Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New Sony F3 Footage

Status
Not open for further replies.
The footage for this video was apparently recorded on an SRW1 deck, so what you're seeing didn't originate on 35 Mbs XDCAM-EX.
The SRW1 adds around $50 000 to the price tag in that configuration, not to mention weight, and sort of defeats the purpose of the camcorder. I am looking forward to seeing footage recorded onboard however.

I think the F3 is a nice new tool, with its advantages and limitations compared to other solutions, and seems to fill a space between the AF100 and the RED One/Epic.
 
Steven-Marc C. said:
The footage for this video was apparently recorded on an SRW1 deck, so what you're seeing didn't originate on 35 Mbs XDCAM-EX.
Click to expand...

I was assuming this. Even with Vimeo compression and delivery thrown in, it didn't strike me as originated on ~35Mbps AVCHD.

IMO, the real strength of the F3 is that you will be able to record high quality 10bit 4:2:2 right out of the gate from the SDI. That is something the AF100 cant' offer (that and it has a smaller sensor and other shortcomings). There will be a 4:4:4 upgrade, but I don't think I've seen a price for that, but supposedly that comes in April... But then again, any real camera allows this. It's cheaper prosumer cameras, AF100 I'm looking at you, that don't offer higher bit depths and actually cripple their features.

I'm with Thor and some of the others. I really don't see how the price on this camera can be justified once Scarlet S35 hits the streets. Of course, that is dependent on when Scarlet actually does show up and if they can actually supply adequate quantities of cameras, accessories, media, etc..
 
Codec

Codec

Even with Vimeo compression and delivery thrown in, it didn't strike me as originated on ~35Mbps AVCHD.
Click to expand...

And then XDCAM is not AVCHD (which is MPEG-4), XDCAM is MPEG-2 .. a significantly less efficient codec.
 
Yep.

SONY colors. That's what I see... and to be clear I am not in any way critiquing the quality of the film, acting, DOF, etc. It's just a Color thing that I notice.


David
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Actually, apart from showing us how 35mm optics work at lower stops, I didn't think that looked all that great technically.

Skintones. Lowlights...

But that might be due to vimeo...
Click to expand...

Gunleik,

you don't have to worry because definitely it looks the same like an Alexa in HD league but for a fraction of the price.
 
David Battistella said:
Yep.

SONY colors. That's what I see...

David
Click to expand...

Indeed! Whether you mean it derogatorily or enthusiastically, many, many, many people around the world love those colors, and have come to trust them and depend on them for an instant look of high end quality upon final delivery. Myself included. Now let me start off by saying that, for the money, this camera will NEVER compete against the Scarlet S35, and I for one will wait for Scarlet and bypass the F3 altogether.

But I'm also a big fan of Sony, however blind to the passing of times their large corporate structures force them to be and however slow they are to embrace certain cutting edge technologies, but they make OUTSTANDING products bar none and this camera is no exception. Ironically, chiding Sony for being behind the times seems moot when, with the exception of Arri's Alexa, they are the other only company to accept RED's huge impact and release a camera with a S35 sensor that could very well compete against their F35 darling. The same thing happened with the EX1 and EX3, revolutionary cameras that convinced many F900 owners like myself to put that heavy sucker in the closet and embrace these little camcorders that offered the same AWESOME menu tweakabilities the F900 was so well regarded for in a smaller package, with only a marginally smaller sensor and gorgeous glass right off the gate. XDCAM is 35 mbgs MPEG-2 yes, but all those who deride it without ever working with it would be in for a major surprise if they took it through the paces in post and saw how much immensely better than the numbers suggest this format really is. And yes, it can be broken and it has flaws, but all codecs break, including REDCODE, if pushed hard enough. Compromises must be made in order to achieve a complete package, and I can't stop laughing everytime I hear someone put down XDCAM and then reveal they use a 5D, whose images are absolute S...t compared to even a small AVCHD camcorder. But hey, the 5D does real shallow DOF and that's the mark of a true cinematic look, right? I had to mortgage my life to buy an F900 a few years back, but that same Sony prestige that made it so ridiculously expensive allowed me to charge accordingly and get customers and projects that I would not gotten otherwise, much the same way RED has allowed many other shooters nowadays at a fraction of the cost. And yes, I got my money back on the F900, and I got my money back many times over on the couple of EX-1's I have, the same as I will on the Scarlet. Then again, I actually work for a living, not dream of making a living at working on this, and the story and scope of the project are what matters most, not the camera in which I will capture it, which is sadly not the case for thousands of this new generation of armchair film makers...

So, in closing, Sony rocks, their products rock even when they are sometimes late to market (debatable) and overpriced. Then again, RED rocks even more, even when dealing with RAW is very hard to understand and excel at for a large MAJORITY of people.
 
Stuart English said:
And then XDCAM is not AVCHD (which is MPEG-4), XDCAM is MPEG-2 .. a significantly less efficient codec.
Click to expand...

Quite right Stuart, BUT, I will take MPEG-2 at 35 mgbs over AVCHD at 24 mgbs as a RECORDING format any day of the week. The amount of compression artifacts and noise I see from Canon's 1/3 " camcorders is ghastly compared to the footage that comes out of XDCAM Sony cameras recording from 1/2" and even 2/3" sensors...
 
Liked the look, mostly. Seems to work for an indie production. Colors looked good, skin tones no problem. No noise.

I noticed they shot on a very cloudy day, avoiding the clipped highlights problem. Panasonic should have thought of this, as their highlights have looked awful so far.

It is borderline misleading to demo the camera with the not-so-included $50,000 upgrade deck attached.

So much for selling on price.
 
Stuart English said:
And then XDCAM is not AVCHD (which is MPEG-4), XDCAM is MPEG-2 .. a significantly less efficient codec.
Click to expand...

My understanding was that XDCAM is an MPEG-4 wrapped around an MPEG-2.

N'est-ce pas?
 
Steven-Marc C. said:
The footage for this video was apparently recorded on an SRW1 deck, so what you're seeing didn't originate on 35 Mbs XDCAM-EX.
The SRW1 adds around $50 000 to the price tag in that configuration, not to mention weight, and sort of defeats the purpose of the camcorder.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you also could capture to a $1000 Ninja.

Frank
 
Steven-Marc C. said:
The footage for this video was apparently recorded on an SRW1 deck, so what you're seeing didn't originate on 35 Mbs XDCAM-EX.
Click to expand...

They used Arri Ultra Primes and recorded in 10 bit 4:2:2 to HDCAM-SR in linear colour space. They used the SxS files to offline edit.
 
Having gone out of my way to defend Sony, this footage doesn't look as good as it should, given the expensive post workflow. Skin tones should be more uniform and the colors lack a bit of punch, which is typical of the Cine gamma 4 they used, but given the fact they shot all night scenes with a +9 DB gain, which makes the ISO rating something north of 2000, the footage holds up pretty well. And yes, demoing the camera with a $60K SR recorder is a bit of a cheat, but as far as increasing quality goes, you could use the $1K Ninja for 10 bit Prores, the $3K Nano for 280 mgbs 8 bit XDCAM or the $10K Cinedeck for up to 12 bit 4:4:4 dual SDI Prores or Cineform. Or...you could just record to onboard XDCAM 35 mgbs which is still FAR better than the 5D crap that was even good enough for an episode of House...
 
This camera looks great.

That said, Sony is a bit stupid. That's why they are as small as they are.

By now, if I were them, I would have released a firmware update for the entire EX lineup that enabled their 50Mbps 4:2:2 XDCAM codec in camera.

If the hardware in the existing EX cameras actually limit this... then getting new versions out that can record with the 50Mbps codec should be a very high priority.

Canon has done this, and Panasonic has made it standard for half a decade, now stepping up to 10 bit 4:2:2... which for most projects is way more than needed.

I don't think they've caught on that "protecting" their upstream cameras is not going to fly anymore.

I also think that Sony is wrong about 10 bit 4:2:2 being a feature worth upselling to a $50,000+ body.

In any case, I have little doubt that most users of this camera will be using it primarily in conjunction with an AJA KiPro or NanoFlash, thus obviating Sony's protection- and cutting them out of some revenue.

I also expect a swarm of outboard recorders that record 4:4:4 in the next year or two which will impact their SR digital recorders.

Also... I believe we have another Sony fail with their new lens mount. I have yet to see mention of any compelling new features that justify a new mount. There is already entirely too much fragmentation in the lens market- and users often make camera choices based on their existing lens collections.

So... this camera, without lenses, should retail under $10000 USD.

The camera looks great. Now if we could just get Sony to think about who wants to buy and use it, together with the market more intelligently.
 
Peter Matthes said:
They used Arri Ultra Primes and recorded in 10 bit 4:2:2 to HDCAM-SR in linear colour space. They used the SxS files to offline edit.
Click to expand...

The footage you see on Vimeo is from the on board card not the HDCAM-SR deck.

Frank
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
That said, Sony is a bit stupid. That's why they are as small as they are.
Click to expand...

? Small?
Annual Sales / Sony Corporation Consolidated
$78 billion (Fiscal Year ended March 31, 2010)
Workforce
167,900 employees worldwide (Fiscal Year ended March 31, 2010)

Not small by my book.


John DeBoer
SIM Video
 
Record on ...

Record on ...

" We recorded to an SRW-1 deck in HDCAM-SR via the 10 bit 4:2:2 HD-SDI. We were working in linear colour space with a Cine Gamma curve. We also recorded to the SxS simultaneously to give us copies for the offline in FCP. We then onlined using the HDCAM-SR masters via an EDL which we then graded "

So yes recorded XDCAM, but apparently for off-line purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top