Why are 4k cameras sharper than some best 1080p cameras like F3?

morgan_moore said:
Compression is also not noted. It seemed to be that the 600mbs 444 sr codec from th F35 whopped the '4k' of the FS7.. but that was not scientific.
Click to expand...

Yup, Alexa's 12-bit 444 ProRes whops multiple 4K cameras on the market.

I'm a broken record with this - as were others before me saying the same thing for years before Classics were affordable to normal folk - but the DR and color is so good that the extra resolution in some of the "4K" cameras doesn't matter, the picture still looks fragile from them.
 
well resolution is 'an ability to resolve a differece'

4k is resolvin line pairs

but an image is a line pairs and also colour and brightnex tones.

that is simple science.
 
with the varying qualities over the last 30 years in dozens of systems, the last thing a camera's IQ is is simple
 
morgan_moore said:
Im in the have a proper OPLF camp.

having worked for fine weave fabric companies moiree can ruin your shoot.

Failing to be in this converation is false detail

One should observe a chart blending into softness just below the resolution so a 4k chip should be filtered to 3.9k

While non oplf camera may look sharp.. they can create garbage that must be rejeected.

6k aquired a 6k with a 5.9k oplf is probably the 'proper way' to aquire 4k

--

Compression is also not noted. It seemed to be that the 600mbs 444 sr codec from th F35 whopped the '4k' of the FS7.. but that was not scientific.
Click to expand...

1. Agree. Good 4k cameras are mostly 6k to 8k downsampled to 4k. I think it is more proper to label them as 6k or 8k cameras, instead of 4k cameras.

2. If ungraded, F35 1080p SR444 looks better than FS7 4k. I think this is due to F35's CCD vintage wine.

I have tested different codecs on F5. As long as in the same mode of the options of 4k pixel by pixel, 4k downsampling to 2k, 2k pixel binning, 2k pixel by pixel s16, by watching neat footage, different codecs look very similar to my eyes, from 4k XAVC480 to XAVC 300, from 2k SR444 440 to MPEG 50. However, once start grading in resolve, the maneuver room is day and night. So the final 1080p images of thicker codecs are for sure much better than thinner 4k ones.

If FS7 is just 4k XAVC 422 300, its color information is supposed to be less than F35's SR 444 600. So even though the lumen resolution of FS7 is better than F35 (may be just a little, because F35's 1080p is down sampled too), the color resolution of FS7 is not as good as F35.

So basically, F35 beats FS7 in color due to its 444 and CCD. F35 also beats many 4k cameras in motion cadence due to its special stripe sensor design and global shutter.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
Yup, Alexa's 12-bit 444 ProRes whops multiple 4K cameras on the market.

I'm a broken record with this - as were others before me saying the same thing for years before Classics were affordable to normal folk - but the DR and color is so good that the extra resolution in some of the "4K" cameras doesn't matter, the picture still looks fragile from them.
Click to expand...

Alexa internal processing is 14 bit, final bit depth is 12 bit. Also Alexa is 2.8k when in raw mode, so its sensor is about 6 mp, which is not significant less than 8.8 mp for a 4k sensor.
Plus its legendary dr, there is no wonder that Alexa's downsampled 14 to 12 bit 444 full color depth less compressed ProRes 1080p is better looking than many lower tier 4k cameras.
 
Has anyone tested F35 or Alexa EV/XT/Plus vs Red Raptor 8k or BM Ursa 12K? It will be interesting to see how much a well-balanced image can stand against an extremely high-resolution image. LOL.
 
NorBro said:
J doesn't post here anymore but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJAEqZm-MKs
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.
When watching youtube in 4k on a typical desktop screen (probably 22 inch) in full screen mode, I don't see the difference between the two cameras, even in details. Not sure about the original footage before uploading to the youtube. However, youtube is a major distribution platform. So this kind of viewing experience is real world like.

My conclusion is that the girl is pretty and hot. Forget about the cameras. LOL.
 
We started seeing it many years ago in camera tests when people started to have difficult times telling cameras apart when they were matched, at least in perfect scenarios.

As long as the DR and color and resolution is pretty decent, it's hard. It's like what more do you really want, it looks good, you know.
 
NorBro said:
We started seeing it many years ago in camera tests when people started to have difficult times telling cameras apart when they were matched, at least in perfect scenarios.

As long as the DR and color and resolution is pretty decent, it's hard. It's like what more do you really want, it looks good, you know.
Click to expand...
That's what she said.
 
Throwing my own advice back into my face, love it. lol

yeah, I did a quick YT search and saw that one and have watched dozens of his tests on BMCuser back in the day so I thought it might be worth a look.

YouTube some more...that's where the world learns about most thing these days.
 
NorBro said:
Throwing my own advice back into my face, love it. lol

yeah, I did a quick YT search and saw that one and have watched dozens of his tests on BMCuser back in the day so I thought it might be worth a look.

YouTube some more...that's where the world learns about most thing these days.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Will check. Seems to me that the best cameras of the last 10 years are not a concern for current video shooting, even for Hollywood level feature making.
 
How come you're putting so much thought into it, if I may ask...just want the best possible for a big upcoming project?
 
zlfan said:
I watched several reels of F3 and external recorder setup with 422 or even 444.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=479o-DtoqQo
https://vimeo.com/838229754
Seems that resolution is very good. Why are people complaining about F3's resolution? It is on par with the latest 4k low tier cameras, at least on youtube.
Click to expand...

Well the F3 couldn't live with Sony's lowest tier Cinemaline camera, the FX30. It's not even close, even more expensive FX cameras can't live with the FX30. Only an FX9 recording externally would carry more detail.

The FX30 provides the best 4k internally recorded image of the FX range, 4k from 6k oversampling with the superior XAVC-HS codec which holds much more detail and has less compression artefacts than XAVC-I. The FX30 with the 16-55 f2.8 and recorded with XAVC-HS produces most detailed and compression free image I have ever recorded internally on any camera. It's also tiny and sits on a gimbal and you'll shoot for hours without breaking sweat and I haven't missed focus once since I let the camera do it for me. It feels like every lens is parfocal the autofocus is so on point.

The F3 444 output was good in its time but by contemporary 2023 standard it's soft and lacks a bit of dynamic range. The F3 is also a massive lump, a ridiculous handycam style form-factor for a camera that weighs the same as a small car and that's before adding a decent lens, external recorder etc etc. What were Sony thinking with that form-factor? No one in their right mind would go to the expense of getting an F3 rigged up over an FX30 in todays world.

I've seen some great F3 444 content and I can definitely say it beats the FS7 image, maybe not in absolute detail but the aesthetics of the image are way better. I hoped I could use my FS7 as a B-Cam but the footage doesn't cut with the FX30, it's too jarring. The FS7 image just looks sh1t for want of a better word so I'm going to buy the A6700 as a B-Cam and give the FS7 to a local school. I can scale 4k from the FX30 down to HD and it still holds more detail than native 4k out of the FS7. Sharp lenses are a nightmare on the FS7, I had forgotten just how bad it aliased detail and sent moire all over the place, shocking, the 16-55 is a disaster for the FS7. No wonder Sony was able to sell the shockingly bad 18-110 and the 28-135 both horrible lenses and got away with it. I own the equally horrible Sony Zeiss 16-70 F4 and was unaware just how horrible that lens was until testing it against the Sony 16-55 f2.8, it looks like someone had smeared vaseline on the 16-70.

The F3 image had lower detail but an extremely well behaved image so I can understand why it remained popular and a viable tool for so long. Great for Indie film making but too cumbersome for get in get out corporate gigs.

Even if the Alexa classic image is still technically better who the heck wants the bother of lugging that monstrosity around when there are tiny cameras like the FX30 and FX3 which can be rigged for any purpose? I just don't want the chiropractor bills from lugging big cameras and big tripods around anymore.
 
AmbiSonde said:
Well the F3 couldn't live with Sony's lowest tier Cinemaline camera, the FX30. It's not even close, even more expensive FX cameras can't live with the FX30. Only an FX9 recording externally would carry more detail.

The FX30 provides the best 4k internally recorded image of the FX range, 4k from 6k oversampling with the superior XAVC-HS codec which holds much more detail and has less compression artefacts than XAVC-I. The FX30 with the 16-55 f2.8 and recorded with XAVC-HS produces most detailed and compression free image I have ever recorded internally on any camera. It's also tiny and sits on a gimbal and you'll shoot for hours without breaking sweat and I haven't missed focus once since I let the camera do it for me. It feels like every lens is parfocal the autofocus is so on point.

The F3 444 output was good in its time but by contemporary 2023 standard it's soft and lacks a bit of dynamic range. The F3 is also a massive lump, a ridiculous handycam style form-factor for a camera that weighs the same as a small car and that's before adding a decent lens, external recorder etc etc. What were Sony thinking with that form-factor? No one in their right mind would go to the expense of getting an F3 rigged up over an FX30 in todays world.

I've seen some great F3 444 content and I can definitely say it beats the FS7 image, maybe not in absolute detail but the aesthetics of the image are way better. I hoped I could use my FS7 as a B-Cam but the footage doesn't cut with the FX30, it's too jarring. The FS7 image just looks sh1t for want of a better word so I'm going to buy the A6700 as a B-Cam and give the FS7 to a local school. I can scale 4k from the FX30 down to HD and it still holds more detail than native 4k out of the FS7. Sharp lenses are a nightmare on the FS7, I had forgotten just how bad it aliased detail and sent moire all over the place, shocking, the 16-55 is a disaster for the FS7. No wonder Sony was able to sell the shockingly bad 18-110 and the 28-135 both horrible lenses and got away with it. I own the equally horrible Sony Zeiss 16-70 F4 and was unaware just how horrible that lens was until testing it against the Sony 16-55 f2.8, it looks like someone had smeared vaseline on the 16-70.

The F3 image had lower detail but an extremely well behaved image so I can understand why it remained popular and a viable tool for so long. Great for Indie film making but too cumbersome for get in get out corporate gigs.

Even if the Alexa classic image is still technically better who the heck wants the bother of lugging that monstrosity around when there are tiny cameras like the FX30 and FX3 which can be rigged for any purpose? I just don't want the chiropractor bills from lugging big cameras and big tripods around anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't know FX30 is so good. Thanks for the sharing. FX30 is small and relatively affordable.

In history, probably only FS700R with O7Q breaks Sony's own hierarchy. EX1/EX3 may be another example too, reaching the IQ of 2/3 inch ENG pro cameras.

Probably Sony has to compete with Panasonic GH6 and BMPCC 6K at this price range, and accidentally breaks its own artificial stepping ladder and created this FX30 monster. Probably Sony wants younger DPs to get an FX30, buying Sony AF lenses, and lock them in the Sony Ecosystem. This is a smart and brave marketing strategy, will see how this will work out.

Anyway, if this is true, it is great news. There is no point getting an FX6 or FX3, or in very rare cases, FX6 or FX3 are needed more than FX30. And an FX9 plus an external recorder probably is over $10k, actually very expensive. Unless it has some real advantage over FX30, people will for sure go for FX30.

Sony F3 and FS700 have bad ergonomics, that is for sure. Alexa EV is big and heavy and uses a lot of brick batteries. Also, the low light of Alexa EV and Sony F35 are not good. They are very similar to film negatives.
 
Last edited:
AmbiSonde said:
Well the F3 couldn't live with Sony's lowest tier Cinemaline camera, the FX30. It's not even close, even more expensive FX cameras can't live with the FX30. Only an FX9 recording externally would carry more detail.

The FX30 provides the best 4k internally recorded image of the FX range, 4k from 6k oversampling with the superior XAVC-HS codec which holds much more detail and has less compression artefacts than XAVC-I. The FX30 with the 16-55 f2.8 and recorded with XAVC-HS produces most detailed and compression free image I have ever recorded internally on any camera. It's also tiny and sits on a gimbal and you'll shoot for hours without breaking sweat and I haven't missed focus once since I let the camera do it for me. It feels like every lens is parfocal the autofocus is so on point.

The F3 444 output was good in its time but by contemporary 2023 standard it's soft and lacks a bit of dynamic range. The F3 is also a massive lump, a ridiculous handycam style form-factor for a camera that weighs the same as a small car and that's before adding a decent lens, external recorder etc etc. What were Sony thinking with that form-factor? No one in their right mind would go to the expense of getting an F3 rigged up over an FX30 in todays world.

I've seen some great F3 444 content and I can definitely say it beats the FS7 image, maybe not in absolute detail but the aesthetics of the image are way better. I hoped I could use my FS7 as a B-Cam but the footage doesn't cut with the FX30, it's too jarring. The FS7 image just looks sh1t for want of a better word so I'm going to buy the A6700 as a B-Cam and give the FS7 to a local school. I can scale 4k from the FX30 down to HD and it still holds more detail than native 4k out of the FS7. Sharp lenses are a nightmare on the FS7, I had forgotten just how bad it aliased detail and sent moire all over the place, shocking, the 16-55 is a disaster for the FS7. No wonder Sony was able to sell the shockingly bad 18-110 and the 28-135 both horrible lenses and got away with it. I own the equally horrible Sony Zeiss 16-70 F4 and was unaware just how horrible that lens was until testing it against the Sony 16-55 f2.8, it looks like someone had smeared vaseline on the 16-70.

The F3 image had lower detail but an extremely well behaved image so I can understand why it remained popular and a viable tool for so long. Great for Indie film making but too cumbersome for get in get out corporate gigs.

Even if the Alexa classic image is still technically better who the heck wants the bother of lugging that monstrosity around when there are tiny cameras like the FX30 and FX3 which can be rigged for any purpose? I just don't want the chiropractor bills from lugging big cameras and big tripods around anymore.
Click to expand...

FX30 XAVC-HS has 200 mbps at most, XAVC-SI has 600 mbps. How come XAVC-SI is noiser than XAVC-HS? If using XAVC-HS 200, grading may be an issue, in camera adjustment may be the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top