I dunno Bruce, there is so much to like about this camera. They left out the 4:2:2 because the solid state EX cameras don't support that. Keeps everything under the same umbrella while still allowing you to go crazy with the dual SDI later on. I mean when they come out with the F5 they gotta have something to lure you in. :)

3D option should be less important than making a great image, I'm glad that is not a top priority.

Erik: technically, SxS can in fact support 50Mb/422 as is the case with the new PMW500. However, it does surprise me that Sony did not make the F3 capable of 50Mb. Just based on what I know, it seems that Sony uses the same encoding chip for 35 and 50 Mb because C-D uses Sony's chips in their nanoFlash. On a side note, I hope this camera really pushes C-D to make a 10bit recorder. Currently for me, I would purchase the Aja Mini for the F3 rather than the nano for TVCs; however, I'd still rather use the nano for all other broadcast and event work due to longer record times and HOT Swap. Actually, I'd probably buy the nanoFlash and just rent the Aja Mini because I still need the nano for to record from a switcher.

However, the 35Mb MPEG2 is an amazing codec and if given the choice, I'd take the 35Mb over AVCHD any day.

Furthermore, someone mentioned that the F3 can't output true 444 due to debayering but that confuses me because both the Red One and F35 can output 444 and both are single chip sensors that require debayering. Can someone shine some light on this subject?

Red doesn't have a live 4:4:4 output that I know of? The F35 isn't a Bayer sensor, it's RGB stripe.

4:4:4 used to describe a colour subsampling system based on frequency and resolution back in SD analogue days, it's changed now to mean the colour subsampling pattern independant of resolution. 4:4:4 now means full colour info for each pixel, no subsampling.

To get 4:4:4 information directly from a sensor you must have an equal number of red, green and blue photosites for each pixel. Bayer has 2 green, 1 blue and 1 red. You can't get 4:4:4 till it's been processed.

Oh I don't edit... That's what editors are for! :)
I'm pretty much producer only these days, so for me the difference is all about the time/money and from what people have told me, the F3 will speed up post/save money.

I'd love to hear an opposing point of view of course, especially from the financial side. You own a Red (I'm assuming). Which XDCam do you own? And what similarities do you find with the tools you use?

I can see where Dylan is coming from. Editing R3D 4k requires some serious horsepower so many tend to use the old offline/online which requires extra time. Furthermore, most editors don't use Premiere Pro CS5 so transcoding can be required, which adds more time.

There are businesses who have taught classes solely on the R3D workflow such as FXPHD.com encompassing 10 classes and even re-doing the entire course each year. You couldn't dream of making a 10 week course on the XDCAM EX workflow.

Erik not sure were you get your information but SxS solid state records 50Mb/s 4:2:2 on EX camera, I did it yesterday on my PMW-500. Also ARRI use SxS.

Steve I agree 10bit 422 is the way to go. Would not be surprised if CD did not come out a new Nano 2. I have a Ki Pro Mini on order and will compare the two once it arrives. My Nano is a hard working unit on my EX1.

agree ...
 

Convergent Design is clearly enjoying the drive in recording devises. They've got the experience and I think as others do that they will come out with at least a 10 bit 4.2.2 Nano ... I would hope they are looking at ways to do 4.4.4 as well.

Convergent Designs clearly make a excellent product and stand behind it all the way. If they build a 10bit recorder I am in, and there would be a lot of 8bit Nano's on the market.

I do not own a RED. I have done RED post though. I own an EX1.

Depending on the finish, Both come into Avid exactly the same and the path is exactly the same. RED workflow is often more complex because people are often doing offline/online for film purposes. The workflow for taking XDCam to filmout would be similarly complex, but few do it, so you don't hear about it.

Time in production is certainly different as the RED has a much longer setup time than an XDCam camera. It may also require a DIT on set when is an additional expense.

If taking an F3 to filmout, I can't see how it would be faster. If shooting for broadcast, I surely can't see how I would post them any differently.

RED comes into Avid via AMA. Just like XDCam, 5D/7D, or P2 footage. Mt editing machine is 2.5 years old now and copes just fine without any transcodes for HD finish. For 2K/4K finish, yes it's an offline/online process..

Perrone all of these also work just fine with my Mac Pro, FC system which is 3 years old.

I didn't say it was impossible for SxS to record 50mbs 4:2:2. Until the 500 they only allowed 50mbs on cameras that had the optical drive. I was unaware the 500 was SxS only. Strange.

It's not the deBayering that means no true 444, but rather the relation between output resolution and chip resolution. As David says, a Bayer chip CAN give 444 - as long there are at least 4x as many photosites as output pixels. (And with Red etc, there are more than enough for 444 1080)

It's not that you can't get 1080 444 from any Bayer chip - rather that you can't truly get it from this one. It shouldn't really be seen as bad, since it keeps the photosite area fairly large which brings other benefits. (And 444 recording will make the most of what it does do.)

Suitable for wildlife filming?
 

Does anyone know if the F3 will be 100% content approved by broadcasters like the BBC and National Geographic as is out of the box? As a wildlife filmmaker, being able to shoot clean video in very low light will be great, however, for fast moving wildlife subjects, I need deep depth of field most of the time to stay in focus. Is there a good high power zoom lens that will work with this sensor for wildlife filming?

Thanks,

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

Power zoom? On PL mount? Or are you talking about the Sony native mount? Deep DOF and S35 sensor are opposites. Stay with 2/3"

This is why I am hoping to see the 2/3" scarlet. For wildlife, sports, etc. Shallow DOF has it's place, but sometimes you just CAN'T chase the focus.

Yes, also with the higher frame rates, the 2/3" Scarlet makes more sense for wildlife. A video zoom with a PL adapter sounds like it would do the job with that camera.

I suspect you'd a Nanoflash or other external recorder for those HD broadcasters.

At a recent event, I believe they said that a 15x servo lens was on the way, though not sure about timescale. It's for such reasons that the F3 has a built in grip/rocker, to give direct control. I think the mount is likely to be the F3 native, not via PL.

As far as f stop/sensitivity goes, then bear in mind the F3 is supposed to be considerably more sensitive than an EX, likely about 2 stops, all else equal. Hence, if an EX needs f2, expect the F3 to need about f4. So for parity, the F3 zoom lens doesn't need to have the same stop as one for an EX, and isn't likely to in practice for size/cost weight issues.

To take full advantage of the sensitiivity in low light, you'd then have to go to a fast prime.

Red's AMA performance is the worse of the bunch. And if you want to get Red out of AMA, you have to transcode.

They are all taking guesses on the price of the Epic Light (formerly Scarlet S35) and the general opinion seems to be priced around the same as the F3. What I find interesting about that is it means RED only has the 2/3s Scarlet to compete with the S35 NXcam.

If the NXcam has 4:2:2 output through SDI or HDMI that would give Sony the advantage in this price range right? Assuming of course the 2/3s Scarlet would be in the same price range of the S35 NXcam.

Sony only have an advantage if the S35 sensor is more important than other factors. The 2/3" Scarlet has other advantageous elements to its specification, so it's more a matter of choice. Certainly, they'll need the HD SDI to match up to the AF100.

If the Epic Light really has 150fps burst and 120fps an 2/3" chip it is worth the price right there, if it is in the same ball park price as the F3. I guess we will have to wait and see on all of these cameras.

It's fine for basic cuts, and you transcode overnight or whatever.

Thanks everyone for your help to my questains. I hope Sony does make a good zoom for the F3, maybe even Canon will make a good manual one that will handle fast moving subjects like wildlife, as a deep depth of field and lots of zoom is a must. Yes, the 2/3" Scarlet might make a good wildlife camera and who knows what Canon is up to. Exciting times.

A good example of a deep depth of field footage shot with my Canon XLH1 was when I was charged by 2 grizzly bears this past summer at 25 yards. It was a close and sudden encounter and as I had seen lots of fresh bear sign I was carrying the camera already mounted on the tripod. The footage remained focused decently until the last 12 feet which by this time I had went to wide angle. Now if only the F3 will do as well. To see and read the whole story, Google BC filmmaker attacked by grizzlies.

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

Zoom info from sony:

PL Mount: 11-16, F2.8 Due APR 2011 Price TBD

F3 Mount 18-270, F3.5-6.3 Due Fall 2011 Manual Focus and zoom only Price TBD

F3 Mount 18-270, F3.5-6.3 Due 2012 Automatic Control Price TBD

F3 Mount 17-50, F2.8 Due 2012 Automatic Control Price TBD


That is all the information for their zooms. Most likely you're going to be looking at 3rd party zooms if you need one right now, but remember they will have to be manual only.

Regarding the workflow of RED vs F3, if you just want event / corporate fast stuff record via the HDSDI out onto a nano at lower bitrates. If you want it for high end stuff record RAW.
Epic light or whatever it will be called will have much better specs, be smaller however it
a) Is still nowhere near production which the Sony is
b) Will not have anywhere near the support that the Sony has
c) Will probably have a few gliches and will need updating of builds etc etc

I still like the fact that I can keep investing in decent glass and know that it will not get superseded.

zooms ...
 

These zooms sound interesting most certainly. 18-270 F3.5 automatic controls sounds like something for fast action on the playing field. The zoom range would cover just about anything one needed. 18-270 ... that must be a big sucker! Definitely interested but like others will see what happens when the dust settles!

I honestly hate to admit it, as much as I'm sure people who use to shoot on real 35mm film hated admitting that digital was taking over, but the fact is that today people are shooting professional productions on DSLR's for crying out loud (that's the part I hate admitting) - so now, unless you have a REALLY REALLY good reason to shoot RAW (film blow-out is the only reason I see) with the advent of DLSR's, compact lenses such as PL or 4/3rds and new cameras with sensors optimized for them, RED is DEAD.

I wouldn't agree with the "RED id dead" sentiment, but certainly there are horses for courses.

I own a 7D and find it unpleasant to work with, and the limitations to be substantial.

On the opposite end, I feel that RED pushes 4k as a standard because it suits them to, and they certainly have a bias.

Even if in 5 or 10 years 4k is the standard, I think there's plenty of time to make good money out of the F3. As others have said, the F3 suits productions that want high quality digital, but don't want the time and hassle of a RAW post workflow.

For productions that will only ever be seen in 1080p or lower quality, I think shooting in RED becomes overkill. RED talks about future-proofing, but not everyone can afford to think like that.

I certainly think RED will continue to see success for theatrical work, but they will have stiffer competition for broadcast, web, and direct to disc productions.

I sold my PS Technik mini35 setup while I could still get a pretty polished penny for it. Today I own a HVX200 I can use with 35mm adapaters if I need to. Ironically I own a 7D which I bought for still 35mm photography and to this day the switch has never seen the HD video recording mode but I ought to try it one day to prove myself wrong about DSLR.

I'm now thinking the AF100... but who knows, it's a never ending cycle.

I owned a Letus Ultimate that I used with my EX1 and HVX200. Sold it a month ago. I'm on the preorder list for one of the very first PMW-F3 cameras.

I'm also planning to sell the HVX200 - but I'll be keeping my 7D and EX1. I'm using Nikon Zeiss glass, so I can mount them on the 7D as needed, but they'll be primarily for the F3.

Can I ask how you mount your glass to the 7D? Is it only EF / EF-S that works on a 7D, or does FD mount for example work too?

What I'm using are Carl Zeiss ZF and ZF/2 lenses that have a Nikon mount. I have an adapter ring that conforms the Nikon mount to the Canon EF mount.

Not sure about an FD to EF mount, I've never looked for one.

Interesting question. Just finished a bunch of reading on the topic, in light of the EPIC being used on the set of the new Spiderman movie. A few high level things to seriously chew on. First, and not the most important, a usable EPIC will cost you well in excess of 30 grand, more like 40 and that does not include lenses. Secondly, and most important, as this will be the most time consuming to set up and that is modifying and adding to your hardware to deal with the increased data that the new RED cams will have and that is 3 times the amount of the old (if you can call it that) workflow/datarate. You will need bigger, faster desktops and several of them in order to keep on top of deadlines even for lowly freelance types and you will need RED's accelerator cards. Not saying it is impossible but you wlll REALLY want to go there with RED to do it. The proposition now is even more daunting in some ways that with the original RED one setup.

Not bashing RED either. The EPIC will be very appealing to many but the hardware requirements at the desktop level have to be factored in and it is not a trivial exercise.

From the people I have spoken with, the F3's advantage is its lower quality to the RED. 80% of RED work is in 2K, in bread and butter stuff - simply for workflow and the F3 holds its own in that area and takes all the RED workflow headaches out of the mix.

makes sense ...
 

The Red Epic is for high end feature film and anyone who has experienced working on 35 &16mm film projects appreciates the faster turn around on digital work flow. That said, on smaller productions, that require around 2k and less ... the F3 makes sense. It's obviously a camera for TV commercials, episodics and documentaries and can go film out with 4.4.4 if need be! That's a pretty big range ... to do film out with the F3 will require added components that will cost in excess of 10 k even if you don't get the camera with the pro-offered 3 lens. That still leaves you in and around 30 - 35k in expenses when you factor in good lens. A good investment if you have the work to cover the costs.

I wouldn't say a film-out requires anything different to 1080p distribution. I actually find film-outs hide undesirable artifacts when compared to a 1080p monitor. I have had several film-outs made from footage recorded to XDCAM EX and the codec did not present an issue.

I can see the rational of designing a camera to use external recorders in order to keeping the base cost down and flexibility high. What bugs me is that the terrible design of the F3 means shooters will need to spend thousands in order to achieve fundamentals of making it balance on the shoulder and have a usable VF. This is acceptable with a cheap DSLR where video is an afterthought but not on a professional "cinema" camera like the F3.

The F3 is intended for digital cinematography. Why would you want to put it on your shoulder?

Since when did digital cinematography excluded shooting handheld? I've never worked with a professional operator who doesn't shoot from the shoulder for eye-level handheld. A handycam form factor is okay up to a certain size and weight but the F3, with even a light lens, is well beyond that in my opinion.

On shoulder because hand held is an aspect (if sometimes overused) of digital cinematography operating as on the sticks or camera crane. The weight of these cameras with 35mm cine lenses tends not to be as favourable for the handicam layout as say a PD150 or Z1, which also have image stabilization.

As overused as handheld is these days, the impression I'm getting
is that most D-Cinema is still being shot the correct way: mounted
to something (anything).

There a scads of shoulder-mount options; to me it makes sense to
get the one you want and put it on. The F3 isn't a run & gun ENG
camera. I just don't see a need for a built-in shoulder support.