Why F3 over Red One ?

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...

You can use just about lens any RED, and it is probably just as simple or hard to do. You can choose the easy, cheap, good triangle, the same for any other camera with a lens mounting system just about. Save Nikon.

And, after having been outside about an hour and a half ago with a half decked out Epic shooting and getting used to the camera, I can definitely say that the form factor is not an issue, and neither will handheld vibrations etc like DSLRs.

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say once someone figures out the Bomb EVF and LCD mounting system, it's going to be a pretty well received setup by a good heap. It's definitely gotten me to realize I need to get the battery and drive off of the RED MX and into a backpack.

I think all of these cameras have great form factors now. Not too light and not too large and heavy.
 
Dan_Kanes said:
One more thing - there are so many broke-Azz Red Owner Operators out there on craigslist that you can find a (crappy) package for like $400/day with lenses.

Not that I condone that... I think it's asinine.
Click to expand...

There are a few of those guys in NYC, they actually go for $250 but they are relegated to the world of low rent projects, where they survive on favors and no one gets paid. (BY the WAY; the trick is this, you pay $250 for the crappy red package, and nikon lenses, then get some student or something to shoot the project for free because after all..... its on RED and will look GREAT on their reel...)
Their packages are usually garbage. All "prosumer" parts that don't really work with anything. People who know the difference shoot on a proper package, with high quality accessories.
 
Kholi said:
You can use just about lens any RED, and it is probably just as simple or hard to do. You can choose the easy, cheap, good triangle, the same for any other camera with a lens mounting system just about. Save Nikon.

And, after having been outside about an hour and a half ago with a half decked out Epic shooting and getting used to the camera, I can definitely say that the form factor is not an issue, and neither will handheld vibrations etc like DSLRs.

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say once someone figures out the Bomb EVF and LCD mounting system, it's going to be a pretty well received setup by a good heap. It's definitely gotten me to realize I need to get the battery and drive off of the RED MX and into a backpack.

I think all of these cameras have great form factors now. Not too light and not too large and heavy.
Click to expand...

Nah, my point stands. The lens options coming are more versatile on the F3 in the end, and the SLR form factor issue on red's new stuff is a big one for many situations. Nothing beats a built in top handle and a little length on your camera.
 
~Yawn~

(another chronic spew fest on DVXUser that involves Red)
This is becoming the Achilles heel of our great community.
If we're not careful, "Red" is going to be added right next to Politics and Religion.
Chill out peeps.
 
I actually think it's been quite a civilized conversation overall. Obviously emotions are high among Red Users because they have bought a $40,000 camera and now the new kid comes in and it's delivering quite a similar look for $14,000. I would feel upset if I owned the Red.

And also as I've heard from many colorists - the Alexa is the preferred high end camera for grading - more latitude and better color information (less compression) than the Red. 4k is good when you need to reframe - but at what cost - if it increases compression.

For 95% of the people who read this board as Timur points out, none of us really need more than 1080p unless we love to reframe our shots or for VFX work.

But hey can't we rent the right camera for the right job when it comes down to that?
 
eddavid said:
I actually think it's been quite a civilized conversation overall. Obviously emotions are high among Red Users because they have bought a $40,000 camera and now the new kid comes in and it's delivering quite a similar look for $14,000. I would feel upset if I owned the Red.

And also as I've heard from many colorists - the Alexa is the preferred high end camera for grading - more latitude and better color information (less compression) than the Red. 4k is good when you need to reframe - but at what cost - if it increases compression.

For 95% of the people who read this board as Timur points out, none of us really need more than 1080p unless we love to reframe our shots.

But hey man - don't we all like to make sure we get our shot right in the first place.
Click to expand...

Youre my new best friend. I cringe at the "it lets you re-frame shots" line, as much as the "We'll fix the lighting in post" line.... If you want a medium close up, tell me and i will shoot one for you, in 5K if you desire.....
 
HHL said:
~Yawn~

(another chronic spew fest on DVXUser that involves Red)
This is becoming the Achilles heel of our great community.
If we're not careful, "Red" is going to be added right next to Politics and Religion.
Chill out peeps.
Click to expand...

Might b a good thing. Less people to talk about the shooting dynamics of a camera they have never seen, touched, used. Lol
 
TimurCivan said:
I cringe at the "it lets you re-frame shots" line
Click to expand...

This one has always made me shake my head too.

Why would you intentionally narrow your field of view down to something like a 2/3" sensor equivalent, thereby defeating the major RED advantages, shallow depth and higher resolution.

If that's the frame and field you wanted in the first place, and you don't want the DoF or the res, just use a 2/3", shoot if properly and save money across the board...
 
David Williams said:
This one has always made me shake my head too.

Why would you intentionally narrow your field of view down to something like a 2/3" sensor equivalent, thereby defeating the major RED advantages, shallow depth and higher resolution.

If that's the frame and field you wanted in the first place, and you don't want the DoF or the res, just use a 2/3", shoot if properly and save money across the board...
Click to expand...

It's done every day, in post, in film and television. You probably won't or don't notice it... but, this is fact.

It's very romantic to say "oh, I want every shot to be perfect and go with the narrative"... the reality is, not every shot fits. It has nothing to do with DOF and Resolution, it has to do with telling a story in a shot and PERHAPS the one that was captured was not the right one for the content. And, instead of throwing money at the problem--reshoots cost a hell of a lot more money than losing resolution--you reframe and live with what moves the story along the best, versus the "pretty" choice that doesn't have much impact on narrative.

The whole point of reframing in 4K is that you end up with a 1080 image or more when you crop out of the actual 4 or 4.5K image. It is valuable to a lot of working organizations, whether people want to believe that or not is entirely up to them.

While some may "shake their heads" at this practice, hopefully someone else benefits from realizing that it's done even with all sorts of mediums: SD, HD, Film, etc. And, what may not seem like the right shot can be turned into a good one for your edit. Not just for the sake of pretty pictures.
 
Of course it's done. It's still lazy in either operating or planning or both. Bad direction, cinematography, and costs more money in production and post.

If no one notices, so much for 4K being the the next step if when it's cropped no one can even tell.
 
David Williams said:
Of course it's done. It's still lazy in either operating or planning or both. Bad direction, cinematography, and costs more money in production and post.

If no one notices, so much for 4K being the the next step if when it's cropped no one can even tell.
Click to expand...

I know of one recomposed shot in TRANSFORMERS and I can tell you where one is in INCEPTION, if you have the Blu Ray.

I can also point out where Post Motion effects were done on a pickup shot in Transformers.

I can also direct you to a blow up from digital footage in BATTLE: LA, a few of them in fact.

Since you work on large budgets then maybe you've got a better system then all of these lazy and bad directors and cinematographers. You should teach them a thing or two.

And that's the point, you can't tell when you reframe and export from 1080. You could at a certain distance, but at regular viewing distance you can't.

That's everyone's argument as to why 1080 is enough... because everyone is delivering 1080/2K, so it's perfectly viable.

I see why Cinematography.net has a strict policy on joining and posting...
 
Last edited:
None of that actually addresses anything I said? Pointing out mistakes in features? Everyone makes the odd mistake.

I love Cinematography.net, been posting there for years. Plenty of great knowledge passed around.
 
David Williams said:
None of that actually addresses anything I said? Pointing out mistakes in features? Everyone makes the odd mistake.

I love Cinematography.net, been posting there for years. Plenty of great knowledge passed around.
Click to expand...


Sometimes you did not get the shot that you needed because of time, budget, etc. You can make something out of the 4K that you do have and create a new shot to fill a performance or reaction, etc. that you need to move the story.

Downhill.

Later.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:

Sometimes you did not get the shot that you needed because of time, budget, etc. You can make something out of the 4K that you do have and create a new shot to fill a performance or reaction, etc. that you need to move the story.

Downhill.

Later.
Click to expand...

Not sure which planet you are addressing me from? I made a comment about how some people tend to reframe RED projects excessively or even entirely in post not understanding the effect, and you take it personally for whatever reason and throw out a bunch of non sequitur citing a bunch of mistakes re-framed in some features of which some where not even RED shoots? What?
 
David Williams said:
Not sure which planet you are addressing me from? I made a comment about how some people tend to reframe RED projects excessively or even entirely in post not understanding the effect, and you take it personally for whatever reason and throw out a bunch of non sequitur citing a bunch of mistakes re-framed in some features of which some where not even RED shoots? What?
Click to expand...

Where exactly did you post that exact comment? I missed it, and missed it again when I went back to read the dismissive statement on a practice that's done constantly on larger scales with footage that isn't 4K.

You called it lazy and bad practice, I gave examples of how it's clearly done by good directors with large budgets.
 
I've owned a Red for over three years now. I've been MX for over a year. Recently shot with the F3 at 3200ISO and to my eye the F3 is more sensitive. I also prefer the look of the F3. The colors feel more natural and the mid tones don't have that plastic feel that the Red has..Am I worried about the F3 eating into my Red jobs? Not at all... The people who want to shoot Red will keep shooting Red and the people who want the F3 will go with that. The Red is my bread and butter despite my complete frustration at their delays and
Constant delivery pushing but the F3 has it's place. It would be unwise to call it
An inferior product because of it's codec or resolution. It's an AMAZING piece of tech and kudos to Sony for actually delivering ON TIME! A camera is only as good as it's availability
 
Kholi said:
Where exactly did you post that exact comment? I missed it, and missed it again when I went back to read the dismissive statement on a practice that's done constantly on larger scales with footage that isn't 4K.

You called it lazy and bad practice, I gave examples of how it's clearly done by good directors with large budgets.
Click to expand...

Look, your clearly arguing with someone else about something else but quoting me, so I will recuse myself from this case.
 
Kholi said:

Sometimes you did not get the shot that you needed because of time, budget, etc. You can make something out of the 4K that you do have and create a new shot to fill a performance or reaction, etc. that you need to move the story.

Downhill.

Later.
Click to expand...

Good point Kholi about reframing.

However your comment and everyone's comment about how DVXUSER has gone downhill is funny cause I feel the same exact or even more hostile tone exists on REDUSER.net even with the real username policy.

Why not let there be some passion on these boards?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top