Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh Hello... F3!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by Mike McNeese View Post
    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.
    ..
    The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

    Comment


      #77
      How did it happen that with THIS camera nobody blames Vimeo's compression anymore? Did Vimeo change standard all of a sudden?

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by NinoI View Post
        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.

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by Razz16mm View Post
          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.

          Comment


            #80
            It's all about the gradients and knowing how to compress for the web !

            Comment


              #81
              Originally posted by NinoI View Post
              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?

              Comment


                #82
                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?

                Comment


                  #83
                  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.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by NinoI View Post
                    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.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X