Sony marketing holds down quality innovation for us pro users?

Sebastiaan Tuerlings said:
Statement for discussion:

'Sony brings us a new very nice concept as the Sony F3 with a build-in 35 Mbit/s codec to SxS media. This quality limitation to only 35 Mbit/s is marketing-technical, not technical. Maybe because Sony marketing wants to make this a strong format standard (as done with BetacamSP DVcam Digibeta XDcam). There is no TECHNICAL reason at this moment to don't give the users a choice for higher quality compression options'

I would appreciate you all write down your thoughts about this.
Click to expand...

Also to reply to the original topic of this discussion, Sony has not held pro users down at all, its the exact opposite. If you're really a "pro" user, you wouldn't want to be limited to just an internal codec or compression. Sony gave us 4:4:4 option, and 10bit 4:2:2 right out of the box. THATS a pro option, not 50mb. A real pro user, buying this camera for what its INTENDED purpose is (filmmaking) would be using an external recorder to get the most out of the sensor. Which is exactly what sony did. People wanting to buy this camera and say they want to use it for other means... well then you aren't really buying the right paintbrush to get the job done. Sure you can use it, but this camera was specifically made for independent film-making/ers and tv production. There for they did exactly what we'd want. Unobstructed data right out of the camera. 50mb is not the end all, 4:4:4 IS. So I believe this topic is totally irrelevant considering the misunderstanding of what this camera is made for, and its intended users. If you wanna shoot ENG type footage that would need 50mbit, then this is not the right camera for you. If you wanna shoot some b-cam for tv, or produce high quality independent films, then this camera is what thats for.

I'm really tired of seeing people complain about it not having 50mibt... who in their right mind would care about that over a 4:4:4 or 10bit 4:2:2 output. This is not a handycam, this is a production tool. Besides all of that, I've personally seen the internal 4:2:0 footage blown up to a 40' screen in an AMC theater projected at 2k, and the codec handles very well. The internal codec is intended for Offline editing while simultaneously recording to external 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 output.
 
DylanReeve said:
The people who are buying PMW-500s aren't about to buy the F3 instead. They are very different cameras for very different users.

The F3, like it or not, is competing against the AF100 (until Panasonic comes out with a higher model) and Sony's own unlaunched NXCAM offering. The F3 has the ability to do a lot more than either of those cameras can, in the form of dual-link SDI, 4:4:4 and S-Log recording, but those are all options that have to be purchased. Out of the box it's a lot more like the AF100 and NXCAM-thingy than it might like - and when it's necessary to add an external recorder to get a widely acceptable HD acquisition format, then it becomes a less attractive option for some purchasers.

Perhaps then Sony could offer an XDCAM HD422 recording option in the same way that Dual-Link and S-Log will be options. I'm still not totally convinced that it's not something that couldn't be achieved will a firmware upgrade, but if not then it's quite likely that the camera is constructed in a modular enough way as to make it possible as a return-to-base upgrade.
Click to expand...

You cannot go from 35 mbps 420 vbr to 50 mbps 422 cbr with a firmware upgrade since different hardware is required.

Convergent uses the Sony "TORINO" IC801 encoder in the Nanoflash, the same encoder that is in the PMW-500, and has been suggested by mmm earlier in this thread, that it even has two of them to do 422. The EX series (and the F3) uses the IC901 encoder. Note the fact that one has a marketing name and the other doesn't.

As far as the F3 versus AF100. There is a fundamental difference with the sensor. AF100 is a dSLR GH based sensor that uses line-skipping and sub-sampled readout to achieve video. The F3 is a 3.43k sensor that can do 60 frames, hence has a maximum data rate of near 400 megapixels per second. By downscaling a 3.43k sensor image it can also achieve a 4:4:4 even with a bayer sensor. In reality its closer to the Arri Alexa than the AF100.

This is not to say that the AF100 can't produce wonderful results. I'm a huge fan. With a video-centric OLPF, a lot of the short comings of using a still frame sensor are reduced. But its a diffrient beast entirely from the F3.
 
Last edited:
the problem come from all these GH13 and magic lantern hack (which come themselves from overcloking cpu in computer world)
People start to think that you can take a level entry device at cheap price and hope that somebody will unlock the power hidden in the monster.
It is like believing that every low cost FIAT hides a FERRARI engine, and the lazy guys just used 4 cylinders instead of 12, and you need to ask somebody to unleash the
hidden power to get a ferrari for cheap.

Yes it happens sometime that they use the same chip for both a low and hi-end product because it cost less to mass produce only one chip , and yes it happens that some
device can do more that originally allowed (under conditions) by just flipping a bit in firmware, but not at the point of believing that is a common and normal thing.
 
Last edited:
nosys70 said:
the problem come from all these GH13 and magic lantern hack (which come themselves from overcloking cpu in computer world)
People start to think that you can take a level entry device at cheap price and hope that somebody will unlock the power hidden in the monster.
It is like believing that every low cost FIAT hides a FERRARI engine, and the lazy guys just used 4 cylinders instead of 12, and you need to ask somebody to unleash the
hidden power to get a ferrari for cheap.

Yes it happens sometime that they use the same chip for both a low and hi-end product because it cost less to mass produce only one chip , and yes it happens that some
device can do more that originally allowed (under conditions) by just flipping a bit in firmware, but not at the point of believing that is a common and normal thing.
Click to expand...

This analogy doesn't really work. The automotive world is very different than consumer electronics. Allot of the time electronic products' processors are dumbed down to fit into certain markets.
 
It is a crossover product in many ways, also in the way that we can use it. I don't agree with your ideas about what this camera is made for. In that case we must talk about what filmmaking is, and - for example - where is the line to do not call it so.

About the codec. In practice you really do want to have a good compression standard that fits in a broadcast workflow and is also accepted to do so. 50 Mbit/s 422 10bit would do that. It makes it more easy for people to invest in the camera and start making work and profit with it. It is more durable to have that inside the camera as a standard.

Then it is nice to have the option to go high end and invest or rent as many options and lenses as you want and need and can pay. But the camera is then not RAW so you rent an Alexia or Red and put this F3 camera back in the bag... Or use it for shooting the making of..

All with all, one must never ever forbid a discussion on a forum ;)

Ciao
Sebastian

Giuseppe Pugliese said:
... People wanting to buy this camera and say they want to use it for other means... well then you aren't really buying the right paintbrush to get the job done. Sure you can use it, but this camera was specifically made for independent film-making/ers and tv production. There for they did exactly what we'd want. Unobstructed data right out of the camera. 50mb is not the end all, 4:4:4 IS. So I believe this topic is totally irrelevant considering the misunderstanding of what this camera is made for, and its intended users. If you wanna shoot ENG type footage that would need 50mbit, then this is not the right camera for you. If you wanna shoot some b-cam for tv, or produce high quality independent films, then this camera is what thats for.

I'm really tired of seeing people complain about it not having 50mibt... who in their right mind would care about that over a 4:4:4 or 10bit 4:2:2 output. This is not a handycam, this is a production tool. Besides all of that, I've personally seen the internal 4:2:0 footage blown up to a 40' screen in an AMC theater projected at 2k, and the codec handles very well. The internal codec is intended for Offline editing while simultaneously recording to external 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 output.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
In the year twenty and twenty centuries, one named Janned Le Rouge shall swallow and overcome the Eastern Behemoths, Soneux and Panesoneque.
Their rival in war and trade, Quanon, shall feed on the trade of peasants and the lowly-born, and Le Rouge shall mock of them.

Nostradamus has foreseen it.
 
Steve Castle said:
You cannot go from 35 mbps 420 vbr to 50 mbps 422 cbr with a firmware upgrade since different hardware is required.

Convergent uses the Sony "TORINO" IC801 encoder in the Nanoflash, the same encoder that is in the PMW-500, and has been suggested by mmm earlier in this thread, that it even has two of them to do 422. The EX series (and the F3) uses the IC901 encoder. Note the fact that one has a marketing name and the other doesn't.

As far as the F3 versus AF100. There is a fundamental difference with the sensor. AF100 is a dSLR GH based sensor that uses line-skipping and sub-sampled readout to achieve video. The F3 is a 3.43k sensor that can do 60 frames, hence has a maximum data rate of near 400 megapixels per second. By downscaling a 3.43k sensor image it can also achieve a 4:4:4 even with a bayer sensor. In reality its closer to the Arri Alexa than the AF100.
Click to expand...

My point here is that, for many users, if you have to buy an offboard recorder anyway to get "proper" HD video recorded, then the actual camera becomes slightly less important. So faced with that reality should they spend $13k on the F3, or $5k on the AF100? Absolutely the F3 has advantages in terms of sensor design and size, but they're not huge advantages - the AF100 does well too. On an asthetic judgement both will probably deliver a satisfactory "film-like DoF" and with the external recorder they'll also deliver an acceptable file for HD acquisition to BBC/Discovery/etc standards. 8-bit vs 10-bit isn't really a big issue for most people.

More to the point Sony will be shipping their NXCAM offering at an AF100-like price in "Mid 2011" - given that it seems to feature the same sensor as the F3, then paired with an external recorder it really devalues the F3 for anyone not hellbent on 4:4:4/RGB output and S-Log recording (which are add-ons anyway).
 
That's the big thing everyone will want to see for themselves. Will the NXCam 35 produce the F3 SNR levels, and will it have HD-SDI. If so we're in business.
 
Duke M. said:
That's the big thing everyone will want to see for themselves. Will the NXCam 35 produce the F3 SNR levels, and will it have HD-SDI. If so we're in business.
Click to expand...


There are so many things Sony could do to ruin this. Even as simply as limiting how much gain can be applied. I guess I am just assuming the worst so when it's not true I can be relieved. :)
 
DylanReeve said:
My point here is that, for many users, if you have to buy an offboard recorder anyway to get "proper" HD video recorded, then the actual camera becomes slightly less important. So faced with that reality should they spend $13k on the F3, or $5k on the AF100? Absolutely the F3 has advantages in terms of sensor design and size, but they're not huge advantages - the AF100 does well too. On an asthetic judgement both will probably deliver a satisfactory "film-like DoF" and with the external recorder they'll also deliver an acceptable file for HD acquisition to BBC/Discovery/etc standards. 8-bit vs 10-bit isn't really a big issue for most people.

More to the point Sony will be shipping their NXCAM offering at an AF100-like price in "Mid 2011" - given that it seems to feature the same sensor as the F3, then paired with an external recorder it really devalues the F3 for anyone not hellbent on 4:4:4/RGB output and S-Log recording (which are add-ons anyway).
Click to expand...

I think we're discussing in circles here. But If your goal is meeting the line drawn in the sand by BBC then you'll need a external recorder with the F3. Simple as that. Different horses for courses.

Fact is adding the Torino encoder in the F3 would require a major redesign and added cost. A cost not everyone wants to pay. Quite simply, if they were going to redesign this camera and add a higher-end internal recorder then I would prefer Sony to go all out and put in at least 220mbps 444 SR Lite. 50 422 'good enough'? Too much of a price increase to add it? Not good enough for some? Can't cater to everyone.
 
No value in speculating on conspiracy theories, what could/should/would be--it doesn't make films! Get out and SHOOT!
For me, it's really just as simple as this: proper sensor size (finally), accepts REAL glass (not stupid, overpriced video lenses), and SDI out.
If they can accomplish this and deliver it in a tin can with a cord, sign me up!
 
Last edited:
F3 will hold on with 50Mbit equipped cameras in most cases simply because of the image quality, mainly much smaller noise. What MPEG2 does not like is the randomness/high frequency in the signal. F3 due to its great sensor produces way less noise, so even 35Mbit can cope with it. It will fail in high motion scenes, where 35Mbit is simply not enough to produce clean image- even 50Mbit is quite often not big enough and will introduce macroblocking.
With camera like F3 and its image quality using MPEG2 even at 50Mbit is waste of the whole other great technology there- just get yourself a cheap Samurai and enjoy great picture without any silly macroblocking, banding and chroma issues.
I don't do shooting, so I'm asking if it's really that much more effort to use external recorder ( I don't see cost being a problem)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top