraded to new firmware. I haven't got mine done yet but its on my list of upgrade, Ive always thought that it was very decent in lowlight with the speed booster anyway.
 
paulcurtis said:
It would make sense that they would be the same. They ought to be the native ISO of the sensor. I don't understand why one is called 640 and one is 2000 though, i must be missing something. It's as though they are specified *after* the gamma is applied so they're more 'effective ISO' rather than the actual ISO the camera is rated for.

cheers
Paul
Click to expand...

ISO is always extremely gamma dependent. ISO is defined by where middle grey is placed on the gamma curve, but what middle grey is and where that falls on the curve can be defined quite arbitrarily. People lately think ISO is a lot more than it is since ISO adjustment in some cameras is used synonymous with analog gain, in some it is a combination of digital and analog gain, and in others it is only digital gain. In reality it is none of those, it is an exposure rating that changes as a biproduct of many different image adjustments that affect light response in midtones...

Slog2 middle grey is 32% or something, Cine4 is around 42%, so yes they may look similar despite different ISO guidelines. Slog2 is designed to LOOK underexposed relative to cinegammas at the same gain, or another way of thinking about it is it was designed to BE underexposed relative to cinegammas at the same ISO, or rather it wasn't designed to look like anything at all so much as it is designed to organize you image data in a particular way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top