ok then a camera that costs as much.....
The FS100 - A different perspective.
- Thread starter pulpfiction007
- Start date
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Even at $4900 though, it's still valid....for the same money the AF100 gives you the NDs, the HD SDI, and both LCD + VF. It really comes down to what each of us is most interested in....the AF's complete package or the FS100's smaller form factor and promising sensor design. I know it's not ALL about the sensor, but if this thing had the NEX VG10's sensor, no one would be talking about it!
Why not? The VG10 has an APS size sensor, just a little smaller than Super 35, bigger than the micro 4/3. I'm sure if it were in the FS100, there would be no aliasing or moire. The VG10 and FS100 share the same 18-200 stock lens and lens mount.
The F3 sensor in a cheap camera is what has everyone whipped into a frenzy...
pulpfiction007
Veteran
The key worde here...."no alising and moire" or at least very minimal. The NEX VG10 has a 14MP sensor....it's a DLSR sensor that has not been optimized for video- it allows still shooting and video shooting. The FS100's (around 3MP sensor) has been made from the ground up for video purposes only....so not only is the aliasing and moire gone, the larger photosites allow for better low light response. That being said the NEX VG10 still produces some nice video....that's precisely why I think the FS100 has a lot of promise!
I agree with JWVaricam...the F3 sensor is the talking point of this camera.
I do agree...even if the NEX VG10's 14mp sensor were tweaked and had little to no moire/aliasing and shot 24p...had 720 modes, had a few more bells and whistles....not only would it be the best bargain ever.....the release of this camera would not be so interesting.
Last edited:
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
FaderND works great on my 30mm lens, but not so great on the others. I am going to switch to using dedicated ND filters myself instead. safest way to go. And I disagree the AF100 is ready to go all by itself. I used my smallHD monitor on it because I CANNOT reliably focus with the edge detect. I have tried for the life of me and I've just not had great results. It's either too sensitive or not sensitive enough. They really need to make in have a setting in the menus.
The edge detect on the smallHD works great.
And the FS100 has actually 2:1 zoom! We can't even get 1:1 on the AF100. That's a pretty pro feature
Hehe.
The edge detect on the smallHD works great.
And the FS100 has actually 2:1 zoom! We can't even get 1:1 on the AF100. That's a pretty pro feature
Hehe.There's a guy on a VG10 site that swears up and down the VG10 is going to get 24P and audio control updates in April. He claims he's talked to Sony reps and all that.
I say, we'll see. Of course, the same thing happened to the 5D.
squig
Veteran
Hehe, yeah I haven't been posting a lot for a while, I've been busy finishing up at film school and working on my script but I've been lurking. Now I'm in pitching and pre-production mode so I'm thinking more about what to shoot with. Still using a 5D. Probably won't start principal photography till Aug/Sep at the earliest so I expect something from Canon by then.
The main issue with 8bit vs 10bit is banding. As someone mention you're talking 256 colours vs 1024. I remember back in the day when I was using the 1st version of photoshop we were working with 256 colours and it was really limiting. My film is an apocalyptic sci-fi action thriller and it's gonna have a very stylised look so 10bit will be a big plus in the grade. I've been hoping that the 2nd generation DSLRs will have 10bit uncompressed output. The F3 is 10bit but it's a big clunky thing that doesn't really work for my style of shooting. Apparently the AF100 has 10bit output but I'm just not interested in a 2x crop and 2 stops less dynamic range than the Sonys. I expect the Sony to be better in low light too.
Yeah the Ninja looks like the perfect mate for these 2nd gen camera's coupled with 2 80Gb solid state drives. My data wrangler happens to also be a very good editor so I'm going to set him up with a quad core macbook pro and have him cut as we shoot. Being able to encode straight to prores out of the camera will really speed things up and the quality will be amazing.
And Tim "not pro" c'mon man "pro" is a very subjective term and we've had that debate far too many times here. What cause it doesn't have NDs it's not "pro"? Rubbish, put it in the right hands and nobody will know your film wasn't shot on 35mm. With an anamorphic stretch this thing can just about output 3-4k.
squig
Veteran
"Sure, but let me ask you this -- does Spielberg shoot his films on a GH2? No? Why not?"
It might be because he has $3 billion dollars. If I did I'd be shooting with a babe called Alexa. Seeing as I'm too poor for Alexa I'll use something not quite as sexy but I'll bust my arse to make it look very close for a lot less money.
It might be because he has $3 billion dollars. If I did I'd be shooting with a babe called Alexa. Seeing as I'm too poor for Alexa I'll use something not quite as sexy but I'll bust my arse to make it look very close for a lot less money.
Its alot more than the ND's....
Barry_Green
Moderator
And that's the point, right there. You will have to "bust your arse" to make something that looks and acts anywhere near as good as what he could do with what he's got. I have found that, pretty much universally, the higher one rises in their profession, the less patience they have for workarounds and having to compensate for what the tool they're using, doesn't do. Pros gravitate towards the better stuff because it's ... better for what they do. And the manufacturers listen to the pros and design stuff that meets their requirements. And the pros buy them. and the world is a good place, we all get what we want.
Except for those who want to short-circuit the entire process and take cuts in line and proclaim that they're already pros because they have a $599 DSLR, of course. Those folks will always be frustrated as to why the rest of us don't believe them when they tell us "it's just as good!"
Look, here's the point -- yes, amazing work can be done on grossly inferior tools. Marlon Ladd's film "Badd to the Jones" looks like it's going to be pretty amazing, and it was shot on a $649 T2i. But here's the thing -- ask him if, with a budget of $1m, would he shoot on a T2i again? I think the answer would be pretty obvious. Now, you don't even have to go that far -- the workflow and workaround process between an FS100 and a DSLR is mostly night and day -- if you gave me that choice, hell yes I'd take the FS100. But I wouldn't want to make that choice, I'd rather go with an AF100 because of the additional things it offers, for the same or less money. I've got two AF100's and a GH2. Which do I use to shoot on? Duh. It's obvious. Why? Because the AF100 is much more suitable to the way I work. Timur has a 5D and an F3. Which does he shoot video work on? Do you even have to ask?
Now, could Timur out-cinematographize some newbie film student, if Timur had the 5D and the film student had the F3? Of course he could. But I guess here's the missing point -- why would he? Why wouldn't he just use the right product for the job? And really, here's the part I don't get -- what's so wrong with saying that?
Use the best you can, to do the best you can. If your budget is lower, get an AF100 or FS100. If that's still too rich for your blood, get a GH2 or 60D. Just don't start claiming that the GH2 is better than the AF100 or as professional or more professional, because the notion is silly. Just as silly as saying the FS100 is as professional as the F3. It's not. You can do more, with more features and interconnectivity and capabilities, with the F3. It goes higher up the ladder. What's wrong with just seeing things as they are?
Jarrett P. Morgan
Well-known member
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Faders suck. Period. I'll sell you mine, I think I have the 82mm version. Make offer. Just get it out of here.
Barry, just out of curiosity, indulge a 'video' guy and explain why faders suck.
I've never used one, only used video cameras with built in ND filters. I
am just curious, are they hard to turn? Don't really work well? I was thinking
that one of them with the F3 would give you some good control vs. having
to change out different ND filters with a matte box, but I am first to admit
that I don't have any experience with either one, so I was just wondering.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
One thing that can be said for sure....there are now 2 great choices at $5,000 that just 2 years ago many would have jumped out of a moving bus for. That's great for everybody....one is already proven - The AF100, and the other has great potential - The FS100. Now if we could just get a definitive answer on the 10bit HDMI question. I've heard so many different answers from so many different sources, my head hurts! Both yay and nay from "trusted" Sony sources......
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I think what Barry and many others hate is that the quality suffers as a result of convenience....kind of like a mega zoom lens can never equal a good prime in IQ.
Here's a few descriptions by some members- soft, murky, color shifts....the problem gets worse on long lenses. I was thinking about buying one myself, but never did thanks to everybody in the DLSR forum.
Last edited:
They are optically "queationable", and its essentially two polarizing filters. So yes you are cutting light, but you are also, double polarizing your image and that can cause unpredictable artifacts in the color and tone of your sky. Not just exposure, but how the color is rendered and what wavelengths reach your sensor.
squig
Veteran
The great thing for all of us is you can now shoot an amazing looking film with a T2i if you know what you're doing and you're prepared to bust your arse. There's even things you can do with a DSLR that you couldn't do with an Ari. I'm willing to trade some of the pro features on the AF100 for a bit more dynamic range, better low light performance, lower weight, and an S35 sensor. The only thing really bothering me about the FS100 is that it may not have a 10bit output but I can push the 5D's 8bit pretty far so I can live with it for now.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Here's the interesting thing though....and it's perplexing - The BBC/Alan Roberts report is showing the F3 at -48.5db, not the claimed -63db. He also says the sensor is 12.9 MP.(REALLY perplexed) So it looks as though the FS100 will not have more DR than the AF100....if the F3 doesen't. Maybe there are errors/typos on his report but I don't know. He says there is significant noise reduction being applied to the image.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The Fader is one of the most genius ideas ever, and it's sooo promising -- except that it's just horrible. As others have said, yeah -- the image gets horribly soft at long telephoto, and on wide angle they're useless (like all polarizers) because you get massive banding in the sky -- polarizers work best at 90 degrees to the sun, and don't work at all at 180 degrees or 0 degrees. So if you've got a nice wide 100-degree field of view, and you're pointing the camera at maybe 45 degrees to the sun, you're going to have the right side of your sky really dark and the left side totally bright, and as you pan that dark band will pan through the sky.
It's possible that the Singh-Ray VariND performs better and would be the proper implementation of the variable-ND concept, I don't know, I haven't used one. But I went the same route everyone did, thinking "oh, hey, this'll be just as good and it's cheaper" and I got burned hard -- just like every time I try that. There's a reason good stuff costs more than crap...
In summary -- love the concept, hate actually using it. If someone thinks a Fader ND is a solution to not having real ND filters, well, they're welcome to it, because I got burned and don't want anything to do with it now.