Oh Hello... F3!
- Thread starter Matthew Bennett
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, not at all.
That is, of course, correct. And those productions will come.
I am certain that it can, but that discussion would probably be left to another thread, over in the AF100 forum. :thumbsup:
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Upcoming Avid Webinar discussing RED workflow. I know Avid owners get the emails.. I don't know if others do.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Petros Kolyvas
New member
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
New member
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!
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
G.P.
Guest
My gripe exactly, this is how every test shoot should be done for a camera that needs to wow costumers, no question.
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.
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
Last edited:
henryolonga
Member
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
Well-known member
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.
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
New member
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.
mjmcneese
New member
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.
mjmcneese
New member
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
New member
Barry_Green
Moderator
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.
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.
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.