Oh Hello... F3!

[Matthew Bennett]

Mods please stab me in the neck for posting this video in this section (I'm sure it's already been posted..etc..)

But this is nice!!! F3...

It's like an EX3 was suddenly transformed to 35mm chip size. Oh sony, you wicked, wicked image maker.... giving me exactly what I want. If only the Panny industrial design department would be married to the Sony chip/imager/dsp department...

http://vimeo.com/16898584

Lovely professional looking evaluation footage!

[ustein]

Nice short.

[dustylense]

Hey Panny. My suggestion is that you get someone to do a short like this PRONTO! Get some actors, lighting, mood going. No more pictures of leaves and temples.

[PaPa]

It's coming, I'm sure. Barry mentioned something about more footage probably near the end of November/beginning of December. I think.... Anywho I thought I read that in a post somewhere here not too long ago.

[yoclay]

The footage looks terrific. Tough act to follow.

[HVXguy]

Go read the blog:
http://convergenceblog.co.uk/

They used Zeiss Ultraprimes and a SRW1 HD Portable Digital Recorder.
Not pieces of equipment that a casual user probably rent.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-SRW1/

The footage looked OK and again the shooters said they did not have
time to really test the camera before shooting.

I would rather see what the camera could do
using Nikon or Canon lenses, recording to the native format.

[mcgeedigital]

I'd be happy to see what it looks like recorded to ProRes on the Ki Pro Mini.

[Mike McNeese]

Hey Panny. My suggestion is that you get someone to do a short like this PRONTO! Get some actors, lighting, mood going. No more pictures of leaves and temples.

We are certainly getting closer!

This had story and actors, and is indicative of what many indie films might be like. But I'm still looking for some footage from a camera surrounded by 5 tons of G&E, maybe some chroma key compositing, good audio (from camera), tracking/crane moves, etc. I know that we are all in such a hurry to get something out there, but I HOPE that I would spend more time pre-pro'ing and blocking my projects than anything I've seen from these big-chip cams thus far.

[bgundu]

More here:

http://vimeo.com/16897383

[Chris Messineo]

Someone tell me why are we comparing footage from a $16,000 camera shot with actors to a $5,000 camera that has only been used in run and gun tests?

[dustylense]

Someone tell me why are we comparing footage from a $16,000 camera shot with actors to a $5,000 camera that has only been used in run and gun tests?

Because some of us might have $11,000 more or want to save $11,000.

[ZazaCast]

Someone tell me why are we comparing footage from a $16,000 camera shot with actors to a $5,000 camera that has only been used in run and gun tests?

Ditto....

[HVXguy]

Someone tell me why are we comparing footage from a $16,000 camera shot with actors to a $5,000 camera that has only been used in run and gun tests?

Don't look over the fact they are using $40,000 worth of Zeiss lenses, recording to a $20,000 or so HDCAM deck. The footage was also posted in a high end finishing suite.
The real test with the Sony camera will come when some one shoots side bt side with an AF100 using the same lenses and recording to the native formats.

[ZazaCast]

Someone tell me why are we comparing footage from a $16,000 camera shot with actors to a $5,000 camera that has only been used in run and gun tests?

I was just reading this article: http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/Sony-unveils-first-F3-footage_nid-214.html
and it is saying 18,000 POUNDS...which is more like $28,000! (could that be correct?)

VERY nice... but "ouch"... different neighborhood then I live in.

[Petros Kolyvas]

I was just reading this article: http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/Sony-unveils-first-F3-footage_nid-214.html
and it is saying 18,000 POUNDS...which is more like $28,000! (could that be correct?)

VERY nice... but "ouch"... different neighborhood then I live in.

It seems to be aimed squarely at Red's EPIC release and not the AF100. They may be both large sensor cameras but they clearly cater to vastly different levels of production. Just because they share a similar form factor doesn't mean they compete in market segment.

[Joe Walker]

While I do agree its a lovely video this is apples to oranges, they recorded their footage to HDCAM-SR 4:2:2. Of course it'll look good!

[Thomas Kist]

Smart move to shoot with overcast cloudy sky.
saves a lot of high light discussion.
Nice footage, hate the clown.
But the future is looking bright.


www.ThomasKist.com

[bgundu]

Overcast and video = magic


Smart move to shoot with overcast cloudy sky.
saves a lot of high light discussion.
Nice footage, hate the clown.
But the future is looking bright.


www.ThomasKist.com

[PerroneFord]

Someone tell me why are we comparing footage from a $16,000 camera shot with actors to a $5,000 camera that has only been used in run and gun tests?

For the same reason we've been barraged for the past two years with 5D footage compared to film. Or HVX footage compared to Varicam, or GH1 footage compared to film.

[PerroneFord]

It seems to be aimed squarely at Red's EPIC release and not the AF100. They may be both large sensor cameras but they clearly cater to vastly different levels of production. Just because they share a similar form factor doesn't mean they compete in market segment.

So why do we see umteen friggin threads comparing someone's 5D to a RED, or an Alexa, or an F900, or whatever the flavor of the month is?

People compare things all the time. When I first started coming here, every other thread was about how the DVX100 was so much like film... Yea, ok.

[Fohdeesha]

Not to mention everyone in this forum had no problem comparing them for 20+ pages and dissing on the price, before footage was posted...

[Thomas Church]

I want to be there the minute Scarlet S35 footage is posted.

I think Scarlet S35 will be the first time in which shooting digital won't have some kind of compromise in relation to film.

[Osslund]

I'm telling you we are ;) A very pleasing image. Not to sharp and it feels very natural.

After watching that demo/info clip it's a bit weird comparing a proper set, proper grading (not magic bullet in FCP or AE), proper lighting and acting to the AF100 test footage.

[Joe Walker]

One thing I find uniquely fascinating about the press for the Sony F3 is that on the one hand they talk about how its a small (easily) handheld 35mm sized sensor palmcorder and yada yada yada, .......... only to then mention that in order to get the best possible footage out of it you'll need to record to an off-board recorder, and the example they provide first is the Sony SRW-1 /SRPC-1 SRW tape recorder! People that is a MASSIVE recorder, kind of makes the hand-holdability thing mute.

[SantaCruzMichael]

Backlash against excessive use of shallow focus in 3... 2... 1...

[Erik Naso]

I cant wait to see more from the three new cinema lenses Sony has for the F3. The new entries don't really change my mind I'm still really excited about the AF100. These Sony cams are nice. And expensive. The only news that caught my interest about Sony was the new lenses that will work with an adapter on the AF-100.

[Matthew Bennett]

Already convinced my company to purchase one!

Oh yeah!

I think it's human to compare, as we all have our list of dream attributes in an imaging device, and no one's going to stop us from wanting to see them become reality. But to date, I'm sure at the top of everyone's list is actual 35mm film with a nice stock and a crew to support you.... ahhh

[Matthew Bennett]

More here:

http://vimeo.com/16897383

This one you can actually download the 720p source in h264.

As an editor I look at EX3 footage almost every day. This camera literally looks like an EX3 chip was transported into a 35mm camera. Which is very cool. The EX3 look isn't perfect to me, but I'm constantly being re-seduced by it's textures, sharpness, light grain...

Just very interesting to see that familiar look in a 35mm sized camera.

[Erik Naso]

The clips on vimeo are really nice. Man are these some awesome times or what! I love the way they pushed really hard the shallow DOF. Its like. Hey! See what you can do now. Simply awesome times in the industry.

[Barry_Green]

Don't look over the fact they are using $40,000 worth of Zeiss lenses
Well, no ... each lens is about $12,000 to $20,000. They said they had a set of UltraPrimes from 10mm to 135mm. So the lens package probably cost about $100,000 or so. Of course, you don't buy those lenses, you rent them...


recording to a $20,000 or so HDCAM deck.
Well, again, no -- not an HDCAM deck, they recorded to the HDCAM-SR deck, SRW-1. That costs a little more. You can't even see the price on Sony's page, they say "price available upon request". But GlobalMediaPro lists it at $65,000.


The real test with the Sony camera will come when some one shoots side bt side with an AF100 using the same lenses and recording to the native formats.
Well, see, not really -- at least, I don't think so. The F3 isn't competing with the AF100, it's competing with the Red Epic. If I was to buy an F3, I sure as hell wouldn't use it with Nikon lenses and record to XDCAM-EX format! That's like buying a championship race horse and feeding it McDonald's french fries. On the other hand, I don't know how many AF100 buyers are going to use Arri Ultra Primes and an SRW1 recorder with their AF100...

The Convergence guys said that they used the onboard recording only for proxies for editing with, and to me, with a head like the F3, that makes sense. I've been wondering why they bothered to even put XDCAM-EX on there, because to me that kind of ruins the whole thing -- why not put (at least) the 50mbps XDCAM-MPEG422 format on there? But as a proxy it makes sense. I think if you view the F3 as an XDCAM-EX camera, it makes no sense. But if you get rid of the recording format entirely, you start to look at it in a whole new light -- as in, hey, that's a pretty dang powerful camera head there. Paired with an external recorder, it makes a pretty interesting combination.

The F3 is in a class above the AF100, no doubt. AF100 is $4700. The F3 is 4x that price for a base unit, but that's not really how you'd actually want to use it. If I had an F3, I'd use it exactly like these Convergence guys did -- proper cinema glass, and a top-of-the-line recording format.

[Barry_Green]

Because some of us might have $11,000 more or want to save $11,000.
Hah! That's actually an excellent answer. :)

Indeed, we all want to know what we're getting for our dough. And many people want to believe they can get $200,000-camera results, with a $799 camera. So comparisons are inevitable. It would just be nice if comparisons could be done more apples-to-apples, meaning -- yes, on a head shot, a DSLR and a Red can look very similar, but on a wide shot the Red blows the DSLR away. And yes, on some shots I bet you'll find areas where the AF100 and the F3 would look comparable, but ... 4x the price buys you more. It just does. There are ways that the F3 will simply be better, no doubt.

So then we get back to that $11,000 more or $11,000 less question, and that's -- okay, so the F3 is better, but is it $11,000 better FOR WHAT *I* DO? That's the question that only you can answer. Just like the T2i can deliver Red-like shots in shallow-DOF headshots. If that's all you're doing, why spend $24,000 more for the Red? For some, it's enough, for others, it's nowhere near enough. Those decisions are personal decisions based on what you need, and it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks or says or advocates, all that really matters are the purposes you will be putting it to, and the expense, and what makes most sense within your budget.

[Everts]

and the key word today folks is proper !

Dont mind me I was watching Philip Bloom's review on the ex3 :) a few minutes ago.

My first impressions this looks like footage shot with a XHA1 with the sgpro, which I love ! Ofcourse Im talking about the daylight shots. Lowlight shots are incredible,the Dynamic range is out there !

Would like to have seen some footage shot in bright sunlight or under a tree with bright sunlight to see how it handles the sun !very filmic, but I can't afford it for now :(


Scarlet where art thou? I want to shoot raw not compresses anything ! Hurry up Red :)

[Kholi]

Hah! That's actually an excellent answer. :)

Indeed, we all want to know what we're getting for our dough. And many people want to believe they can get $200,000-camera results, with a $799 camera. So comparisons are inevitable. It would just be nice if comparisons could be done more apples-to-apples, meaning -- yes, on a head shot, a DSLR and a Red can look very similar, but on a wide shot the Red blows the DSLR away. And yes, on some shots I bet you'll find areas where the AF100 and the F3 would look comparable, but ... 4x the price buys you more. It just does. There are ways that the F3 will simply be better, no doubt.

So then we get back to that $11,000 more or $11,000 less question, and that's -- okay, so the F3 is better, but is it $11,000 better FOR WHAT *I* DO? That's the question that only you can answer. Just like the T2i can deliver Red-like shots in shallow-DOF headshots. If that's all you're doing, why spend $24,000 more for the Red? For some, it's enough, for others, it's nowhere near enough. Those decisions are personal decisions based on what you need, and it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks or says or advocates, all that really matters are the purposes you will be putting it to, and the expense, and what makes most sense within your budget.

There should be a day on DVUser where visiting the site shows this mantra, and everyone must click "I accept these terms of reasoning" before you can progress o the actual site.

Shoot it up! (footage... Not drugs...)

[PerroneFord]

Scarlet where art thou? I want to shoot raw not compresses anything ! Hurry up Red :)

You do realize that REDRaw is actually compressed.. right?

[dustylense]

Bang for the buck, my money is still going af100

[kprince]

bang for the buck, my money is still going smith & wesson.

[HVXguy]

Well, no ... each lens is about $12,000 to $20,000. They said they had a set of UltraPrimes from 10mm to 135mm. So the lens package probably cost about $100,000 or so. Of course, you don't buy those lenses, you rent them...


Well, again, no -- not an HDCAM deck, they recorded to the HDCAM-SR deck, SRW-1. That costs a little more. You can't even see the price on Sony's page, they say "price available upon request". But GlobalMediaPro lists it at $65,000.


Well, see, not really -- at least, I don't think so. The F3 isn't competing with the AF100, it's competing with the Red Epic. If I was to buy an F3, I sure as hell wouldn't use it with Nikon lenses and record to XDCAM-EX format! That's like buying a championship race horse and feeding it McDonald's french fries. On the other hand, I don't know how many AF100 buyers are going to use Arri Ultra Primes and an SRW1 recorder with their AF100...

The Convergence guys said that they used the onboard recording only for proxies for editing with, and to me, with a head like the F3, that makes sense. I've been wondering why they bothered to even put XDCAM-EX on there, because to me that kind of ruins the whole thing -- why not put (at least) the 50mbps XDCAM-MPEG422 format on there? But as a proxy it makes sense. I think if you view the F3 as an XDCAM-EX camera, it makes no sense. But if you get rid of the recording format entirely, you start to look at it in a whole new light -- as in, hey, that's a pretty dang powerful camera head there. Paired with an external recorder, it makes a pretty interesting combination.

The F3 is in a class above the AF100, no doubt. AF100 is $4700. The F3 is 4x that price for a base unit, but that's not really how you'd actually want to use it. If I had an F3, I'd use it exactly like these Convergence guys did -- proper cinema glass, and a top-of-the-line recording format.

Barry, thanks for making my point, better than I did.

[Bassman2003]

I think with the same lenses I believe the end result from the AF-100 in this same situation would be very close with proper tweaking. They had a colorist which makes a large difference as well.

[Rolf Silber]

But this is nice!!! F3...

Lovely professional looking evaluation footage!

Great. Perfect. I'd hire the DoP and the guy or gal who did the grading any time... really, really looks good.

Now, I have one only problem: The moment I enter the price range of this Sony... I do rent the cam and don't buy.... but maybe that's just me.

[Barry_Green]

I think with the same lenses I believe the end result from the AF-100 in this same situation would be very close with proper tweaking. They had a colorist which makes a large difference as well.
I think the AF100 could make utterly lovely footage with those same lenses and the same recorder and the same colorist. I don't think it'd be the same though; you're still putting a $4700 camera head up against a $16,000 camera head, and that's gonna show through. Like we always say -- if the Sony wasn't substantially better, then they should be embarrassed that they cost 3x to 4x as much. So I do expect it to be better.

With that said -- I intend to find out how good the AF100 would look, in reasonable/appropriate shooting scenarios. I wouldn't necessarily put $100k worth of Ultra Primes on it and record to a $65,000 SRW-1 deck, but I think it's totally reasonable to put Compact Primes on it and record to a NanoFlash, and have it graded by a pro. How good can that combo look? I'll find out. But I'm not surprised that the F3 looks great -- I was expecting it to.

[life4eva]

Because some of us might have $11,000 more or want to save $11,000.


This post makes No SENSE at all. Any comparison that is done is always within the price range of things. You wouldn't compare _______ to this _______ especially when something cost more. I mean why don't we just save a little more money and buy a RED MX...... See where I'm going here?


I think it's time for me to leave these forums for a bit because I cannot stand the craziness here.....

[Mattykins]

For what it's worth...the two cameras are in entirely different classes.

The AF100 is for people like the majority of this board. Indie filmmakers. The F3, sounds like it's more for the digital cinema crowd that's looking for a great B-camera. Taken from their press release: "For example, it [F3] is ideal for use as a 2nd unit 35mm camera to complement Sony's F35 and SRW-9000PL, which are also PL Mount, S-35mm cameras." Two different games.

[Osslund]

The AF101 will do just fine for me and it's within my price range. Aren't talk about these cameras to be in the Sony section?

[Everts]

You do realize that REDRaw is actually compressed.. right?


Yeah I know but miles away from the other formats !

[Noel Evans]

Firstly, I totally understand why people want to compare this to the AF100.

These cameras are made by different companies. And sometimes one of those companies may just build something relatively cheap that has some secret sauce in there that makes a big difference, well thats I guess what people hope for.

However I think if you are shooting something with still lenses to say a nano / ki pro mini on the AF100 - and only want to do the same on the F3 its not going to be such a huge difference. But, if your going to shoot the way these guys did then your going to see a return for those things and then well the AF100 falls of your list entirely. Lets be realistic here.

And I'll leave you with this little nubbin. The AF100 used on a narrative with still lenses and shot by a master cinematographer, will always look better than a Sony F3 shot with the best of everything by someone who doesnt really know what they are doing.

[bhdfield]

The F3 makes little sense to me. It's priced very close to Red. The images I saw looked good, but did I see $11-$14K difference in the two cameras, when I saw clips from AF100 with Zeiss glass? Hmm, not that much, and frankly I thought it looked surprisingly video in quality, with shallower DOF than motion picture 35mm. And again, the $20,000 for F3 doesn't get you the lenses, which are critical to getting a film look. Just look at Philip's AF100 samples with the Zeiss glass. If you are in the $20-$30,000 category for camera, why would you go with the Sony F3 camera instead of RED? Makes little sense. And makes the AF100 look like a steal.

[bgundu]

The RED camera is not for everyone. There are many who feel it's a cool camera but still nowhere mature as it needs to be yet. Depending on what you're shooting, the F3 appears to be a very decent camera. There is certainly many choices now, (which is good) and I feel it's like when Apple decided to make a portable music device. It all came down to interface and usability.


The F3 makes little sense to me. It's priced very close to Red. The images I saw looked good, but did I see $11-$14K difference in the two cameras, when I saw clips from AF100 with Zeiss glass? Hmm, not that much, and frankly I thought it looked surprisingly video in quality, with shallower DOF than motion picture 35mm. And again, the $20,000 for F3 doesn't get you the lenses, which are critical to getting a film look. Just look at Philip's AF100 samples with the Zeiss glass. If you are in the $20-$30,000 category for camera, why would you go with the Sony F3 camera instead of RED? Makes little sense. And makes the AF100 look like a steal.

[pbarry]

Agree with that ! Let's talk about the AF100 in this section...period !

[agcohn]

If you are in the $20-$30,000 category for camera, why would you go with the Sony F3 camera instead of RED? Makes little sense. And makes the AF100 look like a steal.
I think that would depend on the final image quality, and in that regard, resolution is far from the final determining factor. So it's not like RED is the clear winner, just because it delivers more pixels. The quality of the delivered pixels is what is important.

We need to see footage from all of the cameras to see what is worth what.

[Barry_Green]

If you are in the $20-$30,000 category for camera, why would you go with the Sony F3 camera instead of RED?
Because for some people, it being a "Sony" instead of a "Red" makes all the difference to them.
For others, it being a "Red" instead of a "Sony" makes all the difference to them, too.

The Red definitely does things the F3 doesn't -- like 1080/60p, 3K, 4K, and even 4.5K. But it also costs about 9 grand more, too. For that coin you could have an F3 and two AF100's, or an F3, an AF100, and a fleet of five GH2s. For some folks, that'd make a lot more sense than buying the Red. For others, the Red would be worth more than all of that. If your clients say "We want this shot on the Red", then having $25k worth of F3, AF100, and GH2s would be pointless...

Besides, I don't know how many individual owner-ops are going to go for something like this. I think a lot of Red owners are still feeling the burn, from thinking that they could be owner-operator-rental houses and watching how the bottom dropped out of that market overnight, so I don't expect these to sell in massive numbers. Rental houses, or private production companies that work so much that renting doesn't make sense, sure. But individual owner-ops, maybe not so much. The AF100 is at a sweet spot of pricing for individual owner-ops, but in today's market, in today's economy, something like the F3 is not likely to be a mass purchase item. Nor is something like the Epic, although there's a built-in upgrade path there where the existing 8,000 Red owners will all automatically want to upgrade.

Compared to an Epic, the Sony doesn't measure up in specs. But, it's also a lot less expensive.

Whether it succeeds in the market or not, isn't really something we can decide here, but all I can say is -- it may not make sense to you, but I'm sure to their target audience it makes good sense. These companies do usually do a lot of research, and mostly they get it right; the HDX400 was a bomb, and so was the 1/2" XDCAM-HD disc series, but for the most part they do know what they're doing and they do have an audience in mind when they release a product. Not everybody will fit into that target audience of course!

And makes the AF100 look like a steal.
Agreed. But it's not in the same class as the F3, nor is it intended to be a direct competitor.

[Barry_Green]

Agree with that ! Let's talk about the AF100 in this section...period !

Thread has been moved to the XDCAM-EX section. The F3 is an XDCAM-EX camcorder, so it seems like the best place for it.

[PerroneFord]

If you are in the $20-$30,000 category for camera, why would you go with the Sony F3 camera instead of RED? Makes little sense. And makes the AF100 look like a steal.

Maybe because if you're using the F3 as it appears to be designed (as a B camera to an F35) the workflow is consistent. Whereas the RED will require a completely different workflow. Honestly, as much as I would like a RED, the workflow isn't all that appealing with my chosen editor. Though I am anxious to see the RED workflow Webinar in a couple weeks. Maybe that will change my mind.

[Andrew J. Allsbury]

Hmmmm...I'm just saying...
For $5k...My pre-order stands...

http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z445/Andrew_Allsbury/AF100.png
http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z445/Andrew_Allsbury/PMWF3.png

[Jaime Valles]

Hmmmm...I'm just saying...
For $5k...My pre-order stands...

http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z445/Andrew_Allsbury/AF100.png
http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z445/Andrew_Allsbury/PMWF3.png
My thoughts exactly. :)

[mico]

Maybe because if you're using the F3 as it appears to be designed (as a B camera to an F35) the workflow is consistent. Whereas the RED will require a completely different workflow. Honestly, as much as I would like a RED, the workflow isn't all that appealing with my chosen editor. Though I am anxious to see the RED workflow Webinar in a couple weeks. Maybe that will change my mind.

Perrone, which webinar are you referring to? Thanks

[Kellar42]

I do that exact same thing with a spoon. But it is not the passport to picking up girls that people think it is. Always good to see magic and pretty people and cameras combined...that's pretty much my life. Nice short.

I suppose there is no chance of the new $7,000 camera their announcing being to the F3 as the Ex1 is to the Ex3? Because that would be cool...

Otherwise, price range, timing wise, everything, the AF100 still looks like a damn solid bet.

[James Bridges]

Don't look over the fact they are using $40,000 worth of Zeiss lenses, recording to a $20,000 or so HDCAM deck. The footage was also posted in a high end finishing suite.
The real test with the Sony camera will come when some one shoots side bt side with an AF100 using the same lenses and recording to the native formats.

I understand your statement, but for some of us this is our world. Recording onto native formats is slowly going away, especially with the NanoFlash and AJA Ki Pro Mini.
As far as lenses go, you can go do down to your local rental establishment( if there is one) and rent the sane lenses and recorder.
Let's not worry about Codecs at this point, let's worry about framing, exposure, latitude, options and mist importantly...story.

[bgundu]

remember the HDX400 was listed at $42,500!!!

[HVXguy]

I understand your statement, but for some of us this is our world. Recording onto native formats is slowly going away, especially with the NanoFlash and AJA Ki Pro Mini.
As far as lenses go, you can go do down to your local rental establishment( if there is one) and rent the sane lenses and recorder.
Let's not worry about Codecs at this point, let's worry about framing, exposure, latitude, options and mist importantly...story.

Oh I know what you mean, I have produced for over 25 years, 35MM, 16MM, RED, P2 etc... I have never lost a job because someone wanted to pay more. I budget a job based on what the end user wants. If they wanted a "film" look - then we used to budget for film. Shooting with a RED and a set of Ultraprimes can get you that "look" as well. It is not the same. I do miss going to a telecine room.
The other day I bid on a job that wanted to shoot with a DSLR. I do have a 7D with dozens of lenses. The client said the job was mine if I would do it for $20 per hour.
I did not take that job. The client did say that this was the future!!!! Isn't the client always right?

[Mike McNeese]

Wow....you guys must be seeing something I'm not seeing in this F3 short!

Do you REALLY think this short is out of the realm of what the AF100 is capable of? Seems like a lot of us are getting defensive and NOT wanting to compare the two, when, truth be told, we simply haven't seen a project with this much thought and pre-pro invested from the AF100.

If the AF100 isn't capable of producing images VERY similar to what we are seeing in this Covergence project, then I'll pass.

But I'm betting that it CAN.

[Ian-T]

(sigh)....it all looks like DSLR footage to me. What are we all hyping over again?

I guess if everythig wasn't so hyper shallow I might have a different perspective...but...whatever.

[life4eva]

(sigh)....it all looks like DSLR footage to me. What are we all hyping over again?

I guess if everythig wasn't so hyper shallow I might have a different perspective...but...whatever.

Goes to show you how great these DSLRS are.

7151244

[Barry_Green]

Wow....you guys must be seeing something I'm not seeing in this F3 short!

Do you REALLY think this short is out of the realm of what the AF100 is capable of?
No, not at all.


when, truth be told, we simply haven't seen a project with this much thought and pre-pro invested from the AF100.
That is, of course, correct. And those productions will come.


If the AF100 isn't capable of producing images VERY similar to what we are seeing in this Covergence project, then I'll pass.

But I'm betting that it CAN.
I am certain that it can, but that discussion would probably be left to another thread, over in the AF100 forum. :thumbsup:

[PerroneFord]

Perrone, which webinar are you referring to? Thanks

Upcoming Avid Webinar discussing RED workflow. I know Avid owners get the emails.. I don't know if others do.

[mcgeedigital]

http://www.vimeo.com/16943320

[Petros Kolyvas]

Upcoming Avid Webinar discussing RED workflow. I know Avid owners get the emails.. I don't know if others do.

If you're a COW user then yes. Got it tonight actually.

While it's off topic, if you're interested the registration link: http://heifer.creativecow.net/t/401030/762078/129001/0/

[TheReverend]

This cam looks great.

I got to hand it to Sony, they sure know how to sell/pimp their products. Fancy videos that are uber-high production (high-end grading, glass, recording gear) that are well planned and produced. Sheets and brochures with drastically awesome specs.

Personally, I don't trust Sony. I remember when the PS3 was coming out later than the Xbox360, and they "promised" that the PS3 would be twice as fast and will have dual screen output on top of that! Sony always seems to make broad drastic claims, and only sometimes do they actually get there.

I really look forward to seeing more footage from this cam, and can't wait to see how it compares with an AF100 after both are released!

[G.P.]

Hey Panny. My suggestion is that you get someone to do a short like this PRONTO! Get some actors, lighting, mood going. No more pictures of leaves and temples.

My gripe exactly, this is how every test shoot should be done for a camera that needs to wow costumers, no question.


Go read the blog:
http://convergenceblog.co.uk/

They used Zeiss Ultraprimes and a SRW1 HD Portable Digital Recorder.
Not pieces of equipment that a casual user probably rent.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-SRW1/

The footage looked OK and again the shooters said they did not have
time to really test the camera before shooting.

I would rather see what the camera could do
using Nikon or Canon lenses, recording to the native format.

I want to clear up this whole misconception of the SR recorder. The SR recorder doesn't magically make the images better, not by a long shot. It records more color space, yep, and bit depth, yep. But thats it. Consider using a KiPro mini or a NanoFlash and you have no argument. The output is 10bit 4:2:2, which has been said over and over and over again is visually the same as 4:4:4 on any give monitor. MAJOR EDIT, after re-reading the article (its late here in NYC) I saw that they too are recording to the SR at 10bit 4:2:2 so basically we are smack dab in the same range. So now you really have nothing to worry about.

So what you are seeing isnt magically made better just because it was recorded by the SR, this is pretty much exactly what you'd get if you hooked up a NanoFlash or KiPro to it. And they are 2800 bux. So that theory doesn't hold water. The image is from the camera not the recorder. So yes what you're seeing on that video IS what the camera is capable of doing on the indi budget. No SR needed.

Secondly the lens choice, sure they are wonderful lenses to use, My choice are Zeiss super speeds, I love them. They are expensive glass... Do I own a set, NO. You rent when you need. Can you buy great cheaper glass like Zeiss Nikon primes, yep. They might not have the exact same look as what you're seeing, but I dare test you to watch something shot with a mix of the 2 and tell me you know which shot was which every time.

The footage stands on its own, sure they used an SR, and guess what, we can use something very similar for a lot less. Yes they used some Master Primes, but guess what, we can use something similar for very less. And when you are hired to shoot that film that really wants that extra kick, they can rent for a small amount of money those lenses, and for a little bit more money the SR if really needed.


One thing I find uniquely fascinating about the press for the Sony F3 is that on the one hand they talk about how its a small (easily) handheld 35mm sized sensor palmcorder and yada yada yada, .......... only to then mention that in order to get the best possible footage out of it you'll need to record to an off-board recorder, and the example they provide first is the Sony SRW-1 /SRPC-1 SRW tape recorder! People that is a MASSIVE recorder, kind of makes the hand-holdability thing mute.

Again as I said above, its only a recorder its not what you're seeing, you're seeing a great sensor and processors to handle that footage. The recorder just preserves the bit depth. With a NanoFlash or KiPro you are VERY close to the exact same thing and its visually dare I say Impossible to see the difference on a monitor between it.

I'm just saying, we have the tools for this guys, dont be afraid its because they used Master Primes, or the SR... This is completely possible with the tools in use for indies at this very moment.

So sleep easy and dream of owning it, because I sure am haha

[henryolonga]

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/style_dvxuser_vb4/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by dustylense http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/style_dvxuser_vb4/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=2161347#post2161347)
Hey Panny. My suggestion is that you get someone to do a short like this PRONTO! Get some actors, lighting, mood going. No more pictures of leaves and temples.

Word! I am so sold on this camera at the moment. The images are just well - really stunning.

[Bassman2003]

I have to say that the latest footage that started with the nature scenes just does not blow me away. It looks great, don't get me wrong but still has a pretty digital look to me.

If somebody had posted this as there latest GH1/2 project I would not have thought to say the camera had to be a better model.

I post this to make the point that there is a convergence here with the basic images out of these cameras. The real determining factor is the "special sauce" put on by great talents and effort in lighting and post production.

Which in my opinion favors the AF-100 as well as spending less on the camera and more on lighting instruments and talent.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Wow....you guys must be seeing something I'm not seeing in this F3 short!

Do you REALLY think this short is out of the realm of what the AF100 is capable of? Seems like a lot of us are getting defensive and NOT wanting to compare the two, when, truth be told, we simply haven't seen a project with this much thought and pre-pro invested from the AF100.

If the AF100 isn't capable of producing images VERY similar to what we are seeing in this Covergence project, then I'll pass.

But I'm betting that it CAN.

I see a less artificial sharpened image (weird, Sony used to be the king of digital sharpness) and better color rendition.

Again, the quality seems to increase in proportion with the price... So, no surprises here.

[ZazaCast]

Talked to some industry friends and this is what I'm told:

Estimated MSRP (i.e. list price) $23K with a three fixed focal length lens kit, $16k without lens. Delivery in Feb.

[Mike McNeese]

I see a less artificial sharpened image

I don't think we can really comment on the color of the AF100 material compared to this since this has obviously been touched by a colorist. And the AF100 footage, from the latest I've heard, is still a pretty flat video-ish gamma. I'm hoping for more from the CINE D and B.PRESS settings.

Anywho, I think the skintones on the F3 leave me wanting a little more warmth and saturation. Little blue-gray tint from what I'm seeing. Just IMHO.

But, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the video-like sharpness of the AF100. I never really pinpointed what it was that made the AF's footage so video-ish, but I think you're right, it's the sharpness. I've seen GH1(3) footage with a much more cinematic feel, so I am hoping that there are some things to tinker with to lose that video sharp look.

[Mike McNeese]

Talked to some industry friends and this is what I'm told:

Estimated MSRP (i.e. list price) $23K with a three fixed focal length lens kit, $16k without lens. Delivery in Feb.

If this is indeed the case, then the F3 is really more aligned to compete with the Scarlet S35 than the Epic. Once outfitted comparably, the Scarlet S35 should ring up to at least $15,000.

That could be an interesting comparison, as the Scarlet is hyped to have features that the F3 will not (presumably: 3k, 120fps, HDR). But the F3 has a more potential to actually exist, and it will be delivered with the reputation of Sony behind it.

[Matthew Bennett]

Talked to some industry friends and this is what I'm told:

Estimated MSRP (i.e. list price) $23K with a three fixed focal length lens kit, $16k without lens. Delivery in Feb.

It's up on B&H already

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/743866-REG/Sony_PMW_F3K_SUPER_35MM_DIGITAL_CAMERA.html

[Barry_Green]

If this is indeed the case, then the F3 is really more aligned to compete with the Scarlet S35 than the Epic.
Sony has said that their target was the Red One. Neither Scarlet nor Epic exist yet. They built the F3 as a Red One competitor.

[NinoI]

How did it happen that with THIS camera nobody blames Vimeo's compression anymore? Did Vimeo change standard all of a sudden? :)

[Razz16mm]

How did it happen that with THIS camera nobody blames Vimeo's compression anymore? Did Vimeo change standard all of a sudden? :)

Vimeo, the Great Leveler. Nothing really subtle about the camera original image quality is going to come through on a web video for sure. But this looks much better than most of the DSLR video recompressed due to not having major compression codec unfriendly artifacts to deal with in the first place.

[NinoI]

Vimeo, the Great Leveler. Nothing really subtle about the camera original image quality is going to come through on a web video for sure. But this looks much better than most of the DSLR video recompressed due to not having major compression codec unfriendly artifacts to deal with in the first place.

In other words you are telling that even looking at Vimeo you can judge if a camera has a good quality "in the first place", right? I agree that the very quality of a camera is lost through a web video, but I think also that if something is really good it "survives" also at 720 and even at 360. Just look at a Hollywood scene in youtube... it is apperarent even there after all the possible and imaginable compression that it was shoot in a stunning quality. It is the same if you listen Mozart in a very cheap stereo, you can still recognize a masterpice, something of its magic i still there. So, when we look ad the footage of the AF100 and the footage of the F3 even in Vimeo we can tell the difference very clearly. And when someone says he is disappointed about the highlights we saw in the AF100 or about its "harshness", well... don't start the "it is Vimeo" and the "go look in a proper monitor and dl the original files" arguments. It is not the case. IMHO.

[Everts]

It's all about the gradients and knowing how to compress for the web !

[G.P.]

In other words you are telling that even looking at Vimeo you can judge if a camera has a good quality "in the first place", right? I agree that the very quality of a camera is lost through a web video, but I think also that if something is really good it "survives" also at 720 and even at 360. Just look at a Hollywood scene in youtube... it is apperarent even there after all the possible and imaginable compression that it was shoot in a stunning quality. It is the same if you listen Mozart in a very cheap stereo, you can still recognize a masterpice, something of its magic i still there. So, when we look ad the footage of the AF100 and the footage of the F3 even in Vimeo we can tell the difference very clearly. And when someone says he is disappointed about the highlights we saw in the AF100 or about its "harshness", well... don't start the "it is Vimeo" and the "go look in a proper monitor and dl the original files" arguments. It is not the case. IMHO.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You can't blame vimeo, because you can watch some of the RED One footage on vimeo and just sit there with your jaw on the floor. Its an equalized filter, meaning Is only going to do so much and does it equally to all the videos in the same manner. So going through the vimeo compression cant be an excuse for things we clearly see DONT exsist on other high quality footage thats on vimeo. Because then of course everything would be blow on all vimeo videos, but thats not the case. So yes I too agree, stop blaming vimeo. Don't point fingers when clearly vimeo is up to the task of this lovely 1080p RED One and Alexa footage, but all of a sudden not others?

[henryolonga]

What about still lenses on this cam? If I wanted to go for a still lense config as I have a good collection of AI Nikon lenses used with my DSLR rig. Anyone care to chime in? Or is this less flexible than the AF100 when it comes to lenses?

[Duke M.]

So far there are only the Sony proprietary mount and the PL adapter. There are no adapters for Nikon or Canon lenses. I could see them being make for the manual lenses, but it will be a much smaller market than the AF100 just because the F3 is more expensive.

[Duke M.]

In other words you are telling that even looking at Vimeo you can judge if a camera has a good quality "in the first place", right? I agree that the very quality of a camera is lost through a web video, but I think also that if something is really good it "survives" also at 720 and even at 360.

Vimeo compression doesn't effect colors. IMHO part of the difference is that the F3 is an XDCAM. A large part of it is the same as the EX1 and EX3, which has a very broad user base. If you're an experienced user it will be much easier to pick up the F3 and do well.

If you're not, your in the same boat as the AF100, which is a totally new camera. It will be an education issue for awhile.