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