NEX FS 100 footage thread and links

Lee Saxon said:
Nope. That's called RAW. For that you gotta talk to Red. Or buy a $600 stills camera -.- (it's possible the motion market is a few years behind on the digital revolution)
Click to expand...

Actually you can use luts with normal video :). One way I go - You have to convert your video to the Cineform intermediate codec and use their colour grading tool called first light. It allows 3Dluts - I use speedgrade too create them. Shoot as flat as your camera settings will allow and too the highest quality codec you can ( I capture HDMI to either Cineform or Nanoflash ). You will be able to have very deep control of your colour. Obviously the better the acquisition the further you can push stuff but luts are possible in post..........
 
HHL said:
http://www.vimeo.com/22465945

WOW!! (Barring any surprises)...looks like there is a new indie "King of the Hill". DANG!! That's some nice range....the sharpness is impressive...and it still has an organic feel. Looks like it's F3 heritage is apparent. Way to go Sony!
Click to expand...


I looked at this footage on a good CRT monitor and it looks simply gorgeous. Yes very organic and filmic. It is so clean it is ridiculous, even with low light blacks. If you added some grain to this footage, untrained viewers would never know it wasn't film. It is also apparent what a good ND filter will do for you with this camera. We were playing devils advocate with our budget goals, and were looking at the AF100 as an alternative to Red or Alexa for our feature. But since we have seen F3 and now FS100 footage... the AF100 option is off the table. We can have two FS100 sets ups and be really efficient with our scene coverage for the price of an F3 or a Red. Yea it won't be Red or Alexa.. but I'm not sure anyone would complain that it isn't. If this can really hold up on the big screen as we hope it will, this little gem will really be a milestone in Indie Film making.
 
I looked at this footage on a good CRT monitor and it looks simply gorgeous. Yes very organic and filmic. It is so clean it is ridiculous, even with low light blacks. If you added some grain to this footage, untrained viewers would never know it wasn't film. It is also apparent what a good ND filter will do for you with this camera. We were playing devils advocate with our budget goals, and were looking at the AF100 as an alternative to Red or Alexa for our feature. But since we have seen F3 and now FS100 footage... the AF100 option is off the table. We can have two FS100 sets ups and be really efficient with our scene coverage for the price of an F3 or a Red. Yea it won't be Red or Alexa.. but I'm not sure anyone would complain that it isn't. If this can really hold up on the big screen as we hope it will, this little gem will really be a milestone in Indie Film making.
Click to expand...

Yes.....from what I can see (so far), this thing is going to shake things up. I'm a bit sad for Panny because it's everything that I wish the AF100 were. I'm NOT saying that the AF100 isn't a wonder in it's own right, but it really doesn't have the IQ "WOW factor" that the F3/FS100 has. Noiseless, low-light, organic, dynamic range, min-aliasing, small form factor. In each of these categories the FS100 has the upper hand on the AF100. Again....I'm not saying that the AF100 doesn't have its place, its user base, its strong suits....but I'll suffer the pain of addressing the NDs in exchange for the rest or those advantages. Congrats to us all!!!
 
It seems like maybe this is part of what RED had in mind for their Scarlet many, many, many years ago...


Glad the see the interviewer ask a few “real” questions about what he saw and how the camera compared to others.
I've seen the image stabilization “jump” on tripods before but I wouldn't mind hearing from the lucky few who've shot with it how it stacks up to other cameras out there – Like the EX-1 more so than the F3.


I guess that will all come in time however.
 
The image stabilization should be turned off when you're tripod mounted, under most circumstances. It seems the demo model they're referring to had its OIS left on. I'm surprised the interviewer didn't catch that (or at least know enough to see if that was the issue).
 
It is a bit annoying the emphasis on size. So we could have have had ND filter and 10 bit sdi if the box was one inch longer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sincerely if this is true (and not Sony marketing afraid that the fs-100 would be too close to the F3) then it would be very stupid. Sacrifice image quality and practicality (nd filter for a 800 iso camera) just because of 1 or 2 inch.
 
There's no way Sony is going to make the fs100 as close to the F3 as we would like. Even if it were say 3,000 more at 9k, it would still hurt the sales of the f3. Why would they give us the extra features when they can sell it for more than twice as much with the f3. I don't care what they say their marketing this as, It is the perfect dslr KILLER. And I know how annoying it is to state anything being a " KILLER" But it's the truth. This camera has everything, well.. almost everything we have wanted in a dslr, now it's here and people are still ragging on it about features. Come on, this camera is a game changer for the price point. Not to mention, it's going to make the others step up to the plate to compete. Sony has done what Red wanted to do, and im guessing they will provide us with a higher res and more frame rates within the next year or two.
 
Danielvilliers said:
It is a bit annoying the emphasis on size. So we could have have had ND filter and 10 bit sdi if the box was one inch longer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sincerely if this is true (and not Sony marketing afraid that the fs-100 would be too close to the F3) then it would be very stupid. Sacrifice image quality and practicality (nd filter for a 800 iso camera) just because of 1 or 2 inch.
Click to expand...

That unfortunately is not how it works, the flange focal distance length would not be an issue, and ND filter would require significantly more vertical height and width than what it would afforded by the current FS100 design. Consider that 3 ND filters would require 4 filter slots (one blank) which fully covers the sensor area that would need to be rotated around on a wheel in a central axis above the sensor. An S35 sensor size means that each filter is significantly larger than traditional 1/3" video cameras. Quite simply there are real physical limitations relative to the size of the camera body.

That fact that this camera is using a dSLR mount means that they expect you to use still lenses and its equivalent solution for ND filters. Which are abundant. There is also the possibility that an entrepreneurial individual could make a simple ND filter adapter for the FS100 (it would be a fairly easy undertaking). The real marketing mishaps I would say is the limitations to 25/50p on European models, which is a completely unnecessary limitation.

Having seen the S-log footage in the other thread, the F3 seems to have a significant advantage over the FS100. Its apparent that both cameras exist in completely different segments of the market.
 
To anyone who thinks that a 10 bit output would be to close to the F3 has to see the s-log footage and you have to add the power zoom option, genlock, 3d, pal/ntsc, 444, slog etc... even the form factor for many would favor the F3.

Edit : I forgot the built in ND. I think that the difference in capabilities between the two is quite big. At first I was not too concerned about the ND, but I did not realise that it was a 800 iso camera. So you will need some damn powerful ND on that to simulate 48 fps shutter during daytime on that camera. It will not be the same that with the 100/200 iso of the Canons
 
Last edited:
Steve Castle said:
There is also the possibility that an entrepreneurial individual could make a simple ND filter adapter for the FS100 (it would be a fairly easy undertaking).
Click to expand...

A slot for a small (52mm perhaps) drop in filter, like the one at the back of Nikon/Canon supertelephotos, does seem to be the easiest solution.

And, frustratingly, one Sony could have probably implemented themselves pretty easily.
 
fortunately this is a digital camera ...not a film camera where alittle dirt didn´t cause havoc - if they did this , it would have to be an isolated filter chamber so dust wouldn´t reach the sensor and that would require something else in the optical path - I personally think a variable ND an easy solution where finer adjustment will be a necessity - I would have loved to have a couple of in-camera ND´s but, hey , if I can get the camera I´ll get over it
 
I haven't seen a highlight I like from the AF100 footage posted online. And I haven't seen a highlight I dislike from the Sony FS100 footage posted online. I was so close to getting the AF100 this week, in fact.

Can I use manual Nikon glass with the Sony cameras? I only ever hear about folks using Canon lenses on Sonys.
 
Do not do not do not do not buy anything with the word Fotodiox on it. It is utterly worthless. There will be so much play in the mount that touching your follow focus will significantly reframe your shots.

I haven't used the other one but being even cheaper than the Fotodiox I'm pretty leery.

Novoflex, on the other hand, makes really good ones.
 
Are people still buying Fotodiox? It's chinese adapters with re-printed label on them for x4 times the ebay price. Christ...
 
"actually the form factor interests me. I own both an AF101 and a Sony F3 and they have more traditional form factors but they suck to be honest. The only decent form factor is a shoulder mounted camera, everything else needs to be accessorised to make them work properly. The FS100 in many way is a little like a poor man’s Red Epic in it’s stylings. Very modular. You build it up the way you want it as there are lots of screw holes all over it."

http://philipbloom.net/2011/04/26/fs100/

Slow motion test: http://vimeo.com/22911903
 
Interesting. Really looking forward to Bloom's comparison/review.

Keep in mind the slow motion clip he posted is not the normal 1080/60p but a "super slow motion" mode where he got approx. 150 fps out of it. Or something like that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top