Barry_Green
Moderator
It is absolutely not true that the color coming out of the Panasonic is 4:2:0. Not true whatsoever -- the color in the AF100 out the HD-SDI and HDMI is full 4:2:2 and I have shot color res charts on the AF100 to verify it.
The FS100 - A different perspective.
- Thread starter pulpfiction007
- Start date
Unfortunately, the 8-bit and 10-bit question is still not fully answered. If the source here made a factual error regarding the Panasonic, it calls into question his whole statement.
Personally, I think it is only 8-bit. The biggest clue to me - Sony would have bragged about a 10-bit output if the camera had it. If not, the marketing dept. would prefer not to draw attention to an 8-bit only HDMI.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Normally I would agree with this. But remember the EX-1 and how many people
thought it was outputting 8 bit or 'padded' 10 bit? Sony didn't brag about
the 10 bit output on it, and there was a ton of misinformation floating around
internet forums as people tried to predict that it would only be 8 bit as no camera
that cheap would have 10bit and so on. It took awhile to get to the bottom
of that one as I recall. But normally, yeah, you'd think they'd want to let
everyone know that it was 10 bit if it was. Of course, there are bigger
things in the world to be worrying about for Sony engineers I expect. We'll
know soon I am sure.
I should mention - the other NXCAM, the NX5U, has true 10-bit HD/SDI output. Sony does mention that in its literature.
Is anyone else scratching their heads wondering why Sony would put HD/SDI in their cheaper NXCAM model, and not include it in the FS100? I say lose the composite connectors and put HD/SDI there.
Speaking of composites, the AF100 can import/export time code through one of the composite connections. Does the FS100 do this as well? Is the FS100's HDMI timecode port an export only port?
Perhaps subjectively to you the 5d seems pleasing.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
The succes of the 5DmkII has to do with the fact it mimics 35mm film so well and it takes alot from à video camera to do the same. Forget about technical aspects because it's hard to beat a 5DmkII in this respect.
It hardly mimics 35mm film at all.
35mm film is a mess. its grainy and very easy to ruin. What separated pros from amateurs back in the day was just getting a sharp image period. The DSLR's made it so easy to be a competent photographer because you can check your work on the spot. Try turning off your LCD review time, turn off auto focus, and use a light meter to expose, and only carry a 128MB card with you. ( i have one i can mail to you to try this...) then go take some photos and see how it looks.
35mm film isnt ANYWHERE NEARLY as grainless as current DSLR images are. 5DmkII @ ISO1600 has a simialr "grain" as 400 speed film. Shooting ISO1600 Trimax, pushed to 3200 ISO in the lab, results in unintelligible images. We are shooting stills at ISO6400 nowadays with excellent image quality. The 5D looks nothing like film at all.
Film:
http://blog.maurizioagelli.com/2010/10/comparing-film-grain.html
Probably the Convergent designs Gemini, and the Samurai.
This is actually a really cool idea and I'm gonna start doing it. Is reading the in-camera light meter cheating? 'Cause I do have a real one somewhere around here...
To be fair there is one way in which this would be harder than really shooting on film: much less dynamic range / nailing exposure more critical. I started on DSLRs and was shocked at how much I could dodge/burn into view when I first shot film.
Last edited:
well thats why RAw is so cool, its like a film negative. it holds magical detail that wasn't there...
BobbyMurcerFan
Well-known member
Timur,
Did someone slip you acid or something, LOL? Seriously, I've shot film a lot and don't know what you're talking about. It's not a mess, it's not easy to ruin, and modern film is so grainLESS that it looks too much like digital stills sometimes. Exposing with a light meter is not difficult and neither is manually focusing or using an optical viewfinder. Most people prefer an OV to an EV or LCD. Film also handles blow-outs much more organically/gracefully/artistically/[fill in positive adverb] than most video cameras do.
Dude, put down the tea, J/K!
Last edited:
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
You have to get past all technical aspects and look on how the final image turns out and then the 5DmkII is just spot on.
Last edited:
Viddovation
Veteran
For all effective purposes, you're talking about a perceived aesthetic.
The "succes" [sic] of the 5DmkII is primarily due to price-point. If cameras like the RED one, Arri Alexa, Sony F35, Sony F3, Red EPIC, and even AF100 were the same price to purchase and shoot on (batteries and media) as the Canon 5DmkII, well - I doubt many shooters or DPs would use the Canon 5DkII for anything others than still photos on set.
Under the right conditions I'll concede that the Canon 5DmkII is capable of producing very pleasing images.
Your perception that that Canon 5DmkII is "spot on" due to how it "mimics 35mm film" is just that - perception. If your client shares this perception, this may be justified.
But ignoring "technical aspects" sounds like a reckless and irresponsible thing for a shooter or DP to do. Not knowing the strengths *and* limitations of your equipment - be it the $2,500 Canon 5DmkII or the $200,000 Sony F35, leaves you dangerously prone to making production decisions that result in poor footage.
Like any camera, the Canon 5DmkII is composed of very specific components. It is made up of "technical aspects" if you will. The look and feel - aesthetic, if you will - can therefore be quantified. If you don't agree with this statement - it really says more about your ability to assess and deconstruct images than it does about either the camera, or the craft.
"it takes alot from à video camera to do the same." Would you care to be more specific? The most unique feature of the Canon 5DmkII is the fact that it's a full frame 35mm sensor. Which makes it larger than S35 - a motion picture film standard. That means the nature of the depth of field response on the Canon 5DmkII is actually shallower than you would generally see in films at the cinema-plex. If you like this aesthetic, than the 5DmkII is pretty much the only game in town at the moment.
But outside of super shallow depth of field, the Canon 5DmkII isn't really so hard to beat in terms of image qualities and aesthetics. RED One & EPIC, Sony F35 and SRW9000PL, Arri Alexa, Sony F3, and even Panasonic AF100.... all of these cameras offer better, higher bitrate recordings (either internally or with an external recorder), and can be programmed or graded to look very similar in terms of color response to the Canon 5DmkII if desired. And they can do all of this with less aliasing, less jello, less skew, less moire, and so on.
The Canon 5DmkII isn't better. It's just cheaper.
tom.wong
Well-known member
it's funny, I've never seen film have hideous colored noise, colored burned in streaks in the image, aliasing/moire, and be limited to a long gop codec, in a camera body that can over heat fairly easily. when a dslr can give up 14 stops of latitude/dynamic range, hell give me a completely usable 11 stops, and we can start comparing it to film.
just because u can put a manual focus lens on it and get some shallow depth of field with a super 35 or more field of view doesn't it a true film alternative. there would be no reason to have anything else if that's all it took. You can watch black swan, and you can easily see what was shot on 7d, in the subway, it looked like garbage compared to the rest of the film, shot on super 16, blown up an extra 30% in certain points for a increase in grain for the look. It was gorgeous.
just because u can put a manual focus lens on it and get some shallow depth of field with a super 35 or more field of view doesn't it a true film alternative. there would be no reason to have anything else if that's all it took. You can watch black swan, and you can easily see what was shot on 7d, in the subway, it looked like garbage compared to the rest of the film, shot on super 16, blown up an extra 30% in certain points for a increase in grain for the look. It was gorgeous.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Thanks to everybody for the posts....Excellent insights and comparisons.
Please though, I never intended to bash the 5DMK2 with this thread...because for what it is, people have achieved excellent results with it. My whole intent of this was to serve as a reminder....myself esp.- that these days, with so many choices - DLSRs, prosumer 3 chip progressive cameras with all the bells and whistles, and the new breed (AF100, FS100,F3) the cameras are truly no longer the limiting factor. Yes...there are more advances to be made - higher res, better latitude, better codecs, etc....but I feel like it's finally happened - The "holy grail" of cameras for the low budget film maker....it just so happens we've got 2 of them. The AF100 and the FS100.
They are everything that MOST used to say they wanted: Large sensor, progressive scan, interchangeable lenses, good form factor. So now they're here and we just go on...."Well it doesen't do xxxxxxxxxxx.... C'mon everybody.
I hereby proclaim 2011 the year of the shooter. On whatever camera.... Don't just talk about it, be about it. (I'm as guilty as the next guy BTW)
Please though, I never intended to bash the 5DMK2 with this thread...because for what it is, people have achieved excellent results with it. My whole intent of this was to serve as a reminder....myself esp.- that these days, with so many choices - DLSRs, prosumer 3 chip progressive cameras with all the bells and whistles, and the new breed (AF100, FS100,F3) the cameras are truly no longer the limiting factor. Yes...there are more advances to be made - higher res, better latitude, better codecs, etc....but I feel like it's finally happened - The "holy grail" of cameras for the low budget film maker....it just so happens we've got 2 of them. The AF100 and the FS100.
They are everything that MOST used to say they wanted: Large sensor, progressive scan, interchangeable lenses, good form factor. So now they're here and we just go on...."Well it doesen't do xxxxxxxxxxx.... C'mon everybody.
I hereby proclaim 2011 the year of the shooter. On whatever camera.... Don't just talk about it, be about it. (I'm as guilty as the next guy BTW)
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
I never say a 5DmkII is better than even a GH1 in a pure technical evaluation. It's probably alot worse than most video cameras and still we, and many others, have turned to this camera when doing commercials and directors, producers and clients love the way it turns out in the end. I know how bad it is and still when doing final grading it just feels right - for us a spot on substitute to 35mm film.
So don't argue it's a worse camera than many others like AF100, F3 and FS100 included because I now that but the aesthetic mimics how we and many others perceive 35mm film translated to digital video.