Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
I concur. 720p upscales just fine from the F3. The last job I did was only 720p50 to Prores and it looks great.
F3: C300 vs. F3
- Thread starter amarss
- Start date
KINOKS
Well-known member
Slog has a greater dynamic range. Clog is IMHO pushing it in a 8 bit image (I've only shot with a C100 and not with a C300). You have to be careful. If you ask me it's a shame that the C300 doesn't have the Wide DR gamma, the one that C100 has. This gamma is a perfect match for these cameras!
LyleGorch
Well-known member
I've been upscaling 720p for a couple years, it was the main reason I picked-up a GH2 and hacked it, it works but there are (to my eyes) better options now. I would still take an F3 over a C300 if those were my choices.
starcentral
Veteran
If your not seeing 720p upscaled look good, chances are you have a setting in your software or process in your workflow that's messing it up. Different programs use various scaling algorithms and filters for its resampling, so you need to really experiment with the settings if you have them and know what works and what doesn't.
ie. bicubic, bilinear, nearest neighbor, sharp, smooth, etc....
With 1080p I'm even able to blow up frames 5-10% in post for padding and some reframing if needed, motion stabilization, post zooms, etc.. etc.. Alot of what you can get away with has to do with knowing the settings of the software you are using.
ie. bicubic, bilinear, nearest neighbor, sharp, smooth, etc....
With 1080p I'm even able to blow up frames 5-10% in post for padding and some reframing if needed, motion stabilization, post zooms, etc.. etc.. Alot of what you can get away with has to do with knowing the settings of the software you are using.
Dino
Veteran
I like the F3, but the codec was a deal breaker for me. Not a fan of external recorders. Bought a C300 PL instead. Yes, it has limitations, but it's great for 95% of my clients. I've been testing the F5 recently and am very impressed, with a couple of feature/convenience exceptions, but it looks to be a winner. However, I just couldn't help but notice how big and heavy it gets vs. a C300 and it has twice the power consumption. C300 is a very easy camera to shoot with, cheap media, but a sub-$10K F3 seems to me to be a very good value. An F5 would cost more than 2x, which is hard to justify for many. The F55 even harder to justify, except for rental houses.
Backfocus92
Active member
It is not compact flash for one. So longer record times. I just wish they would release it already.
Grug
Veteran
The biggest thing the Ki Pro Quad offers over the PIX for use with the F3, is the ability to record 1080p at up to 60fps (in 4:2:2 or 4:4:4) via dual-link. The PIX can only support up to 1080p30 (and 720p60).
Beyond that, the Ki Pro is more future-proof in being able to record 4K feeds at up to 60fps. However, by the time the new generation of cameras (F5(5), Epic Dragon etc.) are replaced by new models, I imagine the need for external recorders will be largely rendered obsolete by high-end internal recording options on most cameras.
The PIX however offers superb audio-recording features though (for lovely synced-sound masters!).
So it's a question of needs really.
If you're not already invested in a PIX240, I think the small premium you'd pay for the Ki Pro Quad over the PIX240i is worth it for getting 50/60p out of the F3.
LyleGorch
Well-known member
mmmmmm, not many cameras can do 4:4:4 60p, I am intrigued. It looks like a fairly hefty package to mount on camera, based on the images over at the AJA site.