F3 and Epic lowlight/dynamic range, how do they compare?

Grug

Grug

Veteran
Hey guys,

I'm tossing up between the idea of either an F3 (not SLOGged) or a Scarlet recording out to Pro Res, and I'm wondering if anyone's had any experience with both the F3 and Epic and can comment on how the low-light sensitivity and dynamic range of the two compare?

It's practically impossible to get any objective perspective from the Red crowd, so I'm wondering if you guys can help me.

Cheers
 
Philip Bloom did some simultaneous shots between the F3, Epic and AF100 around a campfire at night while shooting a documentary. There's more than one blog about it. Philip does have sponsers, but he discloses them and neither Sony, nor Red, nor Panasonic are sponsers.

http://philipbloom.net/2011/10/10/kesslerdoc1/

"I captured this with the F3 and the AF100. This was just lit with the fire so very dark. The F3 did the best here easily. The AF100 did OK with the Abel Cine low noise profile and the amazing Voigtlander 25mm F0.95. The Epic struggled to see much to be honest. It needed more light. So I just used it for some off speed pretty shots of the fire which looked lovely!" (underline added)

When asked "Why did you choose not to use the Epic on the fire sequence?" "The low light on the Epic was not up to it. Far too noisy."

It makes sense. Light sensitivity is partially governed by the size of the photo sites. The Epic and the Scarlet have 5k sensors, the F3 is approx. 2k wide. The Red cameras have tiny photo sites to fit about 5 times as many into the approx. same size S35 sensor.

Also note "To convert a 1 minute clip (shot at 5K 2.4:1 with 12:1 compression) to 1080p on a 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, it took 40 minutes!" He much preferred using the F3 over the Epic and the Scarlet has many more compromises than the Epic.
 
Last edited:
The Great Camera Shootout 2011 Produced by Kessler Crane and Zacuto has a comparison of the Red One M-X and the f3. It's not exactly what your are asking for, but maybe you can get an idea or at least the low light of the non S-Log f3.

Edit: I also saw this it's only about the f3.
 
Last edited:
When you get an F3 now, you'll at least have the option of S-Log later. I didn't get S-Log right away. I loved the images without it. I have it now and WOW is all I can say.
 
f3 kills scarlet in low light PLUS 1080p, since you actually use the FULL S35 sensor, where as the scarlet turns into a 2/3 sensor crop. . . f3 is cheaper (we talkin "shoot-ready package) than the scarlet, but gives you far more and when you know how to white balance AND light like a pro, you can color correct like crazy and it doesnt show (obviously you dont want to turn your "romance-comedy shot sceen into a horro sceen, but even that is possible)
 
Duke M. said:
Philip Bloom did some simultaneous shots between the F3, Epic and AF100 around a campfire at night while shooting a documentary. There's more than one blog about it. Philip does have sponsers, but he discloses them and neither Sony, nor Red, nor Panasonic are sponsers.

http://philipbloom.net/2011/10/10/kesslerdoc1/

"I captured this with the F3 and the AF100. This was just lit with the fire so very dark. The F3 did the best here easily. The AF100 did OK with the Abel Cine low noise profile and the amazing Voigtlander 25mm F0.95. The Epic struggled to see much to be honest. It needed more light. So I just used it for some off speed pretty shots of the fire which looked lovely!" (underline added)

When asked "Why did you choose not to use the Epic on the fire sequence?" "The low light on the Epic was not up to it. Far too noisy."

It makes sense. Light sensitivity is partially governed by the size of the photo sites. The Epic and the Scarlet have 5k sensors, the F3 is approx. 2k wide. The Red cameras have tiny photo sites to fit about 5 times as many into the approx. same size S35 sensor.

Also note "To convert a 1 minute clip (shot at 5K 2.4:1 with 12:1 compression) to 1080p on a 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, it took 40 minutes!" He much preferred using the F3 over the Epic and the Scarlet has many more compromises than the Epic.
Click to expand...

Thanks Duke, that's a huge help - I figured it might be the case. Being able to get around with a smaller/lighter lighting setup has some definite advantages for me.

Hydarnes said:
f3 kills scarlet in low light PLUS 1080p, since you actually use the FULL S35 sensor, where as the scarlet turns into a 2/3 sensor crop. . . f3 is cheaper (we talkin "shoot-ready package) than the scarlet, but gives you far more and when you know how to white balance AND light like a pro, you can color correct like crazy and it doesnt show (obviously you dont want to turn your "romance-comedy shot sceen into a horro sceen, but even that is possible)
Click to expand...

Well I don't really have the means (or any particular interest) in shooting 4k Raw footage at this stage (hence my preference to pull 1080p Pro Res off the HD-SDI), which actually puts the scarlet ahead of the F3 on price (factoring in the cost of an external recorder but no actual Red SSD media) for a 'ready to shoot' package.

My concern lies more with the colour, tonality, highlight handling and dynamic range of the two cameras - and the flexibility the image from each camera will give me to shoot a fairly wide range of projects/project styles (from commercials and narrative work, to educational and corporate videos).

I'm also trying to factor in the appeal being able to offer 4k to clients (if they really want it) will hold. And whether that appeal justifies the potential reliability risks I'd be taking with the Red camera.
 
Duke M. said:


It makes sense. Light sensitivity is partially governed by the size of the photo sites. The Epic and the Scarlet have 5k sensors, the F3 is approx. 2k wide. The Red cameras have tiny photo sites to fit about 5 times as many into the approx. same size S35 sensor.
Click to expand...

The F3 sensor is not 1920 x 1080, it's closer to 2.5k wide. Roughly 2472 x 1388 (Estimating, with a RGGB Bayer). So it's about slightly more than half that of the Mysterium-X.

http://notesonvideo.blogspot.com/2011/01/sony-pmw-f3-rule-boston-camera.html


Sensor Resolution
The PMW-F3 features Sony's first CMOS EXMOR Super 35mm, and it has a resolution of 3.43 Megapixels, though they aren’t disclosing the number of pixels across the vertical; yet.* But according to Sony, it has a “very interesting” color filter array.

(* For the math inclined: 1920x1080 = 2.07MP. (1920x2)=3840x1080 = 4.15MP, so perhaps the vertical resolution is something more than 1920 and less than 3840?)
Click to expand...

I've been trying to figure what the pattern on the Filter Array could possibly be, but I can't figure it out.
 
Grug said:
My concern lies more with the colour, tonality, highlight handling and dynamic range of the two cameras - and the flexibility the image from each camera will give me to shoot a fairly wide range of projects/project styles (from commercials and narrative work, to educational and corporate videos).
Click to expand...

That was my concern when originally comparing the Red One and F3. I've always felt the Red images, despite great resolution, having a video feel to them. It blew me away to see the rich tones of the F3 out of the box. There have been many versions of the Red color software since then, and its gotten a bit better, but I still like the F3 footage better (and its much easier/faster turnaround, IMHO) We don't know what the Scarlet footage will look like yet.

I'm also trying to factor in the appeal being able to offer 4k to clients (if they really want it) will hold. And whether that appeal justifies the potential reliability risks I'd be taking with the Red camera.
Click to expand...

You're right that Red has not had the best firmware/reliability history. I would have wanted to punch someone if they had made me a guinea pig for 2 years the way they did with the Red One after spending that much money.

I don't understand Red's assertion of 'future proof' at 4k. Half the homes in the US don't even have HD TV. Most theaters that have digital projectors still have 2k projectors and most major movie productions are still mastered in 2k even when projected on a 4k projector. Resolution doesn't tell a story. Heck, Johnny Depps recent release of 'Rum Diaries' was shot on 16mm.

Assuredly that will change eventually, but it takes a big ego (lots of those in Hollywood) to think someone wants to see your product in 20 years. When anyone has suggested 4k to me I've mentioned Avatar, Benjamin Button, Slum Dog Millionaire, etc. The award winners were done on 2k.
 
I use both.

The F3 eats the red alive in the dark, and in terms of lattitude (w log).

Also, it seems the F3 when in 444 recording is one of the most color accurate cameras made. It was the darling of the SMPTE conference, recently.
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
The F3 sensor is not 1920 x 1080, it's closer to 2.5k wide. Roughly 2472 x 1388 (Estimating, with a RGGB Bayer). So it's about slightly more than half that of the Mysterium-X.
Click to expand...

True, but the same result, bigger photo sites on the F3. I can't wait for the Electronic Indexing of the sensor with the upcoming firmware. Optimized sensor use, hooray!
 
I'm confused. Why do people who want to buy professional cameras test them in the most unprofessional configurations?

I shot a pretty high budget period short in a one room cabin that was supposed to be lit by only oil lamps on a Red One. If I had a more sensitive camera would I have shot it using only oil lamps? HELL NO. I wanted it to look great, not flat. We used a couple lights to create the mood and it looks smashing. It looks much better than it would have under only a few oil lamps. Sure, it would have cost less but it would have looked uglier. Why shoot at all if I have to choose ugly over ideal? Hold off and do it when you can afford to do it right.

Natural light can be great, such as exterior daylight shots. But successful filmmakers and films don't choose to shoot using natural light for budget reasons.. they do it for artistic reasons. If you're making those choices because of the budget then you have other problems and the camera you're shooting on might as well be as cheap as you can find because its probably not going to matter.

Maybe the problem is people BUY $20K in camera equipment and then realize they don't have money left over to do the production right so now they have to shoot with "guerrilla" lighting and serve people Top Ramen? An alternative is keep the $20K in a bank account and then you can afford to RENT everything and do it right. I'd rather have one great production than 3 poor quality productions that have no potential.

Of course this is just my opinion. I was always told as a kid to do it right or don't even start. We don't need to practice doing crappy jobs.
 
TimurCivan said:
I use both. The F3 eats the red alive in the dark, and in terms of lattitude (w log).Also, it seems the F3 when in 444 recording is one of the most color accurate cameras made. It was the darling of the SMPTE conference, recently.
Click to expand...
Thanks Timur,What kind of shoots and scenarios do find each camera shines in? (i.e. which camera would you reach for in a given shooting scenario?)
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
Natural light can be great, such as exterior daylight shots. But successful filmmakers and films don't choose to shoot using natural light for budget reasons.. they do it for artistic reasons. If you're making those choices because of the budget then you have other problems and the camera you're shooting on might as well be as cheap as you can find because its probably not going to matter.

I was always told as a kid to do it right or don't even start. We don't need to practice doing crappy jobs.
Click to expand...

You make some good points, but I object to this line of thinking.

Yes, in an ideal world we always do it right. But speaking as an owner operator, having a camera like the PMW-F3 with it's incredible dynamic range allows me to salvage shots where there was no budget to light it right. Look, I wish I always had clients who could pay for tow behind generators and 18k HMIs and Condors when they want to shoot night exteriors. I wish they would get the same generators and 20x20s for daylight exteriors. They don't always. So you have to make do, or what? Not take the job? (Which, at a certain threshold *is* the right answer)

There are only so many high end DP jobs out there, and a much greater supply of people who want them. Yes, to an extent you'll work your way up by working under those people as an AC or Camera Operator, but at some point you have to break free and start getting the experience as a DP. And if you want to parlay that into becoming a "successful" DP, then you better make every shot look as good as possible with whatever you have at your disposal.

Mid range cameras like the PMW-F3 don't negate the need for good lighting packages, but they do give you a better picture with less then you'll get if you move to a cheaper camera, particularly when manipulated in post.

As someone working my way up I can't always choose the lighting budget the client will give me, but I can bring a camera to the table that will help me push whatever I get to the limit.
 
A lot of people here are young, inexperienced, yet ambitious. Ambition is a good thing. My thoughts have always been, if you don't have the funds or the experience you can always work for someone who does, to learn. Then when you do get the funds, you'll make less mistakes.

Some people here are more seasoned.
 
Its great that you have big budgets available to you, but don't overlook the need for light weight and/or speed.

Try backpacking in the contents of a one ton lighting truck. Or that semi public place where a tourist with a camera for 5 minutes won't be a problem, but a full lighting set up will be a big problem.

Getting the highest production values out of the tiny budget of an indie producer is a fact of life. I'm making movies NOW, not waiting to see if someone might give me the opportunity at their whim.
 
Duke M. said:
Its great that you have big budgets available to you, but don't overlook the need for light weight and/or speed.

Try backpacking in the contents of a one ton lighting truck. Or that semi public place where a tourist with a camera for 5 minutes won't be a problem, but a full lighting set up will be a big problem.

Getting the highest production values out of the tiny budget of an indie producer is a fact of life. I'm making movies NOW, not waiting to see if someone might give me the opportunity at their whim.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Duke M. said:
Its great that you have big budgets available to you, but don't overlook the need for light weight and/or speed.

Try backpacking in the contents of a one ton lighting truck. Or that semi public place where a tourist with a camera for 5 minutes won't be a problem, but a full lighting set up will be a big problem.

Getting the highest production values out of the tiny budget of an indie producer is a fact of life. I'm making movies NOW, not waiting to see if someone might give me the opportunity at their whim.
Click to expand...

And part of that process is choosing the right tools for the job.

Red may not be it for you.
 
JDDalllas said:
Haven't heard this, can you elaborate..
Click to expand...

Two things were mentioned, but I assume you're asking about the upcoming firmware, per ablecine technical:
http://blog.abelcine.com/tag/firmware/

Electronic indexing in version 1.2 will be out this month, will optimize the sensor and give us another stop of DR above and beyond what S-Log gives us.

"Perhaps the most significant addition of all is Exposure Index S-Log mode. You will still need the S-Log option installed to make this work, but if you already have the S-Log option on, this will be enabled right away. The Exposure Index mode works differently than the standard S-Log mode – it sets the camera at an optimal ISO (800) and maximizes the sensor output, giving a full extra stop of exposure. Then when the gain switch is adjusted, instead of adding gain it adjusts the exposure index. A practical explanation of this is that when gain is increased the camera will push up the exposure values, and when it is decreased it will pull down those values. Because the ISO is set to get the most out of the sensor, the exposure index change works more like an adjustment in post. The extra stop in exposure is big news though, and I can’t wait to try it out."

and v1.3, coming out around the end of the year (December to February) will allow S-Log from the A socket and a LUT from B.

"The firmware will add one really important feature, which is the ability to output S-Log in 422. When S-Log is enabled (with the optional key), you will be able to send a 422 signal out of the Dual-Link ‘A’ output. Right now S-Log can only be sent out via the regular SDI output, by turning off the output LUT."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top