Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

i doubt it will be able to.

It is what it is. Accept the specs, or shoot on RED. I like both, and use them as appropriate for the job.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

After seeing the F3 with S-Log footage, I am amazed at the total dynamic range it is able to capture. F3 + S-Log is better in this regard than Red (without HDRx) and very equal to HDRx.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

Nah not equal....

HDRX is 18 stops of dynamic range.

This is like 14. which is ALOT. Considering its inexpensive for that kind of performance.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

This subject always gets an argument going, so I think there needs to be a separate test done to get precise figures, rather than impressions during the grade. Also, are we discussing latitude or dynamic range?

Here are some pretty standard latitude tests for other cameras in which the log and 709 are compared.

Alexa-Canon 7D-RED MX latitude comparison

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

HDRx will never reach a real 18 stops in any useful way. RED claim 14+ stops in normal mode, yet barely reach 11 in every test I've seen. The current beta version of HDRx is unusable for anything beyond static images anyway.

I spoke with Ted when he was down here, and he said the whole thing was a low priority anyway. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be a usable mode for anything beyond very controlled situations for a long while yet

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

You should check out FXguide.com and FXPHD.com as they have one of the first Epics and filmed quite a lot of HDRx footage in the mountains in New Zealand and the footage looks great.

Timur, I was thinking this due to the way S-Log compresses and fits more of the highlights; thus, giving it more range. Looking at the video you helped shoot in Vegas, I could see the far greater latitude or DR, whatever you call it, when the model was walking and the lights from the signs were completely blown out in the SxS video but not so in the S-Log video.

Re: Suitable for wildlife filming?
 

Thanks for the information on the external recorder but I was replying to a question by Leon Lorenz as to whether the F3 is 100% content approved by the BBC which is answered by the link I provided. I have finally received my KiPro mini after a 3 month wait. The reason I responded was my F3 was recently rejected for a National Geographic Shoot. They prefer I shoot with an HDX 900 because apparently the F3 with the AJA KiPro mini still needs to pass an approval process with the network. I assume this is due to the strict standards defined by some of the network’s overseas clients. After saying this I have looked at the images recorded by the Ki Pro at 220Mb/s HQ using 10bit 4:2:2 SDI out of the F3 and the images are absolutely stunning. When I compare those HQ ProRes images to the 4:2:0 35Mb/s XDCAM footage that I’m simultaneously recording along with the ProRes you really have to look hard on my HP LP2480zx Dream Color monitor to see a difference. Of course color correcting the 10bit ProRes is a dream especially when you have problems with shadows and highlights. Has anyone view the new F3 test with the 4:4:4 RGB upgrade with S-Log?

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

Timur, were you using what appears to be a CineDeck for recording or just recording to internal SxS cards? S-Log on SxS 4:2:0 sounds a bit weird.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

I compared an F3 to an HDX900 today and the F3 literally blew it away because the image was so much cleaner. Granted I only looked at E to E on both units, but experience tells me the SxS 4:2:0 wouldn't look much better.
I don't understand the BBC (and the PBS) position on this . I'm no engineer but its been clear to me for some time that 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 is a far cry from the whole story on image quality and both the Ex-1 and especially the EX-3 look much better than many 4:2:2 cameras.

Is there really any logic to their rules? Am I missing something? I will admit my ignorance around broadcast spoecs and what perhaps happens down the line

BTW we were doing a corporate talking head that we were thinking of replacing the F3 for the HDX on. After painting and adjusting the HDX900 (shooting at -3 to Ki Pro) we turned on the F3 with my matrix setting and Rec 709. at preset 3200. The color matched perfectly! Lucky accident no doubt but you could have intercut the shots easily except the darks on the HDX were much noisier and the F3 had more resolution. Also the F3 had a longer grey scale.

Oh but the F3 isn't broadcast quality ?

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

The F3 is broadcast quality when used with an appropriate codec.

The problem is the build up of errors that happens when you go through the post work flow, possibly using different codecs. The accumulation of compression errors may not withstand the really heavy compression that happens during transmission. Using the BBC's transmission codec MPEG 4 these errors can cause the picture to go soft.... the opposite of what HD is supposed to be. This is why these HD broadcasters insist on a robust acquisition codec, especially on their flagship HD channel.

You won't notice this just looking at the pictures straight out the camera. However, you can use the F3's on board codec for up to 25% on one of their HD programmes, together with SD content.

If you really need to use one of the less robust codecs in order to shoot the content the BBC willl really be across your post workflow to ensure any compression errors are minimised. I gather they ask for your proposed HD post worklfow anyway on their commissioned programmes.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

What are the PBS rules?

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

The F3 is now on the BBC's approved list... with an external recorder that meets the 50Mb/s or higher rules.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

Thank you Alister, this is great news!

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

The current BBC approved list is here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/commissio...HD_Cameras.pdf

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

If anyone hasn't been to this link and is curious about the F3's performance it's well worth the time to watch the two clips at that URL. S Log capture really shines when you see the comparo with standard EX 35-mbit capture.

NAB Redux Pt.1: Cameras Vincent Laforet’s Blog