Why F3 over Red One ?

ripupthehwy

ripupthehwy

Well-known member
Please forgive my ignorance. But why would you spend $18k for a camera that only does 1080p when you can get a Red that does 4k for not much more money? Because of the other features and the sxs xdcam recording? Still doesn't seem like a better deal to me.
 
This is probably just flame bate, but...

The F3L is $13,300 not $18k. The Red One is $25k and needs other accessories (LCD, EVF and such).

In addition, work flow. Much smaller files. Speed of delivery. Ease of use. Ability to up grade later if you want to.

The images just look more organic.

Have you ever delivered anything in 4k?

EX1/3 useres are very comfortable immediately with the F3. Film camera users are comfortable with the Red One. They are both good cameras but each is centered around different approaches. Pick the one that works for you.
 
It's not just the expense ... it's also, affordability for something here and now that makes the F3 attractive. We'll see what comes up at NAB ... until then, I'm not investing in anything.
 
4K = marketing novelty, plain and simple. Ask anyone who works with cine cameras for a living.

Oh and make sure to check out Roger Deakins favorite camera's specs too.
 
Duke M. said:
Have you ever delivered anything in 4k?
Click to expand...

No, but have you ever cropped a photo? Oversampling has its advantages if you have the time in post.

Also, don't forget RED has higher frame rates in its favour but the single most powerful thing about it is RAW motion recording, again something for which you need ample post production time to really use.
 
Lets say you're doing a production with a budget for the camera department of $3000. ( this is VERY realistic for a lot of productions that opt for R1) This includes paying for crew/camera/ lights for a one day shoot, like a corporate video. Also assuming people actually get paid decent but not great wages.

The producer is handing the footage off to be cut by a post house.

Lets take a R1 budget.
Averge REDMX package: $1000 - w/ everything but glass. ($2000 remaining)
Lenses - Cheap standard speeds or RPP. $300 ($1700 remaining)
DP - $750 (950$ remaining)
1st AC - $350 ($600 remaining)
DIT - $350 ( does onset Rocket transcodes and footage backups) ( $250 remaining)
Now here is where you run into trouble, you are about to blow your budget and you have a couple choices, don't hire a DIT and just shoot to REDdrive.
(back to $600)
Grip $300 (Assuming the DP and AC swing into G&E as well) $300
Light and grip rental BAREbones package $300
(Budget Exhausted)

So you have two choices. Get the shoot done on R1 but no DIT. Or keep the DIT beg for some lights and have a PA do G&E. Most producers go for No DIT and shoot on Drive.

So there you go, you shoot on drive and you get your shoot done. But wait! now you have a REDdrive with 250 gigs of footage on it. ok you offload it for an hour and a half at the end of the day and send it to the post house. ( paying someone overtime $50 overbudget) You get charged for a Rocket trans code (approximately $300 for a trans code to 1080p Prores for edit), and then the editing (clock) starts. Final delivery is 1080p ProRes master and put on The clients website (720p) and DVD's (480p) that come with their product. Project done, but with some budget wiggling, and time constraints, also the onset issues of physically dealing with a heavier bigger camera.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same Scenario on the F3:
($3000)
Average F3 package w/Kipro mini - $750 ($2250 remaining)
Lenses: Cheap Standard speeds or CP1/2's $300 ($1950 Remaining)
DP: $750 ($1200 remains)
1st AC: $350 ($850 remains)
( first AC offloads CF cards from Kipro)
Grip: $300 ($550 remaining)
Lights ; very well appointed package that gives better image quality $550
(budget exhuasted)

So now you have a s35mm Look, great image quality, 10bit performance (even sLog for great control in post if you desire) , the Footage is in Prores so it can be edited IMMEDIATLY with no trascode time; saving budget in post and is delivered to client in the same specs. 10bit 1080p Prores HQ. not to mention the camera is smaller lighter, and easier to work with physically.

The point being there are less Gotcha's, while still providing top image quality on a tight budget. in the recent past, you had three choices. RED, EX1/HPX170 + 35mm adapter, and HDSLR.

The R1 being costly, the 35adapter solution being much less expensive but an optically compromised system with a huge penalty in light sensitivity ( AKA costs more money in lighting), and the HDLSR being compromised everywhere but price.

Now there is a middle option, that offers stellar RED/Alexa league image quality, at an operational cost more in line with the 35mm adapter price range, with the best light sensitivity of all the aforementioned options (RED/ALEXA/DSLR's included). It's a win win win situation. Good producers have come to realize this, and why i have invested in it. I LOVE RED, Dont get me wrong, but its the wrong choice for a lot of projects. Most of being a DP is about being responsible for getting the production done on budget, and on time.
 
I'm far more interested in dynamic range than resolution.
I'll take a camera that delivers a useable 10-15 stops over simply a 4k image any day.

Yes, the RED has higher res.
The RED even is higher res than the Alexa.

But consider this.

Last year I was in Germany, when Arri showed the Alexa at the Munich Film Festival.
A well regarded German DP had prepared some footage that was shown on a high quality digital projector.

The Alexa is 3.5k, but in closeups you could quite literally see the powder of the makeup on the actors.

I spoke a little to the DP later on and he was worried that anyone over the age of 16 was going to freak out, when they saw every pore and imperfection in their skin projected on a 40ft screen. The only alternative was to either slather them in makeup, which looks odd at certain distances, or use filtration during the shoot or in post to keep the detail under control.

In any case I am far more interested in exposure range and which case bigger receptors rule the day. I have high hopes for the F3 shooting s-log 4:4:4 in that regard.
 
ripupthehwy said:
Please forgive my ignorance. But why would you spend $18k for a camera that only does 1080p when you can get a Red that does 4k for not much more money? Because of the other features and the sxs xdcam recording? Still doesn't seem like a better deal to me.
Click to expand...

Because none of us deliver final products at anything higher than 1080p, and we have more important considerations than sheer resolution. The F3 over samples to get it's 1080p, that's enough for a technically and aesthetically tremendous picture.

I've been down the Red path, I had 5 or 6 F3s worth of Red gear. I don't miss it one bit so far, for 80% of my work.
 
Timur you nailed it! Also how about the R1 weighs so much. It makes it physically a beast so you have to have a bigger tripod and handheld work is annoying.

Also Red has issues with things being on backorder that are crucial like viewfinders and memory applications. And they just don't have the support you need unfortuately due to the small nature of their company.

But why should we be critical of the R1 when it has helped move the way for the bigger camera companies to come out with 4k solutions - well because of how they act on their postings. Making comments like "why would anyone not shoot 4k?" and well what I see as a jock bullying mentality to the camera business instead of being supportive of all ways of cinematography. When the Alexa came out and outperformed the R1 in latitude, just like many others, I couldn't help but be passionate and excited for it. And now looking at the images from my F3 which are looking so amazingly clean and it's a native quicktime file thanks to the Nanoflash (an example of how a small company can be kind, supportive, and not a big jock) - I'm so happy with what I have.
 
F3 for Documentary:
simply turns on and your ready to shoot, no fans or boot-up wait
very light
much longer battery times
Long record times
possibly better in camera audio (external on the fly level adjustment)
Sensor scale for overcrank (keep same FOV)
Cleaner high iso (iso6400 very clean)
no post hick-ups + can cut/export fast on a low-powered laptop

Red one for documentary:
Wait for camera to boot/ has fan
eats batteries
shorter recordtimes (unless using a drive which adds weight and size)
audio is more of an in camera menu adjustment than an on the fly level tweak
big + heavy (compared to f3)
Overcranking is limited to windowing the sensor (crop FOV)
Noiser high iso (you would never go all the way to 6400 unless a major emergency)
Not a quick workflow unless you have a rocket (still some occasional hick-ups with continual new software)

But for Narrative:
Maybe a Red one would be better, if your looking for the highest quality image for a big screen. Then again- we will have to wait and see where the f3 is when s-log and 444RGB over dual link are available.

Just a personal preference and decision that the Director/DP need to make along with the producer. I dont think you could go "wrong" either way.
 
I've gotten used to how blazingly fast and easy it is to import and edit XDCAM material (on a Mac mind you..). It really is the easiest fastest workflow I've ever used. I can't wait for my company to purchase an F3!
 
One more reason for F3 over red.
The F3 will have more lens options soon. When Sony offers the zooms, for probably a lot less than many alternatives, it will really be nice. You can use PL's of course or Sony mounts with no trouble or ordering and fitting of aftermarket mounts and both will be considered stock, factory mounts.

The Epic should be ok but you still have the same red sensor and the horrible form factor of a DSLR which will keep up the vibrating handheld shots for a long time to come.
 
Yes Cinesin, I think the zoom rocker on the F3 is being overlooked, for now...... It will be an immense feature (for certain work) once the zooms are launched
 
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here since:
1. I can see several advantages for certain situations with the F3
2. I can see several advantages for certain situations with the R1MX.

I feel many people in this post simply don't understand how the red works and what its benefit is.
Timur hit the nail on the head for Medium/Small Scale productions that many of us who are getting paid for our work do.

Red MX Advantages:
1. Controlled Oversampling. Yes, most of us won't be delivering 4k packages for projection this year. However, we have the ability to capture from a 4k imager, and whatever we do with that 4k image is literally in our own hands. We have full control to downscale, debayer, color, shape, twist, whatever all 8+ megapixels of motion information we capture.
2. Color Control. Red allows us to treat each clip like a digital still from a DSLR: We can grade the crap out of a "compressed Raw" image if we choose to. Nothing is "baked in" If you understand how much flexibility you get from this, then you can easily see the benefit of a Red system.
3. To My eye the "Red Look" if there is such a thing is smoother, more natural, and more robust than the "sony Look" I'm not saying I don't like the Sony Look - I think it's really cool too - but I can almost always spot sony footage. it's the Colors man, the colors and the motion.

F3 Advantages:
1. Out of the box usability. take camera out of box, put lens on, put battery on, and shoot. If you don't know the camera and grab it right out of the box you might have a crappy image, but you got an image and chances are it won't get erased accidentally, etc. because assistants aren't afraid of it. It's only a sony.
2. Cost - Yes - there is some cost benefit that can be had using the F3.
3.Easy by comparison workflow. Shoot, download cards, cut. You might not be able to tweak it as much out of the box, and it may have "sony color" but very useable.

As a DP/Director I want my stuff shot on Red if it fits the project, timeframe and budget.

As a DP/Producer I may want the F3 for those jobs that they just want to crap it out onto the internet ASAP and they don't care about quality, and just want to keep the dollar amount down.

If I can put an extra $300 to $500 in my own pocket, and not make my crew starve, suffer or hate me at the end of the day I generally will try to.

If I can shoot it on Red though, I will. Always.

Sometimes you just gotta fit the budget.
 
Cinesin said:
One more reason for F3 over red.
The F3 will have more lens options soon. When Sony offers the zooms, for probably a lot less than many alternatives, it will really be nice. You can use PL's of course or Sony mounts with no trouble or ordering and fitting of aftermarket mounts and both will be considered stock, factory mounts.

The Epic should be ok but you still have the same red sensor and the horrible form factor of a DSLR which will keep up the vibrating handheld shots for a long time to come.
Click to expand...

DSLR form factor is just one way of many to build an Epic rig. You are not locked into that. It has none of the limitations of shooting with a DSLR. Both cameras will still require external rail or shoulder hardware to be stable and balanced for hand held shoulder work. Epic-S should fall pretty close to the price range of an F3 package too.

Sony HD work flow has something of a speed advantage for now if you use FCP. FCP work flow is definitely out of date compared to CS5 where you can edit Red footage native without transcoding until you are finished and ready for release format encoding. But native Red work flow is being incorporated into every major NLE and post system anyway, so it won't be much of an issue going forward. FCP is just behind the curve at the moment.

For merely HD video production the F3 is a fine choice. But there are multiple production markets existing and emerging where higher resolution acquisition can be a significant plus factor. No one camera system is perfect for everything.

Epics will also have the capability of using Canon L series lenses and Nikon lenses with full electronic controls and Red's own series of electronic lenses are in the pipeline too.
 
Last edited:
uh oh the emotions are running high :) . Dan I'm going to post a video in the next few days that I took the Red Epic night test stuff and I shot some stuff with the F3 onto the nanoflash and show you the similarities in look. Of course I'm not an engineer or any of that. But I'm playing with settings that don't give it "the Sony Look."
 
RED is a double edged sword. Lots of benefits, if you have the support in production and post. The production can be huge, but may lack in post. POST is one of the key factors. you can buy cheap drives to offload on set, you can luck out and get away with a PA media managing, maybe shoot on drive all day and offload at night. Productions are crazy enough to do that, and I've seen it happen way too many times. They get lucky, and let's say that all happens. People get good wages, the footage looks awesome.

But now the producer and or client needs a rough cut in 3 days, and they hand it off to an editor without a rocket card, or even a mac pro, and are simply editing on a macbook pro. If he had a few weeks to get in a rough cut, no biggy, but now the editor is in a major jam. let's face it, a lot of productions don't coordinate and plan with post. especially corporate jobs, music videos, etc. they just shoot and shoot, and pick whoever that fits the budget that's leftover.

all the raw in the world isn't helping at all. it's not a "good enough" mentality, it's a issue with practicalities. it's like, great production shot on f35, looks amazing, love the camera, love everything. everything was shot to HDCAM SR, and they hand it over to a freelance editor that has no access to a SR deck. it's pointless, and useless.

you can say that's not an accurate comparison, but it kind of is. because time is essentially money. you can transcode all day and night for a long time, and then get to your edit. that's time lost.
you can get a rocket and mac tower and that's money lost
you can get a beefy mac pro or pc and edit natively with r3d, again, cost.

just like needing a tape deck, or paying to have the tape digitized. shooting on RED, you'll always need 1 of two things, time or money. both is always ideal. when you got no time, and not enough money, it's simply too much camera for the production plain and simple.

f3 offers a really nice thing though. it is able to shoot at a high enough quality to be close to hollywood and broadcast standards, but doesn't incur nearly the same amount of cost. no raw and only stuck with 1080p does limit you, but I don't see films like avatar, and tron complaining about 10 bit 444 1080.

will they regret it when 4k is the standard? maybe, and probably, like our favorite tv shows never shot in HD so it will never see the light of day on blu ray. but that's why we have choices so if any of us gets a 200 million dollar budget, 4k isn't exactly an issue anymore is it?

even on a 40k budget for a corporate commercial, and paying everybody what they are worth on set and off set, you'll see how easily the money evaporates.
 
Dan_Kanes said:
As a DP/Producer I may want the F3 for those jobs that they just want to crap it out onto the internet ASAP and they don't care about quality, and just want to keep the dollar amount down.
Click to expand...

Now there's an inflammatory remark. :lipsrseal

Actually I agreed with a lot of what you said, but the colors in the F3 are definitely tweakable in camera or in post so you can't really say there is a 'Sony look' unless someone is using the default settings, and then I agree there is a Sony (blue/green) look.

I think there's a huge difference between image quality and technical quality. Many people prefer the more organic look of the Alexa and F3, so its pretty hard to say those camera users don't care about quality. Particularly when an external recorder and the upcoming s-log evens out a lot of the playing field.

But yes, when you pay that much more for a Red, and Red post, you should expect a superior image. Will the audience know or care? Regular audiences didn't complain about Benjamin Button, Avitor and a host of others.

If you're making movies for $40 million and up you can pick what you want. If not, you make choices based on the amount of bang for the buck.

FCP work flow is definitely out of date compared to CS5 where you can edit Red footage native without transcoding until you are finished and ready for release format encoding. But native Red work flow is being incorporated into every major NLE and post system anyway, so it won't be much of an issue going forward.
Click to expand...

That's leaving out the speed of the computer. Just because the software can handle it, try stacking 5 clips on the timeline in CS5 and see what your computer does. Red files are big to handle natively.
 
Last edited:
One thing we don't know until now is the price of the Epic-lite. the prices of red have been creeping up every time so to speculate, more so with a company with red track record is nor very serious. In six month they might change it, scrap it etc...

The second thing I don't understand is the the concept that someone's film is obsolete because it is not shot in 4k. I would like to know how many people think that their film will even be relevant to an audience in 5 years. I take the example of Avatar, the biggest film in terms of money (I had to go three time at the cinema to be able to watch it). It has been airing on satelite tv the last 2 month, I have watch it once and watch some part of it when I fell on it when changing channel and now I zap it as soon as I see it. In two years it will be on national TV and so what!!! Do you think I will want to watch it again or the latest greatest film of 2013!!! Guess what, most film are obsolete after 2 years, 4k/3d or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top