Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 30, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted March 30, 2012 It isn't really supposed to take the place of the F3. If it was, it would be called the F4 not the FS700. I am not sure where you got 10 stops of DR from. The FS100 had at least 11.5! 4:2:0? Again - not a very good guess. This will be 4:2:2 as the FS100 also does to an external box. 10bit is overhyped, I feel. So I have a challenge for you! Show me the difference between 8bit FS100 footage and 10bit F3 footage and exactly what 10bit (not 4:4:4 just the 10 bit colour) brings to a 4:2:2 image. In my opinion, 4K is a bigger deal than 10bit colour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 30, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote author=Tzedekh link=topic=494.msg3230#msg3230 date=1333115715] If the FS700 records 4K but only at 8-bit, that would be really stupid. [/quote] I'm all for this opinion, but you must say why and not just say that it is stupid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybirch Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=494.msg3232#msg3232 date=1333117307] I am not sure where you got 10 stops of DR from. The FS100 had at least 11.5! 4:2:0? Again - not a very good guess. This will be 4:2:2 as the FS100 also does to an external box. [/quote] I don't think the FS100 has close to 11.5 stops.... Maybe some butchered test has led you to believe that. My eyes KNOW it doesn't. I agree that 8 bit, well implemented is under rated (C300 is evidence of this). But the 8 bit on the FS100 is not perfect and banding can still be an issue. Thankfully, I don't have time to look for examples. I imagine your users are clever enough to understand that 10bit is a huge benefit when dealing with 14 stops of DR info. Fair enough about 4:2:2.... both will need an external recorder to go higher than 4:2:0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=494.msg3232#msg3232 date=1333117307]10bit is overhyped, I feel. So I have a challenge for you! Show me the difference between 8bit FS100 footage and 10bit F3 footage and exactly what 10bit (not 4:4:4 just the 10 bit colour) brings to a 4:2:2 image. In my opinion, 4K is a bigger deal than 10bit colour. [/quote] Where are we to show the difference? Who of us has a geniune 10-bit clip in the first place? And if? Upload a file so you can watch it on your 10-bit-Monitor? The same of course is true for 4k. Who can monitor it now? The answer is: Make a very good DCP from your best 8-bit-footage (use "Open DCP", it's free), copy it to a USB stick and go to a local cinema. Spend them some cake, make an appointment to view your clip. (Will you find a screen that uses 4k natively? Probably not. They are rare. Only the VERY BIG screens sometimes are equipped with it. No need for it. But this was not the task. View it on a 2k projector.) Will you find your clip unsharp? No. I promise. You will find it looks like VIDEO. You could also take 720p on a bluray and project it via a scaler. Again, the resolution is ENOUGH. I saw Drive this week, again. Good film, shot with Alexa (some with 5D, probably inside the cars). You reach the resolution (the difference between 1920 and 2046 can be neglected), but not the colours. My point is, the resolution is going up, but 1080 hasn'nt been reached yet. We are living in a 720p world. A very high percentage of the content we see every day forces us to step back from the display, because it isn't FullHD. So why do we call for the next false label? Seems crazy to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_can_sing Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 4K definitely has it's place right now. For example, we have a large green screen at work that is just begging for an in-house 4K camera. We don't own a RED so we have to rent, but it would be nice just to have a camera at the studio for us to use anytime. The high resolution is great for green screen re-crops and keying. Aside from that, I would not use the 4K much. Mostly just for VFX type shots or super macros. 4K tends to really clog the post production pipeline. So yeah, 4K for VFX and special circumstances; and 2K for everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzedekh Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=494.msg3233#msg3233 date=1333117364] [quote author=Tzedekh link=topic=494.msg3230#msg3230 date=1333115715] If the FS700 records 4K but only at 8-bit, that would be really stupid. [/quote] I'm all for this opinion, but you must say why and not just say that it is stupid... [/quote] It matters in color grading. I can't see so drastically improving resolution and letting color stagnate. Even Panasonic has seen the light with AVC-Ultra longG. If there were no need -- and no one can do anything with it -- why develop it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 30, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm not saying there is no need. I am saying it is vastly overrated like raw is as well. I don't colour grade my stuff, I prefer to get it right at the time of shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Please don't get me wrong. I don't want to argue. It seems if it reads raisins you get hamster shit, and if you want raisins you need to buy caviar. Perhaps "4k" (as I said, the term is undeniably wrong) is the actual FullHD, and that's the way things work. FilmMan doesn't want 4k with the JVC, he wants real 1080p. There are some cameras around that got very close to real 1080p, the GH2 (in TeleEX at least), the FS 100, surely the C300 [i]is[/i] real 1080. So the promises of the last 8 years finally are fulfilled. It will take us some time to get used to the higher resolution, since a lot of stuff in the web and a lot of television (and not few BDs also) is not yet Full (1080i, the typical broadcast format, is not Full), and we keep the distance to the screen by habit. To change this will need a couple of years, probably a decade. The cinemas are digital now, and the image quality in general has improved. 4k will stay a very rare exception there, it isn't paying off like 3D, audiences don't care. So to whom is 1080p not [i]enough[/i]? (To whom is a very good 720p not enough?) "For all intents and purposes" of the most of us here, 8-bit 420 is also enough. You can grade 8-bit with the 32-bit floating point rendering. It doesn't become 10-bit then, but it doesn't fall apart. And the occasions, when a big audience compares my music video on the big screen to Hugo Cabret are too rare to justify the investion in 10-bit ;) Resolution was never any serious concern for the big directors in Hollywood, but it is in the shopping mall. If the FS 100 will be 4000 € when the FS700 arrives, that's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhitz Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote author=raphwoody link=topic=494.msg3218#msg3218 date=1333092160] But won't such a camera, for all intents and purposes, make the Sony F3 obsolete? [/quote] Well, it's going to be obsolete one day... and honestly, the F3 and C300 (while they make great pictures) were obsolete on arrival. I mean c'mon internal 8-bit for $10,000+ cameras? Get real. The specs were a joke the moment they were announced. As great of a sensor the F3 has... recording to a codec that's rivaled by $800 still cameras (stock) and still shooting to a lower frame rate (F3 can't really do 60fps practically) is just nonsense these days. Sony, Panasonic, and Canon REALLY need to step the game up. 4k mjepg or 10-bit 4:4:4 at 2k should be the standard this year (and all at least 60fps full res). Even iphones are shooting 1080p. We need a HUGE jump in the "professional" level standards. I still think this is an April fools joke... but really, they do need to release something of this magnitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 30, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted March 30, 2012 Even if it is not real 4K, it will still be a lot higher resolution than real 1080p. GH2 is not real 1080p either, but yet it is within 2-3% of the C300's resolving power! It is important not to overstate and overhype small things. Overhype the big things by all means! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediaMan Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote]Another question mark is over who will provide the external 4K recording box. As far as I know, one doesn’t even yet exist.[/quote] Doesn't seem too difficult for Sony's own SR-R4 SRMASTER field recorder to be adapted for this purpose. Expensive yes, but certainly gives them a starting place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 GH2 has great resolution but resolves around 780 lines ... c300 goes beyond 1000 lines probably with little false details... there is something about f3 vs fs100 ... fs100 resolves around 700 but f3 goes almost 1000... same sensor but different olpf .. measurement take by slashcam.com ... i believe that guys doing best job... [url=http://produktdbimages3.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_luminanz_aufloesung_211.jpg]http://produktdbimages3.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_luminanz_aufloesung_211.jpg[/url] [url=http://produktdbimages4.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_luminanz_aufloesung_204.jpg]http://produktdbimages4.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_luminanz_aufloesung_204.jpg[/url] 1. f3 2.fs100 and gh2 [url=http://images0.slashcam.de/texte/911-luma-Luma.jpg]http://images0.slashcam.de/texte/911-luma-Luma.jpg[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 30, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote author=cameraboy link=topic=494.msg3245#msg3245 date=1333131808] GH2 has great resolution but resolves around 780 lines ... c300 goes beyond 1000 lines probably with little false details... there is something about f3 vs fs100 ... fs100 resolves around 700 but f3 goes almost 1000... same sensor but different olpf .. measurement take by slashcam.com ... i believe that guys doing best job... [url=http://produktdbimages3.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_luminanz_aufloesung_211.jpg]http://produktdbimages3.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_luminanz_aufloesung_211.jpg[/url] [url=http://produktdbimages4.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_luminanz_aufloesung_204.jpg]http://produktdbimages4.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_luminanz_aufloesung_204.jpg[/url] 1. f3 2.fs100 [/quote] Please elaborate on those charts, I have no idea what they mean ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 horizontal resolution 100% is 1000l max resolution for 1080p... man thats standard lab measurements for resolution . just go to red forum they love to pull that method when they try to prove red superiority ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 here are charts for f3 and fs100 [url=http://provideocoalition.com/images/uploads/FSCSRW-F3.jpg]http://provideocoalition.com/images/uploads/FSCSRW-F3.jpg[/url] [url=http://provideocoalition.com/images/uploads/FSCSRW-FS100.jpg]http://provideocoalition.com/images/uploads/FSCSRW-FS100.jpg[/url] f3 got more resolution but u can see it has lot of moire... when u got two camera with same sensor and one got more resolution and moire thats means weak olpf ... thats reason why i thinking to remove aa filter from mine gh2... im not afraid of moire because gh2 pixel pitch is 133 lp/mm and there is no lot of lens who can go beyond that... but mamax price is to high ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 In the old days of analog transmission using PAL/NTSC resolution was measured in TV lines not in pixels. The term still used widely. normally ISO chart is used to measure the resolution [url=http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx]http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx[/url] The digital resolution is measured by the number of different pixel that can be distinctive. 1080p is the container not the measured resolution. The best way is to use ISO-12233 chart to see how many lines can be resolve or more accurate to use software on top of it such as [url=http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/]http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 do u think that measurements are not valid ... i see charts and i can see more resolution and lab confirm that ... and of course that 1080p is just container and the measurements show how much of that is filed with real details... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediaMan Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm a gearhead just like many of us here, but if it was only about charts and measurements most DSLRs would never have been embraced by filmmakers. Our audiences don't have the benefit of charts and react to the image striking their eyes . . . and their hearts :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 yeah ... i hate charts ... but i love details... fine details in faces , flowers , buildings .... charts just help us find camera who does that... and we own audiences to show best possible images... because tools become cheaper but standards should remain high ... dont underestimate audience they dont like to see people on the screen who look like they made from plastic... there is reason why Christopher Nolan use 65 mm film ... we cant afford that but we should do best we can... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoyodyne Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Holy cats! Exciting times indeed.... those slo-mo numbers really got my attention. Very curious to see what gets revealed in April. Thanks a bunch for the heads up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.