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 :)

Sony F3, Red contender?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Evin Grant said:
On this note I'd like to vent a little on what I consider the plundering of the "Cinematic Look" for just about every type of production imaginable, even if it doesn't require or even serve the creative purpose of the piece. I'm really fed up with super shallow DOF ENG and EFP pieces, yes you got a 5D, yes it looks cool. Now stop fiddling with the focus and frame a fucking shot!

Yes, I want people to have access to all the creative tools they can but, please, please, please have some respect for your's viewers retinas. :rant:
Click to expand...

I second this...
 
The latest bad examples of using 2/3 format and lenses are "Public Enemies" and "Tetro".

I have got a headache and dizzy after watching those movies just because of the totally wrong optical format.
 
I suggest that nobody judge the camera unless and until you've seen the pictures it makes. To me, a camera like this is made for a certain price point and choice of workflow. If it's natively shooting in 1920x1080, there's no conversion and a very fast, direct post path. It might not be the best way to go for a feature, but I can see many TV shows (like reality series) going with a camera like this, especially if they're on a fast turnaround for air. Think about how many shows right now are shooting on the EX3. The F3 would be a major upgrade over that.

No question, the Epic is going to be a better camera, but I think the end result is still more about the cinematography, plus the work of the post crew doing the final. The camera is important, but is only one of many factors that shape the picture quality -- and I'm not convinced it's the most important thing.
 
Scott Brown said:
Can't see why anyone would buy the Sony F3 when the Panasonic AG-AF100 is a third of the price and appears to offer virtually the same spec.

I think the Panasonic makes a great purchase until Epic and Scarlet starts shipping...it should pay for itself very quickly!

We're getting one as soon as they ship to use on a documentary we're starting in December...anyone else picking up a Panny :biggrin:

Scott
Click to expand...

Not the Sony has much better dynamic range.
 
"The latest bad examples of using 2/3 format and lenses are "Public Enemies" and "Tetro".

I have got a headache and dizzy after watching those movies just because of the totally wrong optical format. "
​

I haven't seen either. Are you saying that 2/3" is inappropriate for the big screen, period?

I know that there were complaints over the shutter speed, or other technical issues with Public Enemies. I didn't think the entire thing was unwatchable. Can you elaborate?

Yesterday I saw Unstoppable (the Hollywood cliches certainly were), and there was some bad camera work in there as well. It looked like standard 35mm sensor, but shaky cam up the wazoo. Gratuitous zooms into characters' faces. Intentional blurring and whipping around. Colors pushed to zombie world extremes, etc.

Anyway, the film gave me a bit of a headache too, but it could have been all the eye rolling.
 
With this camera, you will not need to pay another 5K for a RedRocket card in order to get realtime editing.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
The latest bad examples of using 2/3 format and lenses are "Public Enemies" and "Tetro".

I have got a headache and dizzy after watching those movies just because of the totally wrong optical format.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that oscar winning film by Danny Boyle was shot a lot on a 2/3rd and it looked money... What was it called...uhhh.. Some Dawg Zillionaire? Same with the new Star Warses; they looked pretty sweet and were also 2/3rds.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
The latest bad examples of using 2/3 format and lenses are "Public Enemies" and "Tetro".

I have got a headache and dizzy after watching those movies just because of the totally wrong optical format.
Click to expand...

That's silly, shooting on a 2/3" sensor is just the equivalent of stopping down a 35mm camera by 2.5-stops -- are you suggesting that closing down by 2.5-stops will make an audience dizzy and give them a headache? A day scene in 35mm shot at f/5.6, for example, makes people dizzy and gives them headaches??? Any movie shot by Gregg Toland gives you a headache?

The reason a movie like "Public Enemies" makes one dizzy has nothing to do with the extra depth of field of a smaller sensor. And the motion issues of rough handheld operating, shooting with a 360 degree shutter, etc. are not unique to 2/3" photography.
 
...I would have been super excited about the F3 if Sony had announced it in 2006.

I'm with Offhollywood on this one -- DOA. I would prefer the F3 over an AF100, but given the price and necessity of an external SDI recorder, etc.. I'll stick with Epic. Scarlet S35 is going to eat F3's and shit AF100's -- *IF* RED can get them shipping by March. F3 doesn't get it's dual-link SDI upgrade until April.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
That's silly, shooting on a 2/3" sensor is just the equivalent of stopping down a 35mm camera by 2.5-stops -- are you suggesting that closing down by 2.5-stops will make an audience dizzy and give them a headache? A day scene in 35mm shot at f/5.6, for example, makes people dizzy and gives them headaches??? Any movie shot by Gregg Toland gives you a headache?

The reason a movie like "Public Enemies" makes one dizzy has nothing to do with the extra depth of field of a smaller sensor. And the motion issues of rough handheld operating, shooting with a 360 degree shutter, etc. are not unique to 2/3" photography.
Click to expand...

Sorry David,

but having all the movies from both directors in my DVD collection made me feeling that their last movies are optically the worst they shot.

Maybe that's just me and I blame for that flaw 2/3 format and lenses.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
...I would have been super excited about the F3 if Sony had announced it in 2006.

I'm with Offhollywood on this one -- DOA. I would prefer the F3 over an AF100, but given the price and necessity of an external SDI recorder, etc.. I'll stick with Epic. Scarlet S35 is going to eat F3's and shit AF100's -- *IF* RED can get them shipping by March. F3 doesn't get it's dual-link SDI upgrade until April.
Click to expand...
I´ll second that.
BTW it´s just so hard to imagine someone who shot already with a R1 MX can get hot about another digital cam then one from RDC.
(No way for me to get back to a "no raw" cam).
Marc
 
Optical is sort of a different issue than the size of the sensor -- there are optical issues with 3-sensor prism block cameras, for example, and there are optical issues with B4 ENG video zooms, which are designed for a very particular market. They have a "texture" different than with cine zooms and primes, so when combined with prism block cameras, there would be some telltale optical artifacts, though they shouldn't make one dizzy or give one a headache (I think the camera style & shutter speed were a bigger factor.) Though the F23 parts of "Public Enemies" were mainly shot with Fujinon cine zooms, which are quite good. But a lot of other parts were shot on the EX1, which has three 1/2" sensors in a prism block with a basic ENG-style zoom attached.

I don't know what lens was used on the F900's that "Tetro" was shot on, but in general, I thought the movie looked quite good, the only things I didn't like were the cropped & enlarged shots.

"Good" is relative of course, these movies don't look as rich as the bigger-budgeted movies that Storaro shot for Coppola, usually in 35mm anamorphic. But considering that "Tetro" had a small budget and was shot on the F900, I thought it looked pretty good. The lighting was really designed for b&w though, I hope an all-color version wasn't released to DVD or television.

Lenses do have an impact on the "video" look -- years ago I shot a movie on the F900 using Panavision's Digital Primo zooms, which are quite good, but had a third F900 camera come in for an action scene with an early Canon HD 5.5-50mm ENG zoom on it, and the way that lights flared, etc. took the image a step back towards classic video.
 
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Zodiac" were both shot on 2/3" sensor cameras and both looked quite excellent. I would contend that no one would ever know what size sensor camera system was used if they were not told. If one treats the format appropriately then one can get an excellent image out of any sensor size.
 
Mitch Gross said:
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Zodiac" were both shot on 2/3" sensor cameras and both looked quite excellent. I would contend that no one would ever know what size sensor camera system was used if they were not told. If one treats the format appropriately then one can get an excellent image out of any sensor size.
Click to expand...

Its one of the very first times I have to agree with Mitch.
 
Uh, I guess that gets a "Thanks for the backhanded compliment" from me. ;-)
 
Bryce O said:
Yes I am serious...

At the core, what technology is in this Sony cam that warrants the $20k price tag over a $800 one.

It's not the 35mm sensor... that can be had in an $800 camera body.

It's not sensitivity... only 800 iso? 5D is fairly clean up into the 2000's.

It's not the codec... XDCAM 4:2:0 35mbs vs H.264 4:2:0 45mbs

So I am serious... Is it just because Sony labels it as "pro", puts in a big "pro-looking" shell and adds some uncompressed output (which is nice, don't get me wrong) and a few more histograms?

Hell it can't even do 60fps in 1080p! Does anyone else see anything wrong with that? That this $20k "pro" camera is only capable of the frame-rate and resolution of a $800 DSLR? Granted the Sony will probably resolve a little more detail... but doesn't anyone else see what I'm talking about?

Thank God for Epic. Sony's corporate BS of trying to protect their obsolete monstrous F35 is getting old. Canon and Red have set the tech standards IMO. 1080p 35mm video should not cost more than $3000 and 5k 120fps video should not cost more than... well, I guess Red is the only company doing it.
Click to expand...

Where do we start? Line skipping for one.
5 and 7d's do show noise at 800 or above. Sony's codec's blow it away in every respect. A skinny dynamic range. Nothing useful coming out of the HDMI. No SDI ports, viewfinder and having to use an onboard monitor. No possibility to record to a codec you can actually key or have fun with in post. HDSLR's have their place: crash cams, sticking you hand out a car window, mounting it to a rifle, etc. But for mid to high end work, I find the soft resolution and Fisher Price color gamut depressing. Good for You Tube though.

Hell, I like the image of an EX1 with a 35mm adaptor far better than anything put out by any HDSLR and that's just recording to sxs cards.

My biggest misgiving about the F3 are stupid ergonomics. To go hand held, do they really expect you to hold with your arms after you attach a PL Lens, Mattebox and Rods. I'd rather have a 30lb camera balanced on my shoulder than an HVX held just with my arms. I don't know what Sony's thinking with placing the eyepiece in the rear. They should've made it a shoulder camera. Now, it'll be a field day for 3rd party hand held/shoulder rigs. More crap obviating its one true advantage - size and weight.
 
Tim Naylor said:
Where do we start? Line skipping for one.
5 and 7d's do show noise at 800 or above. Sony's codec's blow it away in every respect. A skinny dynamic range. Nothing useful coming out of the HDMI. No SDI ports, viewfinder and having to use an onboard monitor. No possibility to record to a codec you can actually key or have fun with in post. HDSLR's have their place: crash cams, sticking you hand out a car window, mounting it to a rifle, etc. But for mid to high end work, I find the soft resolution and Fisher Price color gamut depressing. Good for You Tube though.

Hell, I like the image of an EX1 with a 35mm adaptor far better than anything put out by any HDSLR and that's just recording to sxs cards.

My biggest misgiving about the F3 are stupid ergonomics. To go hand held, do they really expect you to hold with your arms after you attach a PL Lens, Mattebox and Rods. I'd rather have a 30lb camera balanced on my shoulder than an HVX held just with my arms. I don't know what Sony's thinking with placing the eyepiece in the rear. They should've made it a shoulder camera. Now, it'll be a field day for 3rd party hand held/shoulder rigs. More crap obviating its one true advantage - size and weight.
Click to expand...

Agreed. 100%

DSLR hype was propagated by people with no skills or knowledge in any area (Vimeo squirrel and daughter shooters oh, sorry, "indy filmmakers") least of all in the rigors of re-compression and getting to air over digital broadcast.

Highly compressed Internet films hide problems, as does the kind of editing you can do when throwing away shots or entire set-ups is no problem (i.e. when said set-ups did not cost thousands of dollars to produce.)

These clueless wishful thinkers were helped along in their delusions by cynical exploiters of false hope selling ultra-high mark-up rigs, such as Phil Bloom + the gang at Zacuto, who also sell very expensive "DSLR pro workshops", an oxymoron if there ever was one.

To make matters worse, many actually cool young people coming out of film school bought 5Ds, simply because that was all they could afford to go out and practice shooting. This associated it with hip and cool (these kids were/are genuinely cool, but they were choosing DSLRs because of price, not their visual prowess - the rich or connected ones got their hands on Reds), so art directors at agencies, not often known for their depth of technical expertise, started declaring it the cool new thing, despite how ridiculous this is. You can get everything that is cool in a 5D image much, much better and more safely in a Red MX, you can even crush blacks in a grade if that's what you like - the 5D has absolutely no visual advantages whatsoever - just none.

I mean, recent grads also use hardware store lights and PVC pipe based skateboard dollies - but if an agency creative with a fake British accent actually asks me to use on a shoot I might be unable to restrain myself from physically assaulting him, so I hope that doesn't happen.

Anyway, all this to say, there was a perfect storm of BS propagation, and this perfect storm, thankfully, seems to be passing as people wake up and realize that shooting high-budget jobs using abysmally crappy tools is far more outrageously stupid than it is "cool".
 
The 5D has one trait the others don't - full frame almost the size of a vista vision neg. But after that it's all downhill. Since the MX has become standard, there has been a precipitous drop in 5D client work on my end. Thank God. I'll go back doing what it does best - taking stills.

What I find amazing with Sony, they have the technology to introduce something inexpensive and truly pro (PL mount, small form, built in doo dads we like, 4:2:2 intra frame recording) but they don't, probably thinking it'll cannibalize their high end gear. But now with HDRx™™ in sight, they will have to go back to the drawing board and ask themselves the big questions: Low price / high volume / high quality vs High price / low volume / high quality.

For Red's sakes, Sony's still waffling with low price, low quality/ high volume model and their High Price/ Low Volume/ High Quality model is about to experience a broadside from HDRx™ relegating it to the commercially unviable model: High Price/ Lower Volume/ 2nd place Quality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top