Baby B Cam for F3 at DVinfo.net

Dennis Dillon · March 23rd, 2011, 09:47 AM

Sony Product Detail Page NEXFS100UK

Note :Same imager as the F3,,HDMI out with TC.

Dave Sperling · March 23rd, 2011, 09:55 AM

Yes, Dennis, this could mean a whole new function for our NanoFlash recorders -- do you think they will read (and trigger off) the time code coming through the HDMI?

Meanwhile, ran across this:

Chuck Fishbein · March 23rd, 2011, 12:07 PM

Thanks for posting Dave. Best description of the camera I've seen so far.

Aaron Newsome · March 23rd, 2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Sperling

Yes, Dennis, this could mean a whole new function for our NanoFlash recorders -- do you think they will read (and trigger off) the time code coming through the HDMI?

Meanwhile, ran across this:
NEX FS 100 Video Blog on Vimeo

Wait. What? HDMI has timecode now? What version of HDMI is that and which products support it? As far as I know, there is no version of HDMI which includes a specification for embedded timecode.

I suppose I could be wrong though.

Dave Sperling · March 23rd, 2011, 03:11 PM

Spoke to Dan from C-D today, and apparently they are aware of the HDMI/TimeCode specs and are working to add this capability in a future firmware update for the NanoFlash. :))

Andrew Stone · March 23rd, 2011, 04:22 PM

If the HDMI signal is 10 bit then you could set the nanoFlash into E to E mode and bounce the signal into a Gemini to capture all the goodness of the signal. I think you can bank that someone here will do that before the summer is out.

Ola Christoffersson · March 23rd, 2011, 04:33 PM

I'm confused about a few things regarding this camera. Especially when it comes to the sensor. Rumours say that it has the same sensor as the F3. Now, how can that be possible? I can see two things that make this unlikely.

1. The specs of the FS100 say that it has a S/N Ratio is 54 dB. The F3 is supposed to be 64 dB.

2. The F3 is essentially an EX1r with a different sensor. Since the sensor is the only big difference in the electronics it should be responsible for the considerably higher power draw of the F3 compared to the EX1r. The FS100 draws a fraction of the power of the EX1r. How could it be using the same sensor?

Correct me if I'm wrong!

/ola

Thierry Humeau · March 23rd, 2011, 05:11 PM

No ND filters either on the FS100, that's a downer...

Thierry.

Peter Moretti · March 23rd, 2011, 05:29 PM

Ola,

Judging from the images so far, the F3 takes much nicer pictures. If it's the sensor or the supporting electronics and codec, IHNI.

But this does not look like it will be an alternative to the F3, image wise.

David C. Williams · March 23rd, 2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ola Christoffersson

2. The F3 is essentially an EX1r with a different sensor. Since the sensor is the only big difference in the electronics it should be responsible for the considerably higher power draw of the F3 compared to the EX1r. The FS100 draws a fraction of the power of the EX1r. How could it be using the same sensor?

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Honestly, that is a bizarre conclusion. Probably called judging a book by it's cover. Just because it's about the same size, has similar view finders and records XDCAM EX that makes it identical electronically?

Bayer sensor needs de-bayering, complete end to end 4:4:4 signal processing, RGB processing,s-log encoding, dual link processing, programmable LUTs, and on and on.

Seriously, you probably made some poor Sony engineer spit his coffee all over his desk :)

Erik Phairas · March 23rd, 2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ola Christoffersson

1. The specs of the FS100 say that it has a S/N Ratio is 54 dB. The F3 is supposed to be 64 dB.

Where are you seeing this? I can't find it. Thanks!

Andrew Stone · March 23rd, 2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thierry Humeau

No ND filters either on the FS100, that's a downer...

Pretty much a universal sentiment. I'm feeling a bit saguine about it. Two reasons. One, my funds are too wrapped up in trying to get the best image possible out of the F3 to even consider it. I imagine most people here are in the same boat. Second, if you think of the camera and live within it's limitations there are relatively simple solutions that really work well within how the camera can be used... largely for handbombing and guerrilla style shooting.

Sony is protecting their investment and our investment by not giving away the farm with this camera. If I were to buy one to use for B-cam or guerrilla shooting I would just live with lenses designed for the camera and get a those variable ND screw on filters and get on with it.

Lots of good stuff about this camera and people could and will make it work.

Nate Weaver · March 23rd, 2011, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Stone

If I were to buy one to use for B-cam or guerrilla shooting I would just live with lenses designed for the camera and get a those variable ND screw on filters and get on with it.

Lots of good stuff about this camera and people could and will make it work.

Agreed. Before the F3, life with large sensors just meant you need to have NDs, so I can't say I'm spoiled yet by the F3s inclusion.

Anybody serious enough to care about moving from DSLR land either invested in screwins or 4x4 NDs a while back.

Ola Christoffersson · March 24th, 2011, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David C. Williams

Honestly, that is a bizarre conclusion. Probably called judging a book by it's cover. Just because it's about the same size, has similar view finders and records XDCAM EX that makes it identical electronically?

Bayer sensor needs de-bayering, complete end to end 4:4:4 signal processing, RGB processing,s-log encoding, dual link processing, programmable LUTs, and on and on.

Seriously, you probably made some poor Sony engineer spit his coffee all over his desk :)

David, I realise that there are many differences between the ex1r and the f3 under the hood. However the featureset suggests similar electronics after a point somewhere after the sensor in the signal flow. However, I was not trying to make a statement on the differences between the ex1 and the F3. That was not my point. I was only trying to figure out if the F3 has the same sensor as the FS100 by doing some generalisations regarding power draw. If the FS100 has the same sensor it would also need de-bayering etc. Now, what are your thoughts on that?

Erik - the s/n specs are on the official Sony site. Sorry - don't have an URL handy. Google it.

Brian Drysdale · March 24th, 2011, 01:36 AM

Yes, the S/N is 54 db.

It could be that the signal processing isn't as good on the FS 100, lower grade components being used etc to keep the costs down.

March 23rd, 2011, 09:47 AM	#1
Dennis Dillon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hobe Sound, Florida Posts: 213	Baby B Cam for F3 Sony Product Detail Page NEXFS100UK Note :Same imager as the F3,,HDMI out with TC.

March 23rd, 2011, 09:55 AM	#2
Dave Sperling Major Player Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tinton Falls, NJ Posts: 780	Re: Baby B Cam for F3 Yes, Dennis, this could mean a whole new function for our NanoFlash recorders -- do you think they will read (and trigger off) the time code coming through the HDMI? Meanwhile, ran across this: NEX FS 100 Video Blog on Vimeo Last edited by Dave Sperling; March 23rd, 2011 at 10:47 AM. Reason: add info link

March 23rd, 2011, 12:07 PM	#3
Chuck Fishbein Major Player Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Weehawken New Jersey Posts: 210	Re: Baby B Cam for F3 Thanks for posting Dave. Best description of the camera I've seen so far.

March 23rd, 2011, 03:11 PM	#5
Dave Sperling Major Player Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tinton Falls, NJ Posts: 780	Re: Baby B Cam for F3 Spoke to Dan from C-D today, and apparently they are aware of the HDMI/TimeCode specs and are working to add this capability in a future firmware update for the NanoFlash. :))

March 23rd, 2011, 04:22 PM	#6
Andrew Stone Major Player Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 975	Re: Baby B Cam for F3 If the HDMI signal is 10 bit then you could set the nanoFlash into E to E mode and bounce the signal into a Gemini to capture all the goodness of the signal. I think you can bank that someone here will do that before the summer is out.

March 23rd, 2011, 04:33 PM	#7
Ola Christoffersson Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 462	Re: Baby B Cam for F3 I'm confused about a few things regarding this camera. Especially when it comes to the sensor. Rumours say that it has the same sensor as the F3. Now, how can that be possible? I can see two things that make this unlikely. 1. The specs of the FS100 say that it has a S/N Ratio is 54 dB. The F3 is supposed to be 64 dB. 2. The F3 is essentially an EX1r with a different sensor. Since the sensor is the only big difference in the electronics it should be responsible for the considerably higher power draw of the F3 compared to the EX1r. The FS100 draws a fraction of the power of the EX1r. How could it be using the same sensor? Correct me if I'm wrong! /ola __________________ Ola Christoffersson, Kamrat produktion, Stockholm - Sweden www.kamrat.tv

March 23rd, 2011, 05:11 PM	#8
Thierry Humeau Telecam Films Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Washington DC Posts: 723	Re: Baby B Cam for F3 No ND filters either on the FS100, that's a downer... Thierry. __________________ Thierry Humeau, DoP Télécam Films www.telecamfilms.com

March 23rd, 2011, 05:29 PM	#9
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	Re: Baby B Cam for F3 Ola, Judging from the images so far, the F3 takes much nicer pictures. If it's the sensor or the supporting electronics and codec, IHNI. But this does not look like it will be an alternative to the F3, image wise. __________________ Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0

March 24th, 2011, 01:36 AM	#15
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	Re: Baby B Cam for F3 Yes, the S/N is 54 db. It could be that the signal processing isn't as good on the FS 100, lower grade components being used etc to keep the costs down.