Surprisingly poor sample video of the F3 - update- was cell phone video, not F3
- Thread starter lexicon
- Start date
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
yes. that's 4x3 footage from a camera phone... showing you that it rained the day of the test. nothing more.
John Brawley
Well-known member
Errr...yes.
I've just about finished grading on a test shoot-out I did using the F3 along with 35, Super 16, Alexa, RED and a 1D. I've just posted the Alexa footage HERE
I do have to say though, I wasn't that impressed with the F3....the camera I had though was an early engineering sample....
jb
The video on that page is really nice. Looking forward to your F3 run.
Nate Weaver
Veteran
What didn't you like? Image or ergo issues?
John Brawley
Well-known member
The way it renders motion. Most of my issues were more likely to do with the codec. It just refused to grade well compared to all the other formats
maranfilms
Veteran
Even the 1d?
John Brawley
Well-known member
The 1D was more well behaved for sure. The 1D has it's own issues with skin tones, but it's great in low light. The F3 just was very problematic. Hard to get skin tones sitting right. Very odd artefacts in highlights and chroma clipping. Just not very nice. The (very experienced) colourist at Deluxe found it by the far the hardest material to match of all the formats.
jb
John Brawley
Well-known member
Sure. But I don't see the point of adding more bits of hardware to the camera to make it better. It's already basically the same size as a RED. Extra hardware makes it more unwieldily to operate....another *thing* to power....to operate.
I was interested in testing the low light capabilities of the cameras, shooting in a very lean style of shooting. Extra things to power and bolt onto the camera don't really fit into the way I was thinking I would potentially use the camera. I actually ended up buying 2 x AF100's and getting a GH1 as insert cameras for a RED MX TV series I'm doing. They are great because they are small and compact (using m4/3 lenses) and they can take me places the RED's can't go. I can't see that happening with an F3 as readily. From what I can tell, the AF100 codec is much better too. I've just finished grading the first ep and most people can't tell when i've used the AF100's. They've intercut with the RED very well. I can't say the same for the F3 and the RED from my testing...
but...i stress again...I had an engineering sample. Maybe its better in the production model.
jb
Fohdeesha
Well-known member
Did you black balance the camera? Were you using the cine gammas and choosing the correct one based on the distribution of light you were shooting? Those not being looked over, and using any of the std gammas, especially the rec.709 curve, would definitely make grading a pain. Not to mention if black balance was untouched, absolute black usually rides around 3-10IRE giving you about a 3-10% reduction in bit depth. I'm also interested in if the color matrix was calibrated per a DSC color chart or similar. I'd love to find out why they had such a hassle getting a proper grade! if it was an engineering sample, I can almost definitely bet you that the stock calibration was wayyy off.
John Brawley
Well-known member
I had an engineer from Sony looking after the camera and a very experienced DIT as well. They set up the camera knowing it was a competitive test. It was set up with a cine gamma as I recall ( not 709 ). The settings were recorded, I just dont have them with me. I honestly didn't have a lot of hands on time with it and asked them to set it up as they best saw fit for the shooting conditions.
I'm not really that interested in shooting charts and numbers. I prefer real world tests, hence why I did the test in this way. It's not only a test for how the end results look, but what the cameras themselves were like to use in these conditions. It was a test of process as well as the end result.
JB
tom.wong
Well-known member
you're right about it being almost the size of a R1 body, but the weight is no where even close, considering the amount of accessories that go on a r1, from ET and otherwise. I understand your reasoning and mentality on it, and I"m not here to argue or knock on your methodology in anyway. Just explaining that I believe the mentality behind the f3 has really been for off board recording for the highest quality, and a compromise in quality without it. That's how they can keep cost down. a built in 10 bit, 4:2:2 or 444 codec would greatly increase the price of the camera.
So I just think it's a smarter move to give people options, instead of locking them into a price point. The camera starts relatively cheap, and you can increase it's performance with add ons. New recorders are coming onto the market that will double as a monitor, and will be not much bigger than your average on board LCD. Making it much less cumbersome than let's say... a SR recorder. Offboard recording has kind have always been Sony's mentality, mainly I think because they make a very expensive high quality one, but I can just speculate and imagine it lets them do more with the internals of the camera when they don't have to try to cram in so much anymore. But any camera they've put their chip in on the high end has always required offboard recording. F35, f23, f9000, (excluding their ENG cameras) even the genesis, which they designed the camera for panavision. The f3 is part of their cinealta line, and it's just following along with their big brothers.
I think you'll find the f3 matches a lot closer if you run a quick and dirty computer capture to 10 bit pro res. It may not suit your needs, but I don't think there's a camera that suits everybody's needs all the time...
So I just think it's a smarter move to give people options, instead of locking them into a price point. The camera starts relatively cheap, and you can increase it's performance with add ons. New recorders are coming onto the market that will double as a monitor, and will be not much bigger than your average on board LCD. Making it much less cumbersome than let's say... a SR recorder. Offboard recording has kind have always been Sony's mentality, mainly I think because they make a very expensive high quality one, but I can just speculate and imagine it lets them do more with the internals of the camera when they don't have to try to cram in so much anymore. But any camera they've put their chip in on the high end has always required offboard recording. F35, f23, f9000, (excluding their ENG cameras) even the genesis, which they designed the camera for panavision. The f3 is part of their cinealta line, and it's just following along with their big brothers.
I think you'll find the f3 matches a lot closer if you run a quick and dirty computer capture to 10 bit pro res. It may not suit your needs, but I don't think there's a camera that suits everybody's needs all the time...
Worked with it yestrday. If this camera won't cut with a red nothing will. If you are finding the af100 holding up well w/ red footage, when properly tuned, the F3 should surpass your expectations.
Nate Weaver
Veteran
Something must have been up with this camera. None of this makes sense compared to my own experiences. XDCAM isn't perfect, but in my time on my Davinci, XDCAM from the F3 grades better than a Canon, that's for sure.
One thing I have found though, if you overexpose and skintones get compressed in a cinegamma, it's really hard to undo or impossible to undo in color correction. I wonder if that's one thing that happened? It's really easy to do.
One thing I have found though, if you overexpose and skintones get compressed in a cinegamma, it's really hard to undo or impossible to undo in color correction. I wonder if that's one thing that happened? It's really easy to do.
John Brawley
Well-known member
No chance of overexposure. Almost all the scenes where night and shot available light.
We're grading in a Lustre at Deluxe Melbourne with their senior colourist. I've worked with him for many years. We can grade the F3. it's just not looking as nice as the other material. And it's not anywhere near matching the benchmark of 35mm. I'm prepared to accept it's not *right* though cause it is so weird.
jb
John Brawley
Well-known member
Have you tried directly intercutting the F3 with RED material ? In a difficult low light situation ?
jb
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yep -- just like F3 users say about the AF100, and AF100 users say about the GH2, and Alexa users say about the F3, and ....
So the point is -- bashing is not welcome here. No product is perfect. We are here to discuss ways that people use these products to get the best results. If there's a problem, acknowledge it and discuss the workarounds and move on.
So the point is -- bashing is not welcome here. No product is perfect. We are here to discuss ways that people use these products to get the best results. If there's a problem, acknowledge it and discuss the workarounds and move on.
I do not think he was bashing anything....as PRO he was expressing his view. He is a kind of guy who has some "working knowledge" with High End equipment-i personally welcome any negative or positive reports. It is good for customers who actually spend money on gear.
regards
jiri
regards
jiri