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

[Russell]

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).

An S35 sensor with 2K resolution, and therefore large photo sites, seems like an ideal way to achieve good low light performance but in other respects the F3 seems to be compromised by the 8-bit 4:2:0 codec. In a price comparison between the F3 and Scarlet it may make sense to add the cost of a recorder to both scenarios. I would like to see a camera like the F3 that can record Cineform RAW (like the Si-2K and Cinedeck). But then that camera would be called Alexa and it would be priced accordingly!

Here is an article with a good analysis of the costs associated with using the F3 in a number of different configurations.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/eescobar/story/the_indie_economics_of_slog_and_the_sony_pmwf3._is_it_worth_it/

 

[Russell]

I'm confused. Why do people who want to buy professional cameras test them in the most unprofessional configurations?

Is it "unprofessional" to shoot in a situation where we are not in full control of lighting? The original poster is researching a camera for a variety of work including commercials and drama but also "educational and corporate videos". Not all situations can or should revolve around the needs of a film crew, some locations will have to be taken as found, or lighting options may be restricted by access or budget.

There are times where using available light is the best creative choice, for example in some types of documentary. For decades documentary stills photographers have been liberated from lights by fast lenses, sensitive stock and a journalistic aesthetic. Were they all doing doing "crappy jobs".

It is offensive to imply that if you are working within the constraints of a low budget "the camera you're shooting on might as well be as cheap as you can find because its probably not going to matter." Isn't it time to let go of the thinking that projects made on a low budget are destined to be "ugly" and have "no potential"? Filmmakers come here to learn and share knowledge, not to be told that their projects are destined to fail unless they have a truck load of money.

Low light shooting is sometimes a valid creative choice, and sometimes an economic necessity. Either way a discussion about the characteristics of new cameras in terms of colour, tonality, highlight handling and dynamic range is welcome and valid.

 

[Grug]

An S35 sensor with 2K resolution, and therefore large photo sites, seems like an ideal way to achieve good low light performance but in other respects the F3 seems to be compromised by the 8-bit 4:2:0 codec. In a price comparison between the F3 and Scarlet it may make sense to add the cost of a recorder to both scenarios. I would like to see a camera like the F3 that can record Cineform RAW (like the Si-2K and Cinedeck). But then that camera would be called Alexa and it would be priced accordingly!

Here is an article with a good analysis of the costs associated with using the F3 in a number of different configurations.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/eescobar/story/the_indie_economics_of_slog_and_the_sony_pmwf3._is_it_worth_it/

Thanks Russell, I am factoring in the cost of a recorder to the F3, it's one of the reasons the Sony will still remain the more expensive option once you include enough batteries etc. to get a full day's shooting out of a Scarlet.

Both cameras are clearly pretty incredible in terms of IQ/cost, it's figuring out the more intangible aspects of the two options that's keeping me up at night! :undecided

 

[TheReverend]

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.

Timur -

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Canon C300. I'm of the mind that the F3 and Canon will be punch for punch similar in terms of picture quality, and in a different class than the AF100/FS100. Scarlet is what Scarlet is. High resolution, cropping, raw, high power/storage needs, etc. There is a lot going on with that cam that is good, but also that puts it in a different "class" of camera.

Anyway, thoughts?

 

[TimurCivan]

I feel the c300 is mssing too many features. Mainly, interchangeable mounts (standard nowadays), dual link 444, grainless picture, etc. I mean, I watched the test footage and laforets was the only one that made me say, wow I wanna shoot on that camera. The other three looked like 7d to me. Unnatural color, and oversharpened. (Probably in post).

That said, I haven't used it, so I have no valuable opinion till I do.

 

[TheReverend]

I feel the c300 is mssing too many features. Mainly, interchangeable mounts (standard nowadays), dual link 444, grainless picture, etc. I mean, I watched the test footage and laforets was the only one that made me say, wow I wanna shoot on that camera. The other three looked like 7d to me. Unnatural color, and oversharpened. (Probably in post).

That said, I haven't used it, so I have no valuable opinion till I do.

Missing features is a bummer for sure. The sensor intrigues me though. It seems to me (at least reading the marketing), that the sensor is designed a bit differently than the other sub-$20k cams. The 3 color separation and what not. I'm gonna have to read up on it again, but yeah.

 

[TimurCivan]

Its a 3.8k sensor. Lke an alexa and F3. There is only one way of deriving 1080p from a bayer sensor. You need "4" 1080p's worth of pixels. 2 green, 1red, 1 blue.

 

[Duke M.]

Its a 3.8k sensor. Like an Alexa and F3. There is only one way of deriving 1080p from a Bayer sensor. You need "4" 1080p's worth of pixels. 2 green, 1red, 1 blue.

The BBC white paper estimate of the number pixels on the F3 was slightly lower than expected based on the tests they did. As we all know they need twice the sensitivity on the green channel to look right.

There has been some speculation that the F3 simply doubled the green signal, which is simple to do digitally and wouldn't result in any resolution loss.

Or, that they used an entirely new Bayer pattern. Sony has been known to be experimenting on the Bayer patterns. On the F35, one of their flagship models, they used a striped pattern instead of the usual one. No one really knows though. Sony isn't talking. However, that would account for the rare moire pattern at high frequencies of repetitive patterns.

 

[TimurCivan]

All I know is the F3 is magical.

 

[reem12]

Timur, if I purchase he f3 with the s-log. what is the basic going rate to rent it out? thanks in advance.

 

[Viddovation]

Timur, if I purchase he f3 with the s-log. what is the basic going rate to rent it out? thanks in advance.

That's a very market dependent question. What I always do is check my camera package against the rate the local camera rental houses want.

In Nashville there are several rental houses offering the F3 for as low as $350 a day, but *none* of them have the S-Log upgrade.

 

[TimurCivan]

I depends on what's in the package.

I rent mine for $750 including, sachtler cine30HD head, heavy duty standard/short sticks, highhat, smallhd monitor, anton baur battery system etc....

Lenses extra.