Sony EX3 or NO ??

I think everyone here is imagining what THEY shoot with their EX1/EX3 cameras, and have had astounding results - even better with a NanoFlash to beef up the codec. My EX1 is perfect for my needs, and the most bang for the buck. To each his own. Maybe a 5D would be the better choice for George. I don't know.

I hope the 5D works. I am interested in a DSLR too, as I don't have one for, what are those things called....? Um.... Oh! Still photos! So I'm very interested in DSLR video discussions too. I have a friend who is shooting a feature length film with a 350,000.00 budget on 2 Canon T2i cameras. I say he's crazy, but we'll see.
 
Last edited:
Chadfish said:
I have a friend who is shooting a feature length film with a 350,000.00 budget on 2 Canon T2i cameras. I say he's crazy, but we'll see.
Click to expand...

Any $350,000 budget can acommodate a very good camera. But even in dSLRs, 1% of the budget can upgrade to 5dIIs. If he sells the camera's after the shoot, that's not even 0.3%. So he is compromising the photography for no apparent reason. Is the production used to market the camera?
 
Otis Grapsas said:
Any $350,000 budget can acommodate a very good camera. Is the production used to market the camera?
Click to expand...

No. It's a narrative indi film called "Flea" by Suza Lambert Bowser Productions. I laughed when I heard what they were doing. He wanted to just use an H4N and a ME66 for audio too.... Luckily I am audio consultant. I had to convince them that you shouldn't do every scene whether indoor or out with a shotgun. Anyway, I think they try to save money in stupid areas. The guy owns a HPX200 he could use, but he likes his T2i because it's his newest toy. He is in love with shallow DOF, and T2i is a cheap way to get it.
 
If the plastic covering a magnesium frame bothers you, then do what I have done with my last 5 cameras; I cover them with black non-gloss "gaffers tape." Yep, that's right, gaffers tape. It prevents scratching, if the plastic cracks it holds together, looks professional and puts the talent at ease when shooting, gives a hell of a grip so you won't drop it, keeps sweat and dirt from getting on the plastic, keeps direct sun from glaring out from it, patches can be replaced with ware, if someone steals the camera it's easy to identify, runs quieter, and when you sell it you can remove it all and there will be no scratches like the day you bought it. Best of all, the tape cost $25.00 a roll and you can cover about 100 cameras with it. -- I'm a genius!
 
Might I add that with the addition of a Nanoflash you can do interframe if you want to with the EX1. That combination is accepted pretty much everywhere, supposedly even at the extremely picky BBC and Discovery Channel. (I'm told, I don't sell there.)

Where would you be selling that will accept 5D footage, but not that of the EX1 or EX3? If I'm being too nosy, just in general terms.
 
mico said:
Duke since I have and Ex1 and a 7D and 5d, have you found a good or close pp on the Ex1 to match the canonss without doing any post correction?
Click to expand...

Doug's PP in DVInfo is pretty close. It can never be exact because the EX1 has more detail and the 7D has more DOF. But it's close enough the general public doesn't notice. Its more of getting the saturation and contrast right. My 7D is a little less contrasty than my friends 5D, which makes it easier for me to work with, without crushing the blacks.
 
George D. said:
The camera we REALLY want is the Scarlet, and nothing short of that is really going to satisfy our needs I'm afraid.

<snip>

All this would be mute if they'd only release the damn Scarlet... ;)
Click to expand...

Hey George,

I'm also interested in which of the Scarlets you are aiming to buy? In part, because I, like most camera-philes, will probably buy one at some point, but also because of the criterea you've set forth here. Its always interesting to compare to the criterea I used when making my decision to other peoples decisions.

You mentioned price being important. If that were the most important than the Scarlet fixed would be your choice, but with other considerations I doubt it.

You mentioned interchangable lenses, and a lot of guys are looking at the Scarlet S35 brain. However, they are usually looking for DOF control and if you're doing close ups of bugs you probably want deeper DOF rather than paper thin DOF. Besides with accessories the S35 is going to be comparable in price to the Red One so there would be little incentive to hold off.

So I'm assuming you're going to look at a Scarlet 2/3" with changeable lenses, which is probably going to be about $15k fully equipped with I/O modules, CF card readers, batteries, etc.

I'm assuming thats the way you were thinking because that's the way I was thinking. Let me follow up with the rest of the way I was thinking and you can tell me what you think.

A 2/3" sensor is not far from a 1/2" sensor for DOF. Open up the aperture of an EX1/3 a mere 2/3 of an F stop and they are the same. (Not as important to you, but important to narrative movie makers.)

The Scarlet boasts a 3K sensor, but not 3k resolution. Since its a single chip camera it uses a debayer filter to produce colors. A debayer filter reduces resolution in most cameras by 25-35% depending on how its implimented. (We don't know yet on the Scarlet. It could be a little lower, but not much.) The EX1/3 is a full raster 3 chip sensor system. No data loss.

Generally people expect the actual resolution will be ~2.2k, which will give a little oversampling to produce a 2048 wide image. Of course the EX1/3 is a 1920 wide image, or nearly the same. When the charts show an EX1/3 tests out to the Nyquist limits, it means that there can't be any higher true resolution for that image size.

Now the Scarlet will produce RAW image files, but they will be compressed. If I understand it correctly there are different version of Red file compression and the Scarlet willl be one of the more compressed versions to save on disk space. We'll see when its released.

Some producers and distributors want a data rate of at least 50 Mbps. The EX1/3 is 35 Mbps. On the other hand, I picked up a used Nanoflash which can go up to 220 Mbps and it can be Interframe as well as MOV, MPG, or MFX. I don't think that's an issue any more.

Depending on what Red does with Scarlet compression it may or may not be better than Scarlet compression in the long run. I don't see any IQ deficit in using Nanoflash files. It also gives you a back up file on the camera's card.

I can't imagine you'd be doing huge color grading or green screen on close ups of bugs, but I do. The 4.2.2 color of these files does help. Of course RAW can be graded even further because it basically has no color, but that means every clip has to be graded or it looks washed out. The EX1/3 has picture profiles. We don't know if Scarlet will have something like that, or it will all be in post.

So my final conclusion is that my EX1 with a Nanoflash produces an image that's pretty much the same as a 2/3" scarlet and I get to use it now. Plus because both have been on the market awhile I didn't have to pay full retail and picked up both fot a total of $7,000. (Price is important to me too.)

When I do buy a Scarlet it will probably be an S35 with a Canon mount, but its not going to be anywhere near as cheap as the set up I'm using now, and frankly I couldn't afford to buy one even if it were available now.

Tell me what your (or anyone else's) thought processes were, please.
 
Last edited:
Duke M. said:
Hey George,

I'm also interested in which of the Scarlets you are aiming to buy? In part, because I, like most camera-philes, will probably buy one at some point, but also because of the criterea you've set forth here. Its always interesting to compare to the criterea I used when making my decision to other peoples decisions.

You mentioned price being important. If that were the most important than the Scarlet fixed would be your choice, but with other considerations I doubt it.

You mentioned interchangable lenses, and a lot of guys are looking at the Scarlet S35 brain. However, they are usually looking for DOF control and if you're doing close ups of bugs you probably want deeper DOF rather than paper thin DOF. Besides with accessories the S35 is going to be comparable in price to the Red One so there would be little incentive to hold off.

So I'm assuming you're going to look at a Scarlet 2/3" with changeable lenses, which is probably going to be about $15k fully equipped with I/O modules, CF card readers, batteries, etc.

I'm assuming thats the way you were thinking because that's the way I was thinking. Let me follow up with the rest of the way I was thinking and you can tell me what you think.

A 2/3" sensor is not far from a 1/2" sensor for DOF. Open up the aperture of an EX1/3 a mere 2/3 of an F stop and they are the same. (Not as important to you, but important to narrative movie makers.)

The Scarlet boasts a 3K sensor, but not 3k resolution. Since its a single chip camera it uses a debayer filter to produce colors. A debayer filter reduces resolution in most cameras by 25-35% depending on how its implimented. (We don't know yet on the Scarlet. It could be a little lower, but not much.) The EX1/3 is a full raster 3 chip sensor system. No data loss.

Generally people expect the actual resolution will be ~2.2k, which will give a little oversampling to produce a 2048 wide image. Of course the EX1/3 is a 1920 wide image, or nearly the same. When the charts show an EX1/3 tests out to the Nyquist limits, it means that there can't be any higher true resolution for that image size.

Now the Scarlet will produce RAW image files, but they will be compressed. If I understand it correctly there are different version of Red file compression and the Scarlet willl be one of the more compressed versions to save on disk space. We'll see when its released.

Some producers and distributors want a data rate of at least 50 Mbps. The EX1/3 is 35 Mbps. On the other hand, I picked up a used Nanoflash which can go up to 220 Mbps and it can be Interframe as well as MOV, MPG, or MFX. I don't think that's an issue any more.

Depending on what Red does with Scarlet compression it may or may not be better than Scarlet compression in the long run. I don't see any IQ deficit in using Nanoflash files. It also gives you a back up file on the camera's card.

I can't imagine you'd be doing huge color grading or green screen on close ups of bugs, but I do. The 4.2.2 color of these files does help. Of course RAW can be graded even further because it basically has no color, but that means every clip has to be graded or it looks washed out. The EX1/3 has picture profiles. We don't know if Scarlet will have something like that, or it will all be in post.

So my final conclusion is that my EX1 with a Nanoflash produces an image that's pretty much the same as a 2/3" scarlet and I get to use it now. Plus because both have been on the market awhile I didn't have to pay full retail and picked up both fot a total of $7,000. (Price is important to me too.)

When I do buy a Scarlet it will probably be an S35 with a Canon mount, but its not going to be anywhere near as cheap as the set up I'm using now, and frankly I couldn't afford to buy one even if it were available now.

Tell me what your (or anyone else's) thought processes were, please.
Click to expand...


I could say thats exactly my position on the scarlet. The only problem is we really only know a few of the specifics of that camera. There may be things added that they hinted at , like an amazing auto focus feature and deliverable burned in no grading files recorded along with raw, that might make the scarlet the go to camera. My thinking is right along yours but I am waiting the complete spec sheet on the thing.

I will also add that I am enjoying the form factor of the canon DSLr's. I know everyone is customizing the hell out of them , complaining its not a video camera form factor but I really like the ability to make it become what i want instead of being stuck in one from. That it can be so small as to be unnoticed is something the Ex1 can't do and it seems the scarlet can.

Also Tim Smith (of canon ) said at cinegear that canon is working on their own new better codec for the DSlr's that is NOT firmware upgradeable in the current cams. That will certainly give Scarlet a run and I am more excited about that than the scarlet 2/3rds or s35 for that matter. But, I have to add that this is the same Tim Smith who gave a speech saying 24p would never be added to the 5D. So like always I will wait but I will shoot NOW with the EX1 and current canon dslr's.
 
Yeah...What Duke said! Also, I now make sure I have a safety strap well secured to the camera and around me. When the EX1 hit the concrete, I didn't have the strap well secured and it came undone. Since then, I now have some solid rings on the strap tabs and then clip the strap to the rings. Best of luck... Frank
 
FrankC said:
I, in fact have dropped my EX1 onto concrete. I say it's built like a tank.
Click to expand...
I dropped mine right down on the granite rock from the height of 5 feet. I was lucky, I think: the zoom control on the handle got loose, nothing else. I never use that one, so I am still fine with the camera ...
 
George D. said:
Speaking of House: Correct if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that there's NEVER been a television program shot entirely with a Sony EX1 or EX3.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's not good enough for TV shows. Just other lower forms of media such as... Theatrical MOVIES.
 
basspig said:
Such as District 9 - Public Enemies - Crank: High Voltage and several others..
Click to expand...

District 9 used Red, and they used EX to "look like a journalistic camera being operated by a semiprofessional videographer trying to capture everything that's going on".

Public enemies was F23, so I guess they only used EX if using the F23 was impossible in a shot.

Crank 2 was shot on Canons. Global shutter 1/3" CCD XH-A1 and small CMOS camcorders when camera motion was not required (mounted to get an angle in a action shots).
 
Otis Grapsas said:
District 9 used Red, and they used EX to "look like a journalistic camera being operated by a semiprofessional videographer trying to capture everything that's going on".

Public enemies was F23, so I guess they only used EX if using the F23 was impossible in a shot.

Crank 2 was shot on Canons. Global shutter 1/3" CCD XH-A1 and small CMOS camcorders when camera motion was not required (mounted to get an angle in a action shots).
Click to expand...
And then we go to Indy movies such as
Bomber
http://www.abelcine.com/articles/index.php?Itemid=37&id=264&option=com_content&task=view
A DVX user created Kerberos
http://www.kerberosbites.com/
Fred Olen Ray's Son Created Megaconda
http://www.dv.com/article/84502

One only has to look at footage from Kerberos (a naked EX-1 none the less) to realize that it's more than capable to handle the big screen, and the small.
 
For much lower budgets, the EX series is indeed interesting.

Kerberos looks nice on the trailer. It does have rolling shutter in all action shots and very high contrast/crushed blacks which could be an artistic decision or a camera limitation.

EDIT: Bomber looks nice also. It needed less active camera work, so it works a lot better.

http://www.rickspix.net/narrative/bomber.htm
 
Otis Grapsas said:
For much lower budgets, the EX series is indeed interesting.
http://www.rickspix.net/narrative/bomber.htm
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by "interesting", filmmakers are using it in high budget feature films and low budget Indie's with a high level of success, the evidence above proves that... If you find that "interesting" then I guess it is "interesting".

Providing reasons, and sometimes theories, as to why higher budget films utilized it with success, and why it worked or didn't work with as much success for lower budget Indies doesn't change the fact that it works well with both budgets and is a successful filmmaking tool.
 
Madp said:
Not sure what you mean by "interesting", filmmakers are using it in high budget feature films and low budget Indie's with a high level of success, the evidence above proves that... If you find that "interesting" then I guess it is "interesting".

Providing reasons, and sometimes theories, as to why higher budget films utilized it with success, and why it worked or didn't work with as much success for lower budget Indies doesn't change the fact that it works well with both budgets and is a successful filmmaking tool.
Click to expand...

Interesting = something I would consider, something that makes sense for the project requirements and the budget. All affordable cameras have major flaws, I wouldn't consider one for a large budget feature. Sacrificing the photography makes no sense if using a better camera has no significant effect on the budget.

A 2 week drama on a better camera will cost about $20,000 for a high end camera and $6,000 for a mid level camera. A 2 week shoot on an EX1 is usually less than $1,000 if you rent it, and virtually nothing if you own it. That difference of $5,000 to $19,000 must be very important for the budget at hand, so I assume an EX1 makes sense for budgets from $0 to $200,000 maximum. If you tell me that a $50million movie does all its principal photography on a $5,000 camera (or a $1000 dSLR), I will probably think the camera is used for marketing reasons.
 
A larger budget feature wouldn't use an EX-1 for the entire feature, that much is obvious, and I don't think anyone would say that would be an intelligent decision.

What we are saying though, if it isn't clear enough already.... Even on higher budgets, the camera is being utilized with success as well as it is on lower budgets.

Bringing us back to the point, if the EX-1 is being used successfully on high and low budget feature films...

Then... I think it can handle an episode of television.

Took a while but we got there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top