The New F

Status
Not open for further replies.
morgan_moore said:
Absolutely - thats what I find confusing - coming from stills we find a raw workflow far faster and simpler and cheaper from set to delivery, but we worked through the myths a decade ago
Click to expand...

Red adds time and sometimes money to the process vs Alexa. In the job I was talking about, it was a 5 day shoot, and editorial was starting on the 4th day of shooting. That means we'd have to be doing transcodes on set, or paying more for another guy doing it somewhere else. There is no reason in my mind to go through the extra step, and I like Alexa better anyway. I'm thoroughly familiar with the Red RAW process, I shot almost exclusively with it from 2008 to 2010. I bailed out after getting bit by buggy Red Rocket cards when they first showed up on the scene.

morgan_moore said:
(and yes it did change 'post schedule' or rather the ratio of set crew to DIT crew if you are that big)
Click to expand...

Sometimes the schedule is dictated by client or ad agency. You gotta hit those dates when they're paying sizable money.

morgan_moore said:
And you will mention data mass - it is a fair comment, but in terms of a larger production Im not sure that the cost of a few HDs is really the issue
Click to expand...

I will? Not me, it's wasn't an issue on the $300K job I was talking about. Never been an issue even on dirt poor jobs I did on Red in 2008.

Again, if this hypothetical job needed 4K, then you'd just budget for the extra DIT or transcodes and say that's the breaks to the agency. And caveat that supervised editorial can't start until transcodes are done.

I apologize if I seem argumentative, I'm not trying to be. I'm just trying to illustrate why anything RAW was overkill in this scenario. Alexa 4:4:4 Log-C is astonishing in quality, and a simple, fast joy to work with in post. And it is not in any way 2nd in quality to Red RAW. Uncompressed RAW, *maybe*. But not Red RAW.
 
Last edited:
Nate Weaver said:
Red adds time and sometimes money to the process vs Alexa....
Click to expand...

Yep I know and agree on all the maths. One downer on Scarlet is no onboard easy codec, its pretty clear that this Sony will have an onboard compressed codec.

I think I would just prefer 2.5k raw to 4k compressed or ideally both

The reason to go through the extra step is to get more control, and more latitude, which speeds stuff on set, but only if you have a certain mindset

If you are not using raw to get cheaper on set and are creating the data burden its a double loser no question..

S
 
morgan_moore said:
The reason to go through the extra step is to get more control, and more latitude, which speeds stuff on set, but only if you have a certain mindset

If you are not using raw to get cheaper on set and are creating the data burden its a double loser no question..
Click to expand...

Have you ever shot Alexa 12 bit Log-C ? It's got about 1-1.5 stops more latitude than Red, all manipulatable in post just like RAW.
 
I think I know what this is. It is the 4K external recorder for the FS700.

Sony has really thought this through this time because this "recorder" has a built in sensor and looks like a camera!
 
starcentral said:
Nate, is Alexa doing this internally or require off-board device?
Click to expand...

Internal recording to SxS cards, Quicktime format, either 10bit ProRes HQ or 12 bit ProRes444, your choice. Either 1080p res or 2K res, newest firmware.

Recording 2.5K RAW requires outboard recorder.

If you don't need 4K, it's tremendous.
 
Nate Weaver said:
Have you ever shot Alexa 12 bit Log-C ? It's got about 1-1.5 stops more latitude than Red, all manipulatable in post just like RAW.
Click to expand...

To be fair and honest, I have not, I also have not seen its 'power' demonstrated online - maybe you can link

(I have seen some fairly shonky stuff from some VERY good shooters on alexa and a lot of mis info on red)

Im in total agreement that a codec that is 1/4 or so of raw will offer an excellent compromise,

Im really looking forward to the Sony as a raw only option scares me..

S
 
morgan_moore said:
To be fair and honest, I have not, I also have not seen its 'power' demonstrated online - maybe you can link

(I have seen some fairly shonky stuff from some VERY good shooters on alexa and a lot of mis info on red)

Im in total agreement that a codec that is 1/4 or so of raw will offer an excellent compromise,

Im really looking forward to the Sony as a raw only option scares me..

S
Click to expand...

I don't have any links that demonstrate how well you can manipulate exposure in post...to really understand how flexible it is you have to manipulate it yourself, just like you had that "aha" moment with RAW.

You owe it to yourself to investigate though. RAW as Red does it is not the be-all end-all.

To turn this discussion around though into something more applicable to Sony though, I guess I'd voice my hope that the "New F", when piggybacked by the 4K recorder, can do 12 bit Slog2 to 1080p SRLite. That would be parity for the Alexa, and be really, really cool.
 
Last edited:
Nate Weaver said:
I don't have any links that demonstrate how well you can manipulate exposure in post...to really understand how flexible it is you have to manipulate it yourself, just like you had that "aha" moment with RAW.

You owe it to yourself to investigate though. RAW as Red does it is not the be-all end-all.
Click to expand...

Wise words

Especailly acknowledging the 'aha' moment!

I mean its just a bunch of 0s and 1s so the must be many ways of storing them

Of course the Alexa is not in this price class, so I would maybe rephrase my concept..

'2.5k raw is more attractive than 4k compressed'

to

'a deeply manipulable file of 2500 lines is more attractive to me than a poorly conceived or over data heavy 4k file'

That is what I would like to see on the Fxx
 
morgan_moore said:
Especailly acknowledging the 'aha' moment!
Click to expand...

I've had two of those. The first with Red RAW back in 2008.

The second with Alexa Log C with a LUT applied, which acts the same as Red RAW except better, and doesn't require debayering. I realized the magic isn't in "RAW" as much as it's in bit-depth (10 or 12 bit codec).

I think the F65 does the 1080p 10+12 bit trick. Here's hoping it trickles down.
 
Will the New F loose the F3's low light abilities by crowding so many photo-sites on the same size sensor necessitating smaller photo-sites? That seems like a logical conclusion to me.

What happened to the new F3 firmware that was promised? Unless maybe there's an upgrade path which I highly doubt.
 
Duke M. said:
Will the New F loose the F3's low light abilities by crowding so many photo-sites on the same size sensor necessitating smaller photo-sites? That seems like a logical conclusion to me.
Click to expand...

I think you make sense, but given Sony's recent history on over-delivering on the sensors, I would not be surprised if the new one is based on the F65s sensor, which is rated the same as the F3.
 
F3 firmware version 1.5 is on the way but we were given no information regarding either its feature set or its availability.

I wouldn't worry about low light or dynamic range.

Ned
 
Let's not forget: an announcement doesn't mean you'll get one any time soon. :shocked:

SONY-1.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top