Thanks Alister for saving me the trouble of responding. I agree with your assessment, and you said it much kinder than I would have. :-)

There are some shots that make this camera look like a Hollywood production, and even then I see OOF scenes, such as the bus where the man pulls the DSLR to his eye (but I really liked the video), this leads me to some questions.

Is there a particular lens with the 3 lens kit that has such shallow DOF that it gives the operator a hard time with focus ??

Is this camera not meant for an individual, will it always have to be a pre-planned production ??

Is the viewfinder/LCD not sufficient for critical focus ??

I see the beauty in this camera, it's obvious that in the right hands it will make the BBC and Discovery list right away, maybe even the gold list.

I would expect the F3 to get Discovery Silver approval, just the same as any other EX camera, but I doubt it will get Gold without an external higher bit rate recorder. As for the BBC, who knows, there was a time when we all thought that any camera that did not meet the BBC's 50Mb/s 1/2" sensor minimum would not get approval, but then they approved the 1/3" XF305. To be honest I doubt it will get BBC approval without an external recorder for two reasons. The first is the obvious sub 50Mb/s internal recordings ( I still think the 35Mb/s EX codec is surprisingly good), but the second is that IF they did approve it, out of the box, there is the risk that many production companies would jump on the camera, handing it to inexperienced so called DoP's (that are really PA's with a few camera skills) and then wonder why half of the footage is out of focus and poorly exposed.

No, I think it will be very welcome by the BBC, but only provided the appropriate external recorder is used, which will make it less PA friendly.

Is the VF adequate?? Well it IS possible to as a one man band to focus and expose correctly provided you make full use of the coloured peaking and zebras, especially if you use the flip out LCD as opposed to the minuscule VF. However it takes a bit of practice and you have to be very careful to get it spot on. So it's not perfect, adequate... perhaps, ideal.... NO. A large external monitor, preferably with focus assist and a waveform monitor will be a big help, as it would with any camera. Canon DSLR users have shown us that it is possible to shoot with even lower quality viewfinders and get good results, just don't expect it to be easy.

The longer the focal length of the lens, the shallower the DoF for any given aperture. The wider the aperture the shallower the DoF. I think anyone seriously considering an F3 should know this already. Buying an F3 (or any other camera) won't make you a better camera operator or automatically improve the quality of your productions. Shallow DoF is just one tool in the film makers toolbox. The "filmic look" is a combination of many things, exposure, frame rate, colourimetry, DoF, image sharpening (or lack of) and grading.

1) All else being equal all lenses of the same focal length yield the same DOF.
2) Large format cameras in general favour pre-planned production. In the past they've been expensive and hence not attractive to the run and gun crowd anyway. The cheap DSLRs and the F3 are really a case of be careful, you might get what you wished for.
3) For critical focus no. 1080p projected onto a large screen from a camera with a S35 sensor and top shelf glass wide open can give a DOF that's paper thin.

Man I hope this camera gets into the hands of some hobbyist like me. If you guys think that street music video looks armature, just wait until you see a few videos I make with this camera! :) If I manage to get one that is.

Even with DSLR lenses, counting tax and so forth it looks like double the price of an EX3 just to get something that will shoot video.

stardust ...
 

Great images and nice job on the edit.

another sample... :)

YouTube - F3 Test a 18db

4 whole seconds!

I don't think they had a lot of time to plan things out or do more takes. They were filiming on a public street and intersection in the middle of the day.

Both operating and pulling focus w/ S35 DoF w/ no marks or rehearsal is not easy.

As for the exposure, the faces don't look over exposed to me. I think the sky is just overcast more than anything, and the DoF is going to make it lack detail. I will say that from the earlier footage example, it appears that they shot about half a stop or so brighter and graded it down, which is not something I hope I would have done. It would have been better to err on the dark side and lift things up. But the end product really doesn't suffer much, as the sky plays no role in the video whatsoever.

I'm not saying it's a masterpiece or that there aren't technical issues. But, FWIW, I think the video works rather well for what it is. JMHO.

I'll save everyone the trouble, skin tones are underexposed and the sky doesn't have any detail, LOL.

J/K. everyone ;).

If it had been shot properly the end product wouldn't have suffered at all. Just because something is not easy it is not an excuse for not doing it correctly. If they couldn't get the focus right then perhaps they should have stopped down a bit more to make things easier. Shallow DoF should not be used as an excuse for out of focus footage. When you can clearly see the issues on a small low-res vimeo clip just imagine how it would look on a large screen TV.

Shallow DoF can add a nice look to some types of footage, but it should not be at the expense of sharp focus.

Amen to that. Having seen some F3 footage on a cinema sized screen this shallow DOF thing is really getting out of hand. I've never noticed such shallow DOF in movies either shot on film or projected from a print. I suspect the completely digital process in combination with digital projection is keeping the in focus part of the image so sharp that the apparent DoF is shrinking significantly. I've seen shots where only a very small fraction of what's on the screen is clearly in focus. This seems to me quite distracting, was the intent to draw the eye to a freckle or an eyelash, surely most all of a face should be in focus.
I'm even noticing this in the Stardust clip recently posted here. Some of the decorations are swaying and in the process going in and out of focus. Plus there's objects both in front of and behind the plane of focus at times.

The shallow DOF on a big screen is just another reminder that this really ia a PROFESSIONAL camera - even though at a high prosumer price point. Yes, a camera that can make really crisp images also makes any mistakes in focus that much more blatant. Hence it's a good idea to have the production company hire a real Professional Camera Assistant for shoots, one who can pull focus like a magician. As the footage transitions from being seen in a small computer window to a large (50+ inch) 1080p monitor, or an even larger theatre projection environment, any focus problems will be major. I have a feeling that what I call the 5D focus effect -- one little sliver of an image being in focus while most of the rest is way out, including the critical elements, with things moving in and out of focus -- which may look 'cool' in a music video on an iphone size screen, will become just another trend to move past in returning to basics of focus and composition. Since the F3 will doubtless find its way into both tv and movie production, it's going to require a level of professionalism that those types of productions require.
In many ways I see this as a 'job-saver' for the Camera Assistant position, since great assistants will again be worth more than their weight in gold.

Phil should know better than to shoot at 1/50th with 60Hz lighting ;-) or maybe theres a TV or computer monitor illuminating the background.

It's going to be tough getting a decent distortion free wide for the AF100.

Perhaps this is the wrong place for this post, and I apologize in advance, but where exactly does the F3 fit in terms of use and clientele? Is this for high-end commercials, indie features or TV programs? Certainly not for most corporate video projects. What could a shooter ask (on a per day basis) for a complete on-location kit?

I watched the Sony promo (glass-blowing) and saw the suitcase open with countless Arri prime lenses. Really? Certainly out of my league.

So how would someone who is considering plunking down $75,000 for a Sony SRW-9000PL HDCAM SR Camera feel about the release of the F3? Or are the two even comparable?

I understand Sony's need to compete on the open market with Red and Arri and XYZ, but it sure seems that whatever camera you buy, it will be obsolete the minute you hand over the check and pull it out of the box. I know full-well I don't compete in the stratosphere in the use of these high-end cameras, and yes, perhaps a bit of envy at work here...but it would sure be nice if Sony would allow us to get a little mileage and pay back out of our present cameras before introducing a new system.

Just an observation, no attitude written into the post.

Patrick McLoad

Do you think it could be just compression noise from Vimeo? As the flickering is only happening on the wall, which might be hard to compress uniformly.

And yes, if both those cameras were at the same position, which I'm sure they were, the whole M4/3 ~= S35 is not proving to be true.

I see no reason why the F3 can't be used for corporate projects. In many cases it should do well. It will allow you to be a little more creative with simple office interviews, making it easier to throw the background out of focus. The high sensitivity will allow for the use of available light or a smaller lower powered lighting kit.

You don't have to use expensive PL mount glass. The MTF Nikon adapter allows the use of much cheaper DSLR lenses, which with well chosen lenses should perform very well indeed.

The F3 crosses many genres and formats. It could be used for low budget features and commercials, TV drama, documentaries and corporate. It's isn't a replacement for the SRW-9000 or F35, they do have better CCD sensors, but it will certainly act as an excellent B camera on high end projects shot with these cameras.

But it's not a one horse fits all camera. Fast moving news or fast action will be hard to shoot because of the shallow DoF. The lack off (or very high cost of) high ratio, fast, zoom lenses means it's not ideal for sports.

I'm starting to plan my 2011 shoots. Many will make use of F3's, especially my 3D projects. But there are still many jobs where an EX1 or EX3 will be the more appropriate camera. For me the F3 is going to take the place of my 2/3" shoulder cameras which I traditionally used on higher budget documentary and corporate projects to gain a more "polished" look. The F3 will also be used for my extreme weather footage where image quality is paramount, even though in many respects it's not ideal trying to swap lenses in the middle of a Hurricane or severe storm :0) I'm going to be using the Nikon SLR lenses that I already have including my favourite which is a Tokina 28-70mm ATX-Pro F2 zoom which is to the same design as the Angineaux 28-70mm. This lens only cost me €200 used, which is really quite affordable.

I'm looking forward to using it on corporates for many of the reasons Alister mentioned.

Has anyone heard if the F3 will be 100% content approved out of the box by major broadcasters?

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos

Allister: I'm curious about the Tokina zoom you mentioned. I'm also planning to use the F3 for corporate work, with Nikon lenses. I have 11x16mm, 35x70mm and 80x200mm f2.8 zooms. Haven't seen any Nikon mount zooms faster than 2.8, but if there's a decent one out there, I'd like to know about it. Was that a typo, or is your Tokina f 2.0?

I had to go and check, it's actually f2.6, so f2.8 near as damn it.

2.8 must be the practical limit for zooms with an image circle large enough to cover 35mm.

pro 2 version ?
 

Alister is this version you have (there are 6 versions) the pro 2 version?

I have the much sought after 28-70mm ATX Pro Mk 1. There is a good guide to all the various versions here: NIKON GLASS: Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8

Thanks for not slaughtering me too much. Your comments are all very fair. I will refer you to an article we wrote about this shoot that should clear things up.

Trust me, I am not an amateur and am quite capable of better stuff. However, tidy sexy perfect shots was not our goal. There is plenty out there already. The concept of the video, from the band was to shoot an amateur looking video with a shaky look and rough focus. We saw this as a great opportunity to expose the flaws and expose its weaknesses. No rigs, no tripods, just the camera and a few lenses.

Let me tell you it exposed plenty. Firstly, you can't judge sharps or exposure in the viewfinder. Its utterly unusable. The LCD is OK but obviously no good in this situation. I used the red focus indicator and it helped. Everything was set to standard on HG-1. I was expecting much more latitude so being slightly over or under was hard to judge. Impossible to pull without a rig and tough to handhold in that way. I decided to let it all go and look at the footage. Trial by fire, it definitely was.

So this is not a short film to further anyone's career or push a blog or promote Sony; it was a full on flaw exposure. It exposed plenty. We have done some subsequent test, which were also posted on vimeo. We also shot a full on commercial, which we have not posted due to copyrights which will be posted in Feb when it actually airs.

Hope this clarifies a few things. Most of this information on the Vimeo page.

crews.tv | Local freelancers, worldwide. for full background story.

FYI, I do not disagree with any of your opinions, just thought I'd set the record straight. Cheers.

So where does this camera now fall ?? with what crowd ??

13.3k without glass, almost 19k with the kit 35,50,85mm lenses, And then there is the tripod, mandatory external monitor and the other standard have to have accessories, external recorders, audio etc. All this for a single camera setup. Nice camera, can certainly go places with grace and class as long as it is pampered. But now that we see what it takes, what crowd does the F3 favor, a small one ?? a very small one ?? Would it be indy's, small budget corporate, big budget documentaries ?? To me it seems to be stuck in between them somewhere.

Sharpness is one thing - exposure quite another. My own feeling is that the only ways to judge exposure are via a high quality external monitor in controlled lighting, or by the use of zebras. It sounds as if you're trying to judge exposure just by the "look" in the v/f (?? correct me if that's wrong) and in my experience that is well nigh impossible, even in far more expesive cameras.

In this respect, I believe the F3 shares the double zebra arrangement of the EX, and previously only found on far more expensive cameras. That gives two simultaneous patterns, which might correspond to IRE values 85-90% for zebra 1 and 100% for zebra 2. It may sound complicated written down, but with practice can give highly accurate results. And obviously it is independent of the quality of the viewfinder, or even whether it's set accurately.

Yep fair enough.

Zebras are horses for courses and yes the double zebra system can work well. In this case, Zebras on the viewfinder are not legible let alone double zebras. In my experience, I sometimes use zebras but once I know the viewfinder I usually turn em off in favor of looking at other stuff. Some viewfinders just can't carry it very well. I'd say this one.. not at all.

In the case of the LCD I shot one take with them on and the other off.. it simply got too hard and too much going on. LCD cannot be gauged properly.

So I ask, what is the use of a field camera if you need external monitoring? At this price I expect to look down the viewfinder and set my sharps and gauge my exposure. Perhaps this is more of a RED type camera and run and gun is simply a job for EFP/ENG cameras.

What really surprised me here is how I really could have used DCC here, some of it is slightly over but this should have been handled ok, not blow out as it did. It was extremely bright and highly overcast but I expected much more latitude.

Anyhow, I'll look at doing a technically flawless showpiece on the next cam in Feb, should I get more time with the other one.

Oh yuk, please no DCC auto knee. Why not just use auto exposure and be done with it? Instead learn how to use your gamma curves correctly.

Yes Cinegammas make fine tuning highlight exposure tricky as between 80% and 109% you can have more than 6 compressed stops of lattitude to deal with. Thats why with cinegammas and hypergammas you need to watch your exposure very carefully and in most cases you want to underexpose by a stop and then use your grade to sort skin tones and mid levels out. Remember Cinegammas are designed to be graded, if your using them correctly, then your pictures will look wrong when you shoot. They should look slightly under exposed and flat. If you don't allow for the cinegammas mid to high end compression you will end up with hot skin tones and blow out highlights. Also remember that if you don't sort your excess levels out in post, you risk loosing your highlights as they may get clipped at 100%

If you want heavy uncontrolled variable highlight compression just the same as DCC then use a standard gamma with the auto knee set to on, it's the same thing. Otherwise for normal mid tones and skin tones but with some highlight compression use a standard gamma with a preset knee point and slope tailored for your shooting conditions.

Zebras are accurate and reliable on all the EX cameras. Even if you were using an external monitor you should consider using zebras with cinegammas to monitor your highlight behaviour and keep your important mid tones out of the compressed part of the curve.

The EX and F3 LCD while not the biggest screen in the world is accurate. The coloured peaking is an excellent focus assist tool, even when using much larger monitors I often check back on the EX LCD to confirm my focus point using the peaking.

Don't disagree.

All I'm suggesting is that perhaps using a standard gamma with DCC could have yielded better results in this situation.

RE: Zebras, good for you, there is lots of ways to judge exposure and yes perhaps leaning on underexposing may have been smarter. At the time, on the LCD it did look ok, perhaps a bad call. You can decide when you use the camera yourself. Since my light was flat and pretty consistent, I thought I'd get away with it. Clearly not.

All I am saying is that Zebras alone would not have helped me. The viewfinder in my opinion is not easy to use and in that environment the LCD was difficult to see. It needed modification to work properly but since we only shot two takes and was less than 30 minutes out of the box, I thought we did ok for a camera test.

Look say what you will, we post this stuff to share failures as well as victories so everyone can learn through the process.

Me personally, looking at perfect shots, perfectly graded doesn't tell me a lot. I would rather look at rushes or experiments to see what works and what doesn't. Like I said, there is plenty great stuff out there, I was really keen to put it under everyday stresses.

I hesitated putting it up as it was pretty ropey but the group was really keen to dissect the issues, pretty much confirmed all of our suspicions.

Thanks for posting the video Yves!

Anyone can make a camera look bad. Just because camera "A" has more latitude than camera "B" it doesn't mean that you can ignore exposure and expect the camera to just deal with it. Even film needs to be exposed correctly. This is why well shot tests are important. A badly shot test is meaningless. I could go out with any camera and make it look rubbish, what does that tell us?

Auto knee (DCC) is a cop out IMHO and only really of use if your also using auto iris. Like auto iris It can change mid shot, you have no idea of exactly what it's doing so setting accurate exposure is nigh on impossible. As you open up the iris the highlights compress more and more and the knee point lowers so with high overexposures you will also start to see compression in areas that are not or at least should not be overexposed.... and the kicker is that you can't tell how much your overexposed by because the auto knee is doing goodness knows what to your highlights. The first thing I do with any EX camera is turn the auto knee off. I believe the default on the F3 like an EX1 or EX3 is Auto Knee on.

I think this is going to be a re-occuring issue with the F3. We see a similar thing with any other camera with a "Film" or "Cine" gamma. Because it says "film", "film look" or "35mm sensor" on the tin people expect to pick it up and produce an instant beautiful movie that looks like hollywoods best. The reality is that as with any camera ultimately the quality of the end production comes down to the skill of the crew and the way they use the camera and the tools and functions it offers. For many people the F3 is going to be a very big step up from what they are used to. It is going to be harder to use than cameras they have used before, focus in particular will be a challenge compared to a typical small sensor camera. I think many people may end up frustrated and dissapointed by their results. However in the hands of a crew with the rights skills and knowledge of how to get the most from the camera I believe it will produce world class images.

Perhaps Yves has done us all, me included, a great favour by reminding us that just because you have a F3 in your hands it doesn't guarantee an automatic work of art. It will be difficult to use for run and gun shooting, as would a Red Epic, F35, NX-35, AF100 etc. If it's any consolation to Yves I much prefer his video over Phil Blooms Stardust video with it's radio active Christmas tree, try watching that on a big screen!
Maybe Yves you could do us a version with a directors commentary to explain the problems you encountered?

I think both good and bad footage can actually be useful when reviewing footage...

Alister, thanks for taking the time to address this. Healthy debates are constructive.

I will openly admit, working with the Hyper gammas on my PDW700 has never yielded results I was terribly impressed with, favoring standard gammas, this is of course a function of the type of work I do and of course personal preference. We used HG on Top Model in the studio and results were ok.

What is interesting is that everyone wanted to use CG on the F3 for exactly the reason you suggest, this is why camera tests are fun cause you can experiment. This is all done in the spirit of sharing knowledge.

Re: Camera Work
I did not just let the camera deal with it. Look have a go if you want. The sky that day was all cloud, there was no detail, it wasn't there so you are right it never had a chance. I can refer you to stills from the shoot that delivered the same results off a DSLR. Not sure what you are looking at but where things are over I'm only looking at 1/2 to a full f-stop max.

Look, I'm not going to debate the merits of DCC - its not like auto-iris.. you can switch it on or off, obviously disabled in CG mode but it has its place. Making sweeping statements like that is a bit ridiculous. I don't know you from a hole in the ground and neither you me. So if its ok with you, I'd rather keep the generalizations and personal innuendos for another time and I will do the same.

Perhaps before lumping me in a category of people who don't know what they are doing, I would just like to tell you that I wasn't a total moron who haphazardly picked up a camera and started making "internet films". That is not what we do nor the relationship we have with Sony.

The amateur look was something that seemed fun to take on and since we did it guerrilla style in two hot takes on the fly was fun. Its edgy and raw.. not perfect. That was the concept, not everyone's cup of tea. To be honest a few more takes could have got us something a bit more polished.. perhaps a sequence and again, that was not the plan.

I am happy to share, I'm obviously new to your group but I just want to make sure we are on the right foot because If its a slaughter about who is smarter I'm not keen but if its to genuinely promote and foster the growth of information and an evolution of the craft then I am.

FYI - Good and Bad is totally subjective, I don't call this bad footage, this is what the Band wanted.. it would be like saying their music is bad because you don't like it. A work of art is totally subjective but it doesn't need to be a Rembrandt and if that is all you can label as "art" then that is a shame.

All of that I would be in 100% agreement with ...... if this was a thread talking about music videos. But it's not. The thread started off more about "just how good technically is the F3, and what level can be achieved from it". Once you get material in that comes more under the category of "just happened to be shot with the F3" than "technical exercise to see just how good the F3 is in real life filming", I feel much of the point goes away.

That's not intending to be at all critical of your film as such - I fully accept all you say about it, such as the concept was INTENDED to be "edgy and raw.. not perfect". Nothing whatsoever wrong with that - but should it then really be in a thread more intended to aid technical assessments?

Really, this is an example of what's generally wrong with trying to judge a camera with "real-life" films. Viewers are left wondering if they are judging the camera, the photography, the script, the lighting, the intentions of the director, or what - it's just a case of too many variables.

Which comes on to the subject of controlled trials. Both test charts, and repeatable "real" sequences which can be identically repeated with differing cameras. Take most of the variables away - by making them constant - and you're left with any differences being solely down to the camera.

Maybe it's therefore a bit surprising that so far there don't seem to have been any publicly published shots of test charts - at least that I'm aware of - for either the F3 or the AF101? Anybody aware of such, or able to do such a thing?