Not sure why you're referencing pro-res for the F3 - unless you're specifically talking about external recorders. F3 has always been XDcam 420 internally. Though the last film I shot with my F3 (Girl On The Train - 2013) we recorded s-log externally in 444 uncompressed -- and in testing during preproduction decided that a little extra softening (slight black pro-mists) provided us the look we were going for. I still really like the look and colors from the F3 - and continue to use it for several of my clients.
F3: shot on F3, a film claimed to influence indie film for the next 5 years
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
Not sure why you're referencing pro-res for the F3 - unless you're specifically talking about external recorders. F3 has always been XDcam 420 internally. Though the last film I shot with my F3 (Girl On The Train - 2013) we recorded s-log externally in 444 uncompressed -- and in testing during preproduction decided that a little extra softening (slight black pro-mists) provided us the look we were going for. I still really like the look and colors from the F3 - and continue to use it for several of my clients.
Agreed! I had both for a long time and always shot F3 if the project was 1080.
Ben_Ericson
Well-known member
I think it pretty widely agreed on this forum that the F3 produces better color and skin tone than the FS7.
The FS7 is not a improved color science from the F3. The F3 is a Cine Alta camera, the FS7 is not.
I realize color grading is subjective. I like the Canon look a lot. I use the C300ii a lot and wish I could afford it but can't. The F3 with a recorder is the closest I can get colors wise.
Last edited:
starcentral
Veteran
The F3 and FS7 in custom mode have the same color science (sgamut).
It's only once you flip settings in the FS7 that you can get into sgamut3 / cine (also shared with F5/55) which the F3 doesn't have.
So really, it's tough argument depending on what it is you're actually arguing.
I hated color from the F3, a dozen films shot on the F3 (www.shotonf3.com) look bad to me. Some of the best work I've seen on f3 look great, but still missing something.
I think sgamut3 and slog3 was smart move for Sony in general.
It's only once you flip settings in the FS7 that you can get into sgamut3 / cine (also shared with F5/55) which the F3 doesn't have.
So really, it's tough argument depending on what it is you're actually arguing.
I hated color from the F3, a dozen films shot on the F3 (www.shotonf3.com) look bad to me. Some of the best work I've seen on f3 look great, but still missing something.
I think sgamut3 and slog3 was smart move for Sony in general.
Ben_Ericson
Well-known member
I haven't seen the accuracy of the saturated skin tone and greens to ever be as accurate as the F3. I see a lot of footage where the green has a yellow shift and a lot of the FS7 stuff has the white looking skin tones. There is some sort of feel with the F3 that does not come through on the FS7.
I am speaking clearly S-LOG here, the built baked in the color the F3 never seems to look very good.
In my experience, it seems easier to get that rich saturated contrasty look with the F3.
I also agree. A lot of films shot on the F3 look really bad. I'm really going for the 16mm film look or Canon C300ii. The F3 gets really close outside.
starcentral
Veteran
(nice frame grabs by the way)
Yes true about the regular mode on the F3 versus slog on the F3, and now that you mention slog I thought of something else -- depending if you had the paid slog or were using the poor man's FREE slog that eventually came with v1.4 I'd speculate you'd get far better results (color) if you remembered to turn matrix off with the free slog. I of course didn't know about that until after I had a chance to try it. I had sold the camera.
Just a bit more evidence to suggest what a lack of information really exists on how to use the Sony camera's and get the best out of them.
Yes true about the regular mode on the F3 versus slog on the F3, and now that you mention slog I thought of something else -- depending if you had the paid slog or were using the poor man's FREE slog that eventually came with v1.4 I'd speculate you'd get far better results (color) if you remembered to turn matrix off with the free slog. I of course didn't know about that until after I had a chance to try it. I had sold the camera.
Just a bit more evidence to suggest what a lack of information really exists on how to use the Sony camera's and get the best out of them.
Last edited:
Does anyone know if they recorded to the internal XDCAM EX 4:2:0 codec for this indie movie? I color graded an F3 feature project shot with the internal codec and I found it broke apart very easily. 8 bit. Compression artifacts and macro block very visible especially when pushing the contrast of an S-Log image. Horrible smudged details in wide shots or even MS with a lot of detail.
XDCAM EX is clearly inferior even to H264. The F3 does a lot better with 10 bit external recorders, like the Atomos Samurai blade, or Convergent Design Gemini 444 or Odyssey recorders.
XDCAM EX is clearly inferior even to H264. The F3 does a lot better with 10 bit external recorders, like the Atomos Samurai blade, or Convergent Design Gemini 444 or Odyssey recorders.
Ben_Ericson
Well-known member
Thanks. I have been really happy with the camera. I think the color and feel is close to the black magic pocket or c300ii. Strong codec that is really easy to grade.
Here's another weird one... The paid update actually has a S-LOG mode that bypasses the camera settings menu, but they messed up the color. There's a chance films were shot with the S-LOG gamut not the Video/S-LOG gamut. The difference in the greens was pretty noticeable.
You're right. Theres a million different settings and combinations of settings with hardly any documentation online.
"The camera has two kinds of output, which you select in the "Dual-Link & Gamma Select" menu.
One output mode is Video. In this mode you can customize the picture profile to set the gamma and color matrix.
The other output mode is S-Log. In this mode, picture profiles are unavailable. The gamma is locked to S-Log and the gamut to S-Gamut. I found the colors to be weird in this mode and I could find no way to compensate in post, even using a proper S-Log & S-Gamut transform. I believe Sony screwed up S-Gamut on this camera."
They definitely recorded with an external recorder. Non S-Log though, probably why some of the color is the way it is. I think overall it looks pretty nice tho
Grug
Veteran
I moved from the F3 to the F5 (not by choice but for HFR reasons), back when the F5 was just a 2k camera. And shot in 1080p SR444 (compared to 10-bit Prores4444 from the F3), I honestly never felt there was any great difference between the two, in apparent detail or colour science.
The downsampled 4k sensor on the F5 was perhaps a tad more resolute, but I'd call the images equivalent (which was why I wasn't all that enthused about moving from a 10-bit 1080p camera to a 10-bit 2k camera. You were getting basically the same thing.
Adding the R5 and the 4k upgrade obviously changed that equation later on, but I don't think there's enough difference between the F3 images and the F5/fs7 images to get worked up over one or the other. Internal 10-bit recording is the biggest difference in my opinion.
The downsampled 4k sensor on the F5 was perhaps a tad more resolute, but I'd call the images equivalent (which was why I wasn't all that enthused about moving from a 10-bit 1080p camera to a 10-bit 2k camera. You were getting basically the same thing.
Adding the R5 and the 4k upgrade obviously changed that equation later on, but I don't think there's enough difference between the F3 images and the F5/fs7 images to get worked up over one or the other. Internal 10-bit recording is the biggest difference in my opinion.
^ This. Exactly. 100% agree.
starcentral
Veteran
From the interview: http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.co...ooting-sony-s-f3-safety-not-guaranteed/423387
"Kasulke photographed Safety Not Guaranteed using a Panavised Sony F3. The shoot began prior to the availability of the S-log update, so the images were captured in 4:2:2 color space to onboard SxS cards. When full, the SxS cards were backed up, and a RAW file version of the footage was made. From the RAW files, a 4:2:2 Quicktime proxy was generated for offline editing. The original RAW files were then used for conforming the final version, and a film-out was made for projection."
I never used the paid slog, but I bet it was better at turning stuff off in the camera that had to be off versus with poor man slog you had to know about it. That's probably why my results were not great, and why I didn't like the greens so much. User error in my case I'm afraid.
Again not to beat a dead horse too much, but I suspect all this is why results and opinion vary so widely regarding the F3 vs.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
Sgamut3 and Sgamut3.cine on the FS7 are both improved colour science over the sgamut of the F3. They're far superior in mixed lighting and .cine is the easiest to grade right off the bat.
The Cine Alta moniker is meaningless and has no bearing on image quality.
Nope. FS700 is a NEX camera. Not Cine Alta.
I had the F3 and FS7 for a while and used both side by side. I agree that the FS7 IQ is not really a big improvement over the F3, besides being 4K.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I read somewhere that the F3 and F5 sensor share some lineage so that wouldn't surprise me. Another interesting tidbit about the F3 is that the sensor is actually around 2.3k - 2.5k and downsamples to HD.
For straight HD work the F3 still is a very viable option, especially when you consider that they are going for as little as $1000-1500. If you an find one with the slog upgrade it offers amazing bang for your buck.
