Why F3 over Red One ?

Might I also point out that if you are shooting a feature with 2.40 aspect ratio (bars above and below) and you just want to reframe up or down (to hide a boom, or hide something on the floor, you can reframe that in 1080 with absolutely no loss of resolution.

Beyond that you so some reframing in 1080 without noticing it. Lots of FX shots or a digital zoom have been done, even in major motion pictures at 1k, which is basically 720p. No one in the theaters complained and very few even noticed.

Reframing is an advantage, but not that big of an advantage unless someone didn't do their job.
 
Kholi said:
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.
Click to expand...


I own a Red camera and two Panasonics (HPX-500, HVX-200) as well as a Canon DSLR. BTW all paid for. Each of these cameras, as well as the F3, all are excellent tools and all will provide the user with a quality image. It comes down to what is right for the project you are working on. For example, the Red is amazing, however, there is no reason to shoot with it if the end use of the video is the web.
 
Kholi is right - in the end misinformation is a bad thing. But really - the Red camp has created a machismo war-like atmosphere with their Red fanboys. And for this reason, people can't always question the Red One without fear of attack.

Instead of people freely sharing information about different cameras about different jobs, it's almost become like polarized politics in the U.S. "Why would anyone think of shooting on anything less than 4K" is what the Red Founder posted in his "RECON"

Calling the EVF - the bomb.

Tons of war-like metaphors. Deleting disagreeable posts.

Frankly, it's kind of fun and amusing to turn the tables on them.

If only the company was like Panasonic or Convergent Designs, and be able to stand by the criticism, they may gain some valuable knowledge about how the camera world works. This isn't selling sunglasses.

In some ways the passion Red's CEO brings is great, but in other ways its like a savoir complex...something no one needs leading a company.

"You really have no idea how many people at RED work more hours than you can imagine... all for the satisfaction of leading the industry to a better place."

I like the above sentence - it's sweet and nice. But did he actual lead the industry to a better place (more affordable cinema cameras) or did the 5d mark II? Or even the BBC by requesting video to go with the stills capabilities of their photographers? I think it's time someone does a doc about the camera industry.
 
Last edited:
Oversampling and reframing can be a useful tool, but at what cost? Editors and Producers may love the ability to reframe, but as a DP, tell me what you want shot, and I'll get it right in the camera. If I have a $10k budget on a corporate shoot destined for HD, DVD, or web delivery, I'd rather work with a PMW-F3 instead of a RED and be able to dedicate $1500 to $3000 more to other aspects of production. You can still punch into a 1080p picture to reframe if necessary.
 
Viddovation said:
Oversampling and reframing can be a useful tool, but at what cost? Editors and Producers may love the ability to reframe, but as a DP, tell me what you want shot, and I'll get it right in the camera. If I have a $10k budget on a corporate shoot destined for HD, DVD, or web delivery, I'd rather work with a PMW-F3 instead of a RED and be able to dedicate $1500 to $3000 more to other aspects of production. You can still punch into a 1080p picture to reframe if necessary.
Click to expand...

+10

This is the point. EXACTLY. RED is a BETTER CAMERA. But only better for fully crewed productions that can handle workflow, and physical attributes of the camera. If you dont have the workflow in your budget, you now have an excellent no compromise alternative.
 
And BTW, if you just "shoot for what you see" I can still work as fast or faster with the RED than the F3 from what I saw of one day of shooting. "The RED is hard s**t" is just FUD.

You have some additional options, but you don't need to use them... They're just a bonus.
 
Last edited:
Sam Scoggins said:
This thread should be called "Why an Apple over a Banana".
Click to expand...

Haha while I like this - I think actually Timur and Kholi are making excellent points. Red One is the better camera - but only if you have the workflow and support for it. Reframing is a great feature - but you need to have a larger crew to work successfully with the Red. And more of a budget for post.

The F3 is a very welcome addition to the camera world. Let's embrace it rather than try to discredit it for not being 4k and driving down the price of Red rentals.
 
phudsontx said:
I own a Red camera and two Panasonics (HPX-500, HVX-200) as well as a Canon DSLR. BTW all paid for. Each of these cameras, as well as the F3, all are excellent tools and all will provide the user with a quality image. It comes down to what is right for the project you are working on. For example, the Red is amazing, however, there is no reason to shoot with it if the end use of the video is the web.
Click to expand...

I can respect this sentiment for several reasons, one primary being that you own and are an example of a RED owner that doesn't need to "fear" the F3. For web, no, you don't need to shoot RED at all, but the MX has advantages outside of resolution's realm as well. So, you could shoot RED for the web, and people do it on web series. Oddly enough, though, these web series have budgets, and they're packaged later as feature films that sell to fans.

So, there's also another intention for the format.
 
TimurCivan said:
+10

This is the point. EXACTLY. RED is a BETTER CAMERA. But only better for fully crewed productions that can handle workflow, and physical attributes of the camera. If you dont have the workflow in your budget, you now have an excellent no compromise alternative.
Click to expand...

I must ask this question: What is the difference in production workflow between the F3 and RED?

The F3 is only 4 Inches shorter than the RED. If four inches of real-estate is saving the production, cool.

The F3 still takes Media that needs to be offloaded, on top of that, to get the best out of it you need to power an extra module (Nanoflash) while using the camera.

The F3's still needs to be powered similar to the RED. I mean, most people are already stating they're going to use V-Mount or AB mount.

The F3 still needs an AC as much as the same job on a RED needs an AC. Which means, if you can pull focus great, if you can't, get an AC. it doesn't change between the two cameras.

The F3 still needs as much attention to lighting detail as RED does. Neither are film.

So how is the F3 a run and gun camera anymore or any less than a RED? I don't get the theory here: they're Hyper similar tools. One is just more expensive and offers more image quality.

To me, this entire thing goes back to the fist post. It's about cost. The F3 is thousands more affordable and for some people that's the catch, the same way as DSLRs versus Af100's or whatever.

Please point out something that I'm missing in the production workflow.

Post Production? That's probably different. The best workflow is to have a RED ROCKET card available. Period. Once the RED ROCKET Card is installed in your workflow, the issues become non-existent. You never have to go back to the REDCODE Raw once you hit ProRes, and you can adjust and get the best image from the raw before you do that.

That's where the F3 on-board, and even adding a Nanoflash, becomes valuable to those who can't shell out for an extra card etc. And that's a POST deal, not a production.
 
Sam Scoggins said:
This thread should be called "Why an Apple over a Banana".
Click to expand...

+1 Or from the stills world "Why a T2i over a 1D Mark IV?"

You can buy an F3 with a set of primes AND an external recorder for less than a RED body alone - but if you want/need 4K and the other things RED offers it's going to be worth the extra money.

IMO These cameras are competing for different spaces of the market, (just like the AF100 and F3). Although many productions will consider both as options, it really comes down to what system fits the budget and the requirements. For some the Red will just be plain out of reach. For others it will be no question that they want the resolution and can afford it. And some....well maybe they can aford the Red, but really love the F3s attributes.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
+1 Or from the stills world "Why a T2i over a 1D Mark IV?"

You can buy an F3 with a set of primes AND an external recorder for less than a RED body alone - but if you want/need 4K and the other things RED offers it's going to be worth the extra money.

IMO These cameras are competing for different spaces of the market, (just like the AF100 and F3). Although many productions will consider both as options, it really comes down to what system fits the budget and the requirements. For some the Red will just be plain out of reach. For others it will be no question that they want the resolution and can afford it. And some....well maybe they can aford the Red, but really love the F3s attributes.
Click to expand...


This is actually the answer to the OP's post. Plain and simple. Why choose an F3 over a RED/MX? Affordability for most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top