25 replies to this topic

[Scott Goldberg]

Same here on recently purchasing the camera. I have until the 24th to really know the ins and outs of this camera. I am shooting a feature length narrative (my own project) and testing everything prior is essential for me. I didn't know until two days ago that the quality degrades slightly, especially after seeing that chart. Others made it seem like the image got really bad when shot in 480 fps I believe? Now I know it's no longer HD at that point, but getting more aliasing is an issue for me, at 120 and 240. I suppose in a way you just need to find the right setting for what you do and know your imitations. I think someone posted on here in another post, that all the cinematographers didn't just find the magical shot - they tested, tested, tested and I feel that is so crucial.

 

When it comes to PP settings, I understand it but not to the point where I know what "knee" is, etc. I'm still learning. Knowledge truly is power at this point.

[jgharding]

400/480 is serious degradation.

 

The other settings aren't as bad, and aren't very distracting to most audiences.

 

PP wise, if I remember rightly cinegamma 2 is good. Also the ability to dial back detail (sharpness) and raise black level is useful too.

 

I've posted this on this forum loads already, but it's useful I think to see the footage in context of a completed project.

 

Worst aliasing here is on the beard in some parts: 

[jgharding]

Some more examples of aliasing in this one at the 400fps setting, this time it's a woolly sheep

 

[Scott Goldberg]

I'm now using a GineGamma2 and sharpness level of -7 all in a "broadcast safe" PP setting. It may be making a slight difference, but not much. Did a few test shoots with the background purposefully blown out around sharp branches, etc and it has aliasing when it's focused sharply on those branches. Been using a 28mm 1.8 and I've noticed when I used my Mark IV (DSLR) about a year or so ago that there was a little more aliasing with the 28mm than there was with the 50mm on fine details. This is in 24fps by the way, not yet tested the slow motion.

 

Can it also be my UV filters as well? I notice they give a glare of the sun where as when I use no UV filter, the glare is much less.  I think I need a specific UV filter, not the cheap kind where there's no glare reduction (which is what I had bought in the meantime).

[jcs]

The FS700 does have aliasing issues in certain cases. It appears to be due to the the sensor/sampling design. It provides ~1000 lines of vertical resolution but only 800 lines of horizontal resolution before aliasing (and 1000+ lines diagonally). The C100 for example has less aliasing issues and full 1000+ h and v resolution, however it does not provide slow motion. In most cases the FS700 aliasing is very minimal, and even when visible most people won't notice (I see tons of content with aliasing on TV/BluRay/Netflix, etc.). I notice for a sec then ignore it. The somewhat low resolution 5D3 has pretty much zero aliasing, but resolution is 1600h pixels at best (and no slow motion except 720p60).

 

The good news is that spot aliasing is easy to fix in post, especially for slow motion shots (just track the bad spot and apply suitable tapered Gaussian blur and it's gone. I tested this with your glasses example and it was easy to do and worked great (in Premiere Pro CS6 it all ran in real-time (I have AE but won't use it unless I have no choice- not real-time)).

 

I would expect the next upline cameras to do better, such as the F5 and F55: I would expect little or no aliasing in normal speed or slomo at those price points. The manner in which the FS100/FS700 is gimped in horizontal resolution and aliasing could be due to business reasons (instead of technical ones). When comparing cost, the FS700 is right where it needs to be for features and performance...

[Scott Goldberg]

The FS700 does have aliasing issues in certain cases. It appears to be due to the the sensor/sampling design. It provides ~1000 lines of vertical resolution but only 800 lines of horizontal resolution before aliasing (and 1000+ lines diagonally). The C100 for example has less aliasing issues and full 1000+ h and v resolution, however it does not provide slow motion. In most cases the FS700 aliasing is very minimal, and even when visible most people won't notice (I see tons of content with aliasing on TV/BluRay/Netflix, etc.). I notice for a sec then ignore it. The somewhat low resolution 5D3 has pretty much zero aliasing, but resolution is 1600h pixels at best (and no slow motion except 720p60).

 

The good news is that spot aliasing is easy to fix in post, especially for slow motion shots (just track the bad spot and apply suitable tapered Gaussian blur and it's gone. I tested this with your glasses example and it was easy to do and worked great (in Premiere Pro CS6 it all ran in real-time (I have AE but won't use it unless I have no choice- not real-time)).

 

I would expect the next upline cameras to do better, such as the F5 and F55: I would expect little or no aliasing in normal speed or slomo at those price points. The manner in which the FS100/FS700 is gimped in horizontal resolution and aliasing could be due to business reasons (instead of technical ones). When comparing cost, the FS700 is right where it needs to be for features and performance...

 

I'm using Final Cut Pro X. I just hope it works as well as Premiere Pro CS6... 

 

Any ideas on what is best for broadcast quality, the least noise, etc as far as in PP settings?