Another new camera test!
 

Looks incredible, I think this little guy will be getting a lot of work this Spring!

Nick ...
 

beautifully shot and I wonder if a nanoflash was used or if the codec was out of camera at 4.2.0?

I have the same question, what codec is this? I noticed it looks a bit more broken up than the other test from Convergence; their footage looks a bit higher quality, but this could just be simply due to compression differences on the upload to Vimeo.

Anyone with the answer?

It doesn't look like they were using an external recorder. Here's a link to a bunch of "on the set" photos.

Short Film Featuring the Newly Announced Sony F3-Coming Soon!! | Stargate Studios VFX Channel

Stunning. I just have to think of getting this baby soon. But must wait to see what Canon and Red have......

I have just downloaded the file provided my Alistair Chapman. Recording off camera definitely boosts quality but these clips are gorgeous anyhow.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdc...ml#post1589244

Absolutely stunning.

Those flying shots over the city at night. Never seen anything like it. Awesome!

You know what, I was looking at those yesterday and thought the same thing, I didn't see a nanoflash or kiPro hanging off of them... Which means wow that codec can handle some pretty nice sharp images.

I guess I was right in thinking the images looked a tiny bit more soft in this, still could be due to compression or lenses, but judging from those tack sharp shots from the time-laps shot I think its the codec. It handles different sharpness levels in different ways.

This is great which means your "proxies" are actually usable, considering most people will be attaching some kind of external recorder, this might hold people over who can't afford one right away and still want great footage.

Well done Sony, now just make that stupid view finder on the back, detachable and we'll be set to go.

It's no big surprise to me that the camera looks fantastic recording to the on-board SxS cards. Anyone who has been shooting with an EX1 or EX3 (as I have been doing for over 3 years) can tell you the codec is perfectly capable of producing great images.

Although I have a NanoFlash and will be getting a Ki Pro Mini by the end of the year, I'm certain I'll still be recording just to the SxS cards 99% of the time when my F3 arrives. -- just as I do with my other cameras. Okay, sometimes that little extra boost in quality will make a difference, but normally it won't be worth the hassle of adding extra hardware to the rig and losing out on the workflow advantages that only come with shooting on SxS cards.

If you're shooting something that a real colorist will be hired for, and the desired look is a deviation from what was shot, external 10-bit/4:2:2 helps greatly.

I just ran some of Alisters clips through the DaVinci, and it holds up better than expected, but can't quite keep it looking as nice as Red with XDCAM EX codec if you need large changes.

Nate, I don't disagree with that statement.
But the simple fact is, most of my work, and a lot of other people's work, does not require that level of finishing. Call me old fashioned, but I actually prefer to get the look I want when I shoot it it. I'm not shooting for Hollywood and neither are most people who are using an EX1, EX3, or soon an F3. I don't have a colorist who is going to do heavy manipulations of my footage.

Recording externally with higher quality settings is certainly a nice option to have, but all I'm saying is that for a lot of us, it is overkill and unnecessary for routine work.

I honestly don't think that the EX1 or 3 market is what this camera is targeted at though. I believe the F3 is targeted at situations that need post work.

And although I do love your concept of getting in right in camera (which is my motto for stills photography) I don't believe that is the proper way to get your image that you want. For many reasons:

What you're seeing on any given monitor is NOT what you'll be seeing on another monitor or tv or web or big 2k/4k projector. If you "burn in" your look right from the get-go you are not actually guaranteeing you get that look. You're only guaranteeing you get that look on set, on that particular monitor. So if you stamped your approval in camera you might have just ruined your ability to reproduce that in the real world where TV's and projectors are completely different than your on set monitor.

No matter how accurate it may be, that doesn't mean it will translate to other devices well. And I can guarantee you it wont. Projectors are a completely different animal. And I'm not just talking huge 4k projectors in major theaters, I'm talking 1080p projectors at smaller venues such as film festivals and others. You'll have to do major post work to get that look the same for every venue.

And I'm not talking about major budget independent films either. I have no budget short films that I shot that has a specific look to them. We color correct for every screening that will allow us to do so. We get info about the projector, we get info about the screen, we get info about everything we can to make sure the colors stay true to what I had envisioned in the first place. This is simple with creating LUTs for specific projectors, and other large screen monitors. Large Plasma HD screens show colors completely different than a projector, which is completely different from your Mac 30'' monitor. You need to do color correction for them all to match.

When showing your work projected its COMPLETELY different than a monitor, I cannot stress how different it is, especially with lessor projectors under the 2k mark. Your work will be much darker, much higher in contrast, your colors will shift, it will be a different look all together. And I think its safe to say the majority of "filmmakers" which this camera is aimed towards will definitely be showing their work on multiple platforms which need to be corrected for. From tv sets, to internet, from plasma screens to projectors, its all gotta match, and the only way for that to happen is having the most information possible to correct for it.

This is very important if you actually care about the look you wanted. This should go for ever level small or big. Otherwise what was the point of even going for a "look" if it wont be there when you show it on something other than the on set monitor?

So this is very important step, this also goes for TV standards, broadcast has color laws just like everyone and you need to meet specs, burning in the colors only means you'll have to put filters over to make sure you're broadcast safe with your reds and whites.

F3 ...
 

It's highly likely that this camera will be able to work right out of the box as the other EX cameras can and obviously one can shoot for post. I prefer to shoot for post most of the time, so, my images are flat out of camera. If a client is going to use them in post I give them footage with as much latitude as possible so they can do what they want with the images. It's good advice to be aware of the different delivery platforms and their requirements as Giuseppe points out and I'm sure most people (those who do a variety of types of delivery anyway) will adjust their shoots to reflect whatever requirement a client needs. I like the idea of telling a client that I can deliver what they need not just what comes out of the box. One of the great things about a Panasonic camera is that it produces such great images right out of the box and one of the great things about Sony is that you have multiple choices in what you can do out of camera! I'm not comparing the two camera makers here ... I'm just giving my views that have come from working extensively with cameras from these two makers.

Very good point as well, being versatile and able to change a look if a client ends up wanting something different (which happens more times than you can shake a stick at) is a very important thing to be able to do.