Sony F3 Firmware v1.5

Having had a nanoFlash for almost 3 years now, I have contemplated this a fair amount and side with Duke's comments. I would think it is likely that Sony could easily with a firmware change have the F3 spitting out 50 mbits to the cards and almost as likely have it do 422 as well. The two chip scenario in the nanoFlash allowed them to crank out really high mbit rates in xdcam hd up to 220 mbit. The nanoFlash also could turn out iFrame frame cadences (if that is the correct term).

It would be useful to have xdcam 422 at 50 mbit. It certainly would have helped Sony's sales when the C300 came out if they issued a firmware that brought up the camera to this standard of internal output. For many of us though, I think having the RGB 444 unlocked and some menu / workflow adjustments made would give this camera much more life in the context of the current product offerings. Unlocking the RGB444 would be a good will gesture towards their existing clientele still hanging onto their F3s until they have gained sufficient ROI to let them go. However, I cannot see anything happening until AFTER NAB. No way. From a marketing perspective they do not want to take any attention away from people purchasing an F5 or F55. It is that simple.
 
Last edited:
Could the EX3 cams ever do 50mbps? If not, then neither will the F3 I suspect. The F3 is the same camera as the EX3 except sensor from what I recollect.
 
As I understand things from Sony...

The F3 cannot do 1080p60 to SxS cards owing to a combination of processor and the MPEG-2 codec. The reason that the FS-100/700 records 1080p60 is due to the AVC codec.
The F3 cannot do 50Mbps 4:2:2 internally due to the processor. The F5/55 utilize a different processor which can handle MPEG2 50Mbps 4:2:2.
The F3 can output 1080p60 4:4:4 via DualLink or 3G SDI to an external recorder capable of recording 1080p60.
Only the Sony SR-1 HDCAM SR solid state recorder can record S&Q footage from the F3 via SDI. Actually, the Nanoflash can do off-speed recording but this is set up through the Nanoflash itself rather than the F3

Ned Soltz
 
nsoltz said:
As I understand things from Sony...

The F3 cannot do 1080p60 to SxS cards owing to a combination of processor and the MPEG-2 codec. The reason that the FS-100/700 records 1080p60 is due to the AVC codec.

Ned Soltz
Click to expand...

Rats. :( I was about to mention the fact the fs100 was made about the same time as the f3 and CAN do 60p...but the fact it is avchd is the factor. Makes sense. Oh well. Still a badass camera. Who knows, maybe they'll be able to do 10 sec bursts or something. One can hope.
 
nsoltz said:
The F3 cannot do 50Mbps 4:2:2 internally due to the processor. The F5/55 utilize a different processor which can handle MPEG2 50Mbps 4:2:2.
Click to expand...

Please note, the only one I stated that I truly suspect the F3 can do is 8 bit, 4.2.0 at 50Mbps (or close to it.) Stated simply, due to its ability to run at 30 fps, and somewhat more than 35Mbps (only on limited VBR settings), it should be able to handle 24 fps at a somewhat higher bit rate. The codec isn't going to change. We just need firmware to compress it a little less at 1080/24p. The MPEG-2 codec can do faster and slower.

The net result would probably only be a tiny bit less motion artifact as the processer wouldn't be overwhelmed as easily with something like waves or leaves blowing. Unfortunately with the New F cameras I think it is less likely than before.
 
Last edited:
yeah, even 50Mbs onboard would be a great benefit in keeping the f3 competitive with the c300.
 
I understand the desire for 1080p60 to internal cards, but as for 35mbps 420 to 50mbps 422 XDCAM EX does anyone really think there is much difference to be noticed?

From what I've observed there is hardly a difference when jumping out of the XDCAM EX codec to say ProRes or DNxHD in 10-bit, so given you'd be staying within the XDCAM EX codec I doubt if you are going to see any major visable difference, unless of course you pause a frame and zoom in 400%, then what usually happens with higher bit-depths is a reduction in block artifacts around highly detailed areas.
 
I've heard many networks have minimum bitrate requirements, only then to hear that many have also accepted programming that don't meet them...
 
starcentral said:
I've heard many networks have minimum bitrate requirements, only then to hear that many have also accepted programming that don't meet them...
Click to expand...

Some networks have no requirements, but several do. Even the ones that are fairly strict have minor exceptions. For instance my recollection is that BBC has an allowence for 10% being HD not meeting 4.2.2 at 50Mbps.

Me, I mostly shoot with one camera. However, I recently did a scene with 3 cameras of a girl shaving her head. I had to get it right since there were no retakes. I put a Canon HFS100 in the sink propped up on a sand bag to get another angle. It was 1080/24p and cut together well enough because of the weird angle. That would be the sort of exception that BBC, Discovery (and National Geograpic?) would allow.

Still, conforming the codec would go a long way to helping the F3.
 
starcentral said:
I've heard many networks have minimum bitrate requirements, only then to hear that many have also accepted programming that don't meet them...
Click to expand...

Yes. It's all over the place. Camera/codec/bitrate specs exist for selective enforcement. I don't have experience with the BBC, but I do have experience with US networks and QC requirements, and it's a free-for-all. From what I can tell it's a safety net for acquisition execs, so they can get out of a deal if needed.

If you have amazingly shot content/series on 35mb XDCAM, and they want it, they're not going to let those specs get in the way.

Duke M. said:
Still, conforming the codec would go a long way to helping the F3.
Click to expand...

The more time passes, the more I realize that the reason the F3 didn't fly and the C300 did is because of cheap lenses. All these people wanting to move up to real cameras, they all have EF lenses. The 300 is small, easy to run around like a nut with cheap lenses, and made a good enough picture. The F3 was not.
 
Last edited:
Sweeney said:
Isn't that Anthony Bourdain show all internal F3 files? I dont think they have Pix/KiPro's on them.
Click to expand...

Correct. Zach Zamboni is the cinematographer, and although he has used other cameras on it, it's been mostly F3 footage. There's actually a lot of places that have used the F3 but it's never received proper credit. These include the Olympics, the Prince and Princess wedding and many series.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?256546-Movie-and-TV-productions-using-the-Sony-F3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top