Sony PMW-F3 Will Support Dual-Link HD-SDI
 

Hi Dan,

The plot thickens with this new Sony camera. Is there a Dual-Link NanoFlash product to support it?

Sony's PMW-F3 Targets Indie Filmmakers
Camera Has 35mm CMOS, Will Support Dual-Link HD-SDI RGB Workflow

More here:
Sony's PMW-F3 Targets Indie Filmmakers | Studio Daily

Aloha...

Jeff

I was at that briefing today along with the Studio Daily writer. He did an excellent job of summarizing our briefing.

Note that the F3 will support 10-bit 4:2:2 over single link SDI. We need to await the optional and as yet unpriced firmware upgrade to support dual link RGB.

But what was nice to hear is that Sony specifically mentioned NanoFlash as one of the options for higher quality images from the camera.

Ned Soltz

I have been waiting for this for years. Ever since I placed 35 mm adapters on various cameras and wished for the day of a real camera, not a still camera, could use larger sensors and accommodate PL mounted lens. And less than 40K.
I'll have a chance to see it and put it through some paces in the next few weeks and will share my experiences.
I plan on placing multiple units in our kit.

Dear Dennis,

I agree, this is a very exciting announcement.

I have read in other threads where this camera was being described as too expensive and being compared with far lower cost cameras.

In my opinion, this new camera should be compared to much higher cost cameras.

The following remains to be seen and proven, but I have heard that the sensor in this camera is as good as the sensor in any Sony camera!

And we just love it when a new camera comes out that can be improved by adding a nanoFlash.

Dear Jeff,

The nanoFlash and the nano3D are not currently designed to accept Dual Link HD-SDI.

The Great New Camera
 

....Hi Dan:
Anyone who does manage to pay $16K US for this camera will not want to downgrade the signal-especially dual link of course, with an 8 bit recording device, when the camera is clearly a 10 bit & 12 bit (Dual Link) capable Cine-Alta type camera.

I'm with Mark. The kind of people or rather production houses/companies that would drop this camera into their workflow are already into tethering cameras to high end recording systems. For those lower down in the video film industry ecosystem will be capturing into computers with Kona 3s or the not yet released or field tested Ki Pro Mini or the nanoFlash.

Once you get over the limp internal capture specs using the internal recorder, given what the camera is capable of, you have an incredible grab-it-and-go high end "digital cinema" capable camera. Has great potential as a tethered B-camera to high end outfits already in the Sony ecosystem with F35s and SRW-9000s but also as a camera to upsell clients on with out the workflow hassles of another camera that shall remain nameless.

Anything that reduces my time in front of a computer in an order of magnitude has my interest.

Well, I'd strongly disagree with that statement. I am hoping to be one of the first in line to buy an F3 (if Dennis doesn't buy them all) and I'll be quite happy recording to SxS cards most of the time and to my NanoFlash when I want a little better bit-rate and color sampling. It's nice this camera will offer the option of better recording, but I don't need to fool myself into thinking I need that level of quality for most of the work I'm doing.

Don't be so quick to write off the guys like me who will be moving up from an EX1/3. I can't justify a SRW-9000, F35, or ALEXA but I can surely justify $16-$20K for a camera that will let me come very close to what those cameras can do. I don't want it as a B camera, I want it as an A camera. The F3 opens up a whole new world of creativity for those people who want to explore new shooting techniques and get a "look" that no ordinary ENG/EFP camera can achieve.

I love the look that you can get with digital SLRs, but it sucks to work with those cameras. Now the F3 exceeds the specifications of the SLRs and gives you that shallow DOF organic "look" --- with a normal camcorder design, a viewfinder, adjustable LCD, zebras, peaking, assign buttons, audio meters, timecode, control over paint settings, control over clip naming, onboard audio, playback control, HDSDI output, timecode I/O, etc.

$16K is a very small investment to make back and my camera will pay for itself after a couple of months. It's like getting a baby SRW-9000 for 1/5 the price.
I can't wait to get mine.

I am with Doug on this! Just because is available doesn't mean that will be used by everyone. It is very good to have that option and If I ever need that, I would rent the necessary equipment and do the job. Other then that, NF is just perfect for F3.
Mark, when was the last time you recorded 10-12bit for a payed job?
Even with 8bit 280Mbps on NF, NF media passes every time the QC for Big Screen or TV when intercut with RED or F35 so far!, and that is the area where I make my living and using NF very successful.
I would love to get F3, just don't know if I would need the full package or not. I have an excellent set of prime Nikon Nikkor lenses and if I am capable of using them with F3, that would be awesome. Also, I hope Sony would provide an stereoscopic lens for F3 so that could be used for 3D with NF 3D. Does anyone know the answer on those questions of mine? Thank you
Cheers

You probably wouldn't want a stereoscopic lens for this camera as that would only give you a 1/2 resolution double image on one sensor. The prototype Sony had at IBC and the Panasonic 3DA1 are really two cameras inside and deliver two discreet full resolution data streams either for internal record or outboard to devices like Nano Flash or KiPro recorders. This allows you to work with two separate full rez data streams in post for convergence and other adjustments to the 3D image. Baking in a left/right image on one data channel prohibits all of the necessary fine tuning in post, so it's really just a home use device to display little junior spilling his milk - again - in 3D.

Panasonic makes a camcorder with a stereo lens attachment if you are interested in that at a price somewhere around $1200 USD.

Thank you Bruce! Thank you for that clarification. Do you have an info regarding Nikon Nikkor Prime/tele lenses with proper adapter on F3? Thank you
Cheers

Painting a Rembrandt with an Exi-Sketch !
 

...But you can't achieve the look you describe with a capture device which is only capable of grabbing 60 % of what the F3 can actually produce, so whatever advantage you gain by having the $16K Cine Alta camcorder is nullified by using a capture device. Why purchase a Dual - Link 12 bit camera only to record in 8 bits on an MPEG 2 codec ??? Isn't this a little like Rembrandt trying to paint with an exi-sketch ?
...If this is the case, then why don't you also consider purchasing a cinedeck recorder, which is capable of capturing directly to Quicktime, Avid DNxHD, or Cineform codec, plus uncompressed and dual link ? This capture device will give you 10 and 12 bit capture to get 100 % of the sensor data from the F3. If you're going $16K, then why not go $7K more and complete the chain ?

Paying Job's Pixel Precision.
 

....Often. I have to rent sometimes. I shoot much of my paying work in 8 bit in HDV and with my Flash XDR. Right now my film on Montreal's homeless is shot 70 % Flash XDR and the remaining 30 % in HDV tape - All 8 bit. My footage looks really good too, but it doesn't look as good as 10 bit or dual link 12 bit.

8 bit 10 bit 12 bit. That is the beauty of this camera. One camera, different recorders, including the internal one. So 7 K for Cine Deck + 3K for CD Nano + 16 K F3= 26K for an SR type camera.
I have yet to see a frame from this camera , but I do know that Sony has been working this camera for quite some time. They have gone over RED and ARRI and other offerings to come up with a camera for the professional, not the " I have 2k+ invested in a DSLR, so now I'm a pro", crowd. Im so sick and tired of producers who see the 5D on Vimeo and say, lets use that and save $$$. Please use a real monitor when evaluating an image. BTW the 7.5 OLED from Sony has beaten my TV Logic and Flanders hands down.


It costs more when you add in all the shots that do not pass, and have to reshoot. Audio?? TC?? Consumer connections???. Before the DSLR crowd jumps on me, let me state that I have put more DSLR images on broadcast TV than most. Not a boast, just reality. While I love shallow DOF (Been doing this for three years with XDCAM 700/800/Pro 35/Zeiss Master Primes & Letus/EX/Zeiss combos), the Canon has a lot of moments that work terrificly (Great in Car Cam), but when it fails as a "Pro" camera, I take a big hit from my clients.

Sony has stood by as Canon and Panasonic and Red (Still waiting for latest) have shown their hand and now they will show theirs.

Note: After three years of mixing EX CF and Optical media, I still believe XD Optical is the best, and I always move the flash type SD, CF, or SxS to optical. I can tell you many tales of lost or disabled HDs that sit on a shelf while off line is completed and $$$$$$ of $$$$$$$$ are lost. If this happens to you once, you will live with that for the rest of your career as a bartender. No offense to mixologists.

Hi Mark,

I know a few people that use the Cinedeck recorder and while they say it is good in some ways, they all issue reports that would make most not want to rely on it unless "production" tells you to use it.

One of the big issues they report is the thing hanging. Crashing in other words. It overheats regularly and can generally slow down shoots for 6 to 10 minutes while you wait for it to recover from a "blue screen of death" style reboot.

Pmw f3 ...
 

I have faith that this new camera (full 35mm frame - bigger than RED sensor) will make beautiful images with a NanoFlash and as it is bought and used Convergent Design and/or other companies will come out with a Dual HD/SDI 4.4.4 recorder. The NanoFlash is 8 bit at the moment and given it's success Convergent Design will respond to what people need to get the best images at the best quality. The NanoFlash presently covers my needs for the production levels I do regularly ... the future ... that's in the future as they say!

Dear Dean,

Thank you for the confidence in our company!

Dean, just for clarity the F3 has a Super 35 sized sensor, according to Alister Chapman of 23.6mm x 13.5mm which would make it fractionally smaller than the Red sensor. Both sensors are significantly smaller than "Full Frame" 35 mm stills sensors which are apporx 36 mm × 24 mm.

sensor size ...
 

unless there is a mistake in this article ... the only place where I've seen the sensor size listed ... it's 14mmX25mm whereas the Red One is 13.7mm X 24.4 ... you are correct that ""Full Frame" 35 mm stills sensors ... are approx 36 mm × 24 mm

Hi Dean,
It seems that the Sony F3 numbers are rounded. I think that the RED info is correct. From the article below I read 27.1 diagonal witch is small compare to RED. "This CMOS image sensor, Super 35mm chip size of the film corresponds to a large CMOS image sensor (1.7 type, diagonal 27.1mm) are."
The link below is from Sony Japan
Google Translate

Mark,
If you think the F3 is all about bit rates and capturing a stream of data, then I feel sorry for you. You've missed the point of the camera and are probably not even in the target market for it. If you really want to use a Rembrandt analogy, here's how I would compare it. Rembrandt could have painted "The Storm on the Sea of Galilee" using top-of-the-line oil paints that cost a fortune. Or, he could have used a less expensive brand and painted the exact same scene. Once the painting was finished, framed, and hung in a gallery, 99% of the people who view it would not be able to determine what type of paint was used -- NOR WOULD THEY CARE. Only a few very picky art experts would be able to see the difference.

There is a lot of confusion over the sensor size. Sony are claiming the sensor to be "Super 35" equivalent. The problem with this is that Super 35 is 24.89 x 18.67 mm which is roughly a 4:3 frame size as Super 35 is normally shot using Anamorphic lenses. The F3 does not have anamorphic optics, so the sensor must be 16:9, so what we end up with (and these dimensions are from Sony's on literature is a sensor that is 23.6 x 13.3mm (27.1mm diag). This is actually closer to 35mm 3 perf (24.9 x 13.9), so I'm really surprised (and confused) by Sony calling it "Super 35", because it's not.

I too look forward to the stunning images that I will be able to record on my NanoFlashes from the F3. One thing to consider is that if you do go to 4:4:4 10 bit, you will be dealing with huge files requiring much more expensive media and if your coming from EX1's etc a whole new far more processor intensive workflow. I think an F3 recording to a NanoFlash at 100Mb/s will look stunning and be perfectly acceptable for most HD productions, even high end ones. Of course if you are making a movie and you have the budget then there are other more expensive or less flexible options.

Thank you Alister!
That post of yours clears the fog for me. I had a conversation last night about that, but I didn't have the numbers until Mike's post http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/converge...ml#post1587638 and I made a search. Mike made a small mistake as you would see on the second number that throw me off. Thank you
Cheers

Thanks ...
 

Alister ... that clarifies the sensor size a bit ... so it's a bit smaller than Red One.

Good Enough ?
 

...Oh I see now. So your saying you are purchasing a $16,000.00 Cine Alta Sony Series Camcorder so you can capture in 8 bits, because it is good enough and 99 % of the people won't notice. OK. Sure. Why not ? I think Rembrandt would have used the best paints, the best brushes, and the best canvass, because he was an artist, and quality is always recognized my friend ;-) I'm sure once you see the incredible quality this camera will output (Especially in 12 bit Dual Link mode), then you will not want to compromise. I'm sorry, but I hear this kind of argument from some folks in the industry from time to time, and I find it quite disconcerting to say the least.

Super 35 MM Frame Size
 

...Alister, this is incorrect. Super 35 mm was created to be able to get an Anamorphic aspect ratio, without having to use the slower Anamorphic lenses. Super 35 mm format uses sharper Spherical lenses.
...Super 35 mm *is* a 3 perf pull down format.

One thing about the F3 that hasn't been talked about much is the weight. It weighs 2.4 kilograms or just over 5 pounds. Lenses are going to be a kilo and up putting the camera in the 7 to 12 pound range when modestly kitted out. People should keep in mind that when you look at cameras with similar output capacity you are well exceeding 22 pounds or 10 kilos (I am using rough figures here), but when you begin to measure the weight compared to the big cinema cameras which weigh 30 to 50 pounds you get a sense of what an achievement this camera is. Granted there isn't a 3GHD-SDI recorder built into the unit but you can hook it up externally and away from the rig, keeping the weight down.

This is a huge deal to Steadicam Operators who are using smaller rigs that top out between 20 and 30 pounds of payload. If the weight was up around 15 pounds for the brick, those people (me included) would have to begin to get financing together for a rig that will set them back 35 grand and up. I'm figuring this camera with lens and typical motors, FF transmitters, rails, mattebox, batteries and external recorder (nanoFlash or Ki Pro Mini) will be in the neighbourhood of 20 pounds / 9 kilos which to me is a good weight to get good pan inertia and not to the point where you are exhausted after a few minutes of flying the rig.

Obviously, lens weight is the big variable here with some bruisers weighing easily double the camera's weight but if you are the owner/operator of both the camera and the Steadicam rig you can easily control the kind of lenses that get put onto the rig like the Zeiss Compact Primes and the Sony primes which I assume are going to be comparatively light, as well.

Mark,

I am impressed that you can know so much about what is good enough for me and my clients. It's funny how I've been under the impression that 8-bit has been good enough since I switched to XDCAM almost 5 years ago. Silly me.

Seriously, am I really debating the technical merits of the F3 with someone who still shoots with a Canon XL H1 as their main camera? Isn't that 1/3" 1440x1080? I can see that this discussion is about to start going down a slippery slope, and I've already said too much, so you can have the final word. I won't be responding to whatever else you have to say on this topic. If you think 10-bit is the holy grail, then go for it. As for me, I won't be needing it anytime soon, and I suspect that I'll have a lot of company.

Mark is correct, Super 35 was not designed as an Anamorphic format. It instead reclaimed the full 24.89mm width of the negative that had been partly occupied by the optical audio track when talkies came in. It is a shooting format not a release format and can be cropped to give different aspect ratios as required. "Super 35" refers to the width of the negative, the vertical dimension obviously varies with aspect ratio.

Although the F3's sensor is not quite 24.89 mm it is pretty close to a Super 35 1.78 crop. I think it is a fair description as it is best to be slightly under sized than oversized as an oversized sensor could lead to vignetting when used with "Super 35" lenses.

For the record, Super 35 exposes more width on the negative than Anamorphic 35 but overall provides significantly less negative area. I'm not sure of the exact figure off the top of my head but I'm sure it is easily found via google.

Basically if the the F3 sensor is 23.6 mm it is near as damn it is to swearing Super 35 (1.78) sized... (althought technically it is very slightly smaller). Everyone happy?

Apology
 

....Sorry mate. I wasn't trying to be a jerk about this- I'm simply pointing out that such a camera deserves a recorder capable of capturing whatever the sensor can output. If you want to shoot XDCAM HD 4:2:2, then this is a perfectly good 8 bit broadcast format, which I use often myself. After all, the Vancouver Winter Olympics were all shot in XDCAM HD 4:2:2 8 bit in Long GOP 50 Mbps, and it looked fantastic.

[quote=Doug Jensen;1587800Seriously, am I really debating the technical merits of the F3 with someone who still shoots with a Canon XL H1 as their main camera?[/QUOTE]... Yes you are :-) I just shot a documentary production for TV & Internet streaming in the Canon 24 F format using the Flash XDR for about 70 % of the production. The rest was actually Thick raster HDV.

[QUOTE=Doug Jensen;1587800Isn't that 1/3" 1440x1080?[/quote]...Only on tape it is. With the Flash XDR it jumps up to full raster HD in 4:2:2 color space. We shot at Long GOP 50 Mbps. Looks and sounds really great ! :-)

[QUOTE=Doug Jensen;1587800I can see that this discussion is about to start going down a slippery slope, and I've already said too much, so you can have the final word. I won't be responding to whatever else you have to say on this topic. If you think 10-bit is the holy grail, then go for it. As for me, I won't be needing it anytime soon, and I suspect that I'll have a lot of company.[/QUOTE]...No. No. Not at all Doug ! My apologies :-) I'm naturally a pain in the ass ! It took years of careful training to perfect ;-) I'm told I get down right nasty when I beta test. BTW, I think 12 bit 4:4:4 Uncompressed 3G is the Holy Grail. I've gone on ad-nauseum about 10 & 12 bit uncompressed. I think Dan & Mike @ CD really appreciated that ;-) I also drink 20 to 30 cups of coffee per day ! ( I think I'm addicted to caffeine :-) ) Can't you tell ? I also shoot with a Kodak Z - 8 Plastic lens 1080p 30 pocket camera. $149.00 Canadian - It's 10 bit according to Kodak !

Mark, all this business is about to DECEIVING THE EYES.
It doesn't matter how you do it.
Art has nothing to do with the number of bits you shoot with.
The technical means should never be an obstacle on the creation process.
If Rembrandt wouldn't have had brushes, he would have painted with the hands.
rafael

I'm More About Quality
 

....Hi Rafael. I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make in this thread. From my point of view, it is less about eye deception, and more about the quality of the image I want to deliver to the client. I understand your point quite well - after all - I shoot with a prosumer HDV camcorder for broadcast only because I can fool them by delivering a 3 chip camera job in the specific network codec they stipulate, (XDCAM HD 4:2:2 Long GOP @ 50 Mbps) along with the correct 4:2:2 color space. However, I've heard that perennial argument which always starts off with the words, "Good Enough," and "99 % of the viewers can't tell the difference," etc, etc. Here's the thing - *I can tell the difference.* Here's the other thing - I'm an artist, as well as a story teller, and every good artists knows the limitations of his paint, brushes, and his canvass, and the artist uses them accordingly not to produce a work which is "good enough," rather, to "strive for perfection," as Michelangelo wrote in his autobiography. I know for some who are reading this, that my artistic preferences are way too effete for them, but there it is.