Why F3 over Red One ?

Very interesting. I presume that's on SxS cards. It begs the question of what the F3 would do with an external recorder. Someone please ask him to do try it.
 
sxs recording would skew the results slightly, but has little to do with bit depth, or color information, mainly efficiency. the avchd from the af100 didn't exhibit such behavior. it has a stronger olpf and is also 8 bit 4:2:0 long gop. So the question is, is the color moire from the inefficiency of the codec, or it's the result of the olpf itself. If it's the olpf than external recording won't make a difference.
 
tom.wong said:
sxs recording would skew the results slightly, but has little to do with bit depth, or color information, mainly efficiency. the avchd from the af100 didn't exhibit such behavior. it has a stronger olpf and is also 8 bit 4:2:0 long gop. So the question is, is the color moire from the inefficiency of the codec, or it's the result of the olpf itself. If it's the olpf than external recording won't make a difference.
Click to expand...

Bit depth will have nothing to do with it. Here's my thought:

If the F3 is optimized for 4.4.4 the 4.2.0 may have too little data. I will respectfully disagree that SxS has little to do with color information. The are recorded at 4.2.0 and just as a poor sampling of a high rez sensor can produce moire in a DSLR, I believe the poor sampling of a high rez color might produce moire.
 
Sam Scoggins said:
If F3 is rival for Red and "rock solid image capture" solution for Features - then why has Sony announced a 4K camera?
Click to expand...
Price point will probably be radically different. The F3 is half the price of a Red One. Sony's 4K would likely be priced notably higher than the Red One.
 
Sam Scoggins said:
If F3 is rival for Red and "rock solid image capture" solution for Features - then why has Sony announced a 4K camera?
Click to expand...

Because theaters in the near future are all going to be 4K. If you take into account the typical size of the screen and the average viewers distance to it, you can clearly see a difference between 2K and 4K. The screen of an average theater tends to cover a significant portion of your visual field, so you need high resolution (4K) to prevent people from detecting the individual pixels. 2K in those circumstances is not enough. For home TV, 2K can work perfectly well since people don't tend to watch TV close enough to distinguish between 2K and 4K.
 
Point is - the Sony 4K camera is aimed to dominate the high end - F3 is aimed at indies/ promos ect and is upgradeable to full broadcast spec. The Sony 4K camera will be competing against the Red 4K cams, not the F3.
 
Because K's dont matter really to me. I dont really shoot feature films. When i do, i will use the RED. If you are not shooting a feature or high budget short, you're not gaining anything by having it be 4k.
 
eddavid said:
But until then sorry Red owners - right now at this moment in time you're losing. It's a sad feeling to be losing especially for gear heads.

But maybe this is an important moment in your life - where you realize you shouldn't just be a supporter of one camera - where you should use different cameras like people who shoot on film use different film stocks. Where one film you'll shoot on Fuji and another on Kodak. Your reputation is not on the line.

I love this thread! So passionate.
Click to expand...

Please read this with as much indiferrence on the topic as possible:

This is what's bothersome about the forum. Posts like these that are clearly aimed to attempt to trigger a response from a target. The weird thing is, there's only one true RED owner participating in this thread: Rick Darge, who I also believe now owns an F3.

Let's disregard the idea that some RED owners have already paid their cameras off. What happens when the F3 starts eating into the rentals of those who haven't? They're gonna lowball F3 offers. AT that point, why shoot with an F3 if you can shoot better?

Anyway, to each their own. I don't own so it doesn't matter to me, the only thing that does is mis-information on tools in general. No one learns that way.
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
I'll answer your ? w/ a ?. Why is Red releasing the 3K Scarlet if it can't resolve 4K?
Click to expand...

Having people ask questions like this is one of the problems with Red's EVERYTHING WE HAVE IS THE BEST THERE IS ALL PRO ALL THE TIME ZOMG marketing.

They say that the 5K cameras are for pros and the 3K cameras are for "aspiring pros." *eyeroll*

It's a prosumer camera, Red. Prosumer. Not a dirty, evil word. Prosumers buy lots of cameras. Learn to love them, Red.
 
Lee Saxon said:
Having people ask questions like this is one of the problems with Red's EVERYTHING WE HAVE IS THE BEST THERE IS ALL PRO ALL THE TIME ZOMG marketing.

They say that the 5K cameras are for pros and the 3K cameras are for "aspiring pros." *eyeroll*
Click to expand...
RED's marketing tends to polarize people, perhaps even radicalize them. They make it seem like a war...a "RED Army" and a feeling of "you are either with us or you are with them." It's like things are either black or white to them ("them" being certain top executives and engineers).

That's why you get threads like this where the OP is asking why anyone would choose another tool other than RED.

The truth is no matter how badass you design anything, that thing can't be ideal for every situation. For example, you can round up the best aerospace engineers in the world and design the most badass fighter jet, but it can't do the job of a little Cessna bush plane in Alaska.

No one here said RED wasn't any good, just that the F3 can be better in certain situation. That seems like a fair, sane, and rational conclusion.
 
Yeah, especially since it can come down to something as simple as "I'm shooting in a room the size of a shoebox and a Red One wouldn't FIT in here."
 
I love RED for how they have helped push camera makers.

The human eye, however, is a hard bound. 2K is about it, especially at the recommended viewing angle of 30 degrees. (If that sounds narrow to you, that is the viewing angle of those in the middle of a movie theater. People toward the front get up to about 40 degrees. The very front row of many theaters is more, but these are throwaway seats. The cramp in your neck will hurt worse than the sight of pixelation. And pixelation for the closer people could be taken care of by uprezzing everything as a last step. Sony's Cell processor can actually do this as the video plays, so it could even be a feature of the projector one day.)

And to me, shooting 4K so you can reframe, if needed, in post is like carrying a monkey on your back while running a marathon who holds a lollipop in case you get a sweet tooth.
 
Gary Huff said:
Shooting 4k for reframing was a godsend for me on the last edit job I did. I totally do not agree.
Click to expand...

Unless there's some sort of specific reason to actually want the reframing (I can think of some music video or FX situations or whatever), then most of the time it can be the result of lazy shooting. I worked on a film recently where they shot on RED and had to do reframing because they weren't careful enough, didn't know what they were doing, decided to change the aspect ratio they wanted to deliver at, etc. and I can tell you...as the one doing the final mastering and DVD files, it really hit them hard in the end in some important pieces of the film.
 
I just don't think reframing is the deciding factor for choosing a camera system.

The overall capabilities is what's important to the production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top