Apologies to Red, I was not aware that Red One shipped with the MX sensor as standard. I thought a Red One with MX sensor was known as a Red One MX.

I do feel that many producers and directors, very often non technical people don't know the difference between a camera where the resolution is given as horizontal pixel count, actual resolution or image format.

If I proposed to many of them that I shot on a "2.5k" camera over a 1080p/i camera few would realise that I was talking about the same thing (F3's speculated H pixel count). I agree that most owners know the difference (at least they should do), but very often the pressure to use this or that comes from producers that have read a headline number without really understanding what it means. Then the crew have to spend an age trying to educate said producer in the pro's and cons of the different cameras/formats/workflows only for the producer to come back with "but the front page headline says it 5k".

And to be fair to Red, Sony and the F3 is no different.

Terminology like 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 refer to chroma subsampling of Y'CbCr data. They should not be used (although often are, and indeed used pejoratively by people who know better) to refer to sensors, because not least sensors are not Y'CbCr, and sub-sampling implies there's a fully sampled RGB signal converted to Y'CbCr to produce a sub-sample from.

With camera systems, it does make sense to measure chroma and luma resolution both horizontal and vertical, but the 4:2:2 terminology is not the right thing to use to describe that.

Unfortunately, there's so many ways camera systems can work that single numbers or simple schemes can't really describe what is happening. Each scheme is a balance of factors as we've been discussing, and it's almost like you need an essay to describe things.

Things get more complex when you have an image that is not subsampled, but the RGB channels don't line up. Can you really call it 4:4:4? Sure you can, but it doesn't look the same as an RGB where the channels are in perfect alignment.

So - 4:4:4 says nothing about measured resolution, nothing about channel alignment and nothing about image quality. All it says is that the image is RGB or Y'CbCr with no chroma sub-sampling.

Graeme

But in most bayer systems, the sensor is sub sampling the chroma.

If the sensor is subsampling the aerial image B and R compared to G (Bayer matrix, 2x G samples for each R and B) then no matter how you interpolate those sample, the B and R are still sub sampled and data is missing. Potentially depending on the resolution of the sensor even the G may be sub sampled compared to the frame size. In my mind a true 4:4:4 system means one pixel sample for each colour at every point within the image. So for 4k that's 4k R, 4K G and 4K B. For a Bayer sensor that would imply a sensor with twice as many horizontal and vertical pixels as the desired resolution or a 3 chip design with a pixel for each sample on each of the R,G and B sensors.

If it's anything less than that, while the signal coming down the cable may have an even number of RGB data streams the data streams won't contain even amounts of picture information for each colour, the resolution of the B and R channels will be lower than the Green, so while the signal might be 4:4:4, the system is not truly 4:4:4. Up-converting the 4:2:2 output from a camera to 4:4:4 does not make it a 4:4:4 camera. This is no different to the situation seen with some cameras with 10 bit HDSDI outputs that only contain 8 bits of data. It might be a 10 bit stream, but the data is only 8 bit. It's like a TV station transmitting an SD TV show on an HD channel. The channel might call itself an HD channel, but the content is still SD even if it has been upscaled to fill in all the missing bits.

This is an issue within the industry in general. So called standards are not really standards as every manufacturer will manipulate or obscure the meaning of the term to suit their marketing requirements. "HD Camcorder" might mean 720P or 1080i and it doesn't necessarily mean that the camera can actually resolve an HD image, all it seems to guarantee is that the output signal will be an HD signal. An f1.8 lens might only be f1.8 under certain conditions, Resolution might be expressed as 1000 Lines, but some manufactures will measure horizontally while others use vertical or TVL/ph. Some boast 10 bit HDSDi, forgetting to mention that the top 2 bits are empty. You really have to look past the headline numbers and terms an d look closely at what is really going on.

Hi Alister,

Quick question: which cameras output 8 bits through a 10bit HD-SDI?

And that has nothing to do with 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 as they are referring to subsequent chroma subsampling (or not) of a RGB image that has been converted to a luma / chroma space like Y'CbCr (so it's post gamma correction also).

If you want to refer to what a Bayer sensor does with regard to it's ratio of green to red / blue pixels, then you can use the term Bayer Pattern sensor. If you wish to refer to chroma sub-sampling before transmission or as part of a codec, then 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 etc. are appropriate terminology.

As you point out, spec for pixel container doesn't determine measured resolution. Chroma sub-sampling notation doesn't determine measured chroma resolution.

Let's use the appropriate terminology and not apply a Y'CbCr chroma sub-sampling notation to a sensor with different ratios of R:G:B pixels.

Graeme

4:4:4 can have either YCbCr or RGB color space, It is not always referring to chroma sub sampling or conversion to luma/chroma colorspace. The Sony F3 optional dual link output for example will be RGB 4:4:4 capable. HDCAM SR can use 4:4:4 RGB, there is NO color subsampling, nor colorspace conversion of the signal from the sensor. You can also refer to a sensor as 4:4:4 if it has 1:1:1 ratio of RGB samples.

As I said. If the original data isn't there, you can fill your data pipe with as much data as you want, call it what you want, argue over the terminology all you want, but when the data comes out the end of your pipe the data still won't contain the missing picture information.

A camera is a system from lens to output. The output quality will be limited to the lowest common denominator, starting with the lens and working back through sensor, processing, encoding and output.

The implication rightly or wrongly in many end users minds of having a camera with a 4:4:4 output is that the signal contains a full resolution 1:1:1 ratio of picture information for YCbCr or RGB. But as the ratio of Y:Cb:Cr or R:G:B off the senor or out of the processor is not 1:1:1 due to the sub sampling of chroma compared to luma (or R,G,B) by the bayer sensor pattern, then the picture information going into the 4:4:4 data encoder does not have a 1:1:1 ratio, and thus the picture information coming out of the 4:4:4 pipe will not have a 1:1:1 ratio. Anyone that says otherwise is trying to pull the wool over the end users eyes.

Yes strictly speaking the data is 4:4:4, but the content is not. The Implication of 4:4:4 is that all important 1:1:1 ratio of image data. You could even take a monochrome picture and encode it's output as a 4:4:4 data stream, again the data would be 4:4:4 but it wouldn't be much good for chroma key. I'm sure anyone making such a camera would have a hard time justifying any 4:4:4 claim in such an extreme case.

If you refer to Sony's HDCAM format you will often see this annotated as 3:1:1. Would you regard this as correct or incorrect? The cameras and decks record an anamorphic 1440x1080 image with 3 Y samples for each Cb or Cr sample, but for compatibility reasons the signal that comes down the HDSDi cable is 1920x1080 4:2:2. So while the data coming down the HDSDi cable is a 4:2:2 signal the content is not and no amount of reconstruction will ever make the 3:1:1 content the same as real 4:2:2.

It's important to understand this and realise that just because the data analyser, tech specs or marketing literature says the signal is 4:4:4 it does not necessarily mean 1:1:1 sampling of the light entering the camera lens. In fact when used the way it is by many manufacturers in terms of final image quality it's actually pretty vague.

Neither RGB not Y'CbCr are colour spaces - they are ways of storing image data that can be in any of a multitude of colour spaces. A colour space is something like sRGB or REC709, or Adobe1998, and is defined by a transform from XYZ along with a white point.

To say "nor colorspace conversion of the signal from the sensor" would be incorrect. There are always quite a few processes that happen from the sensor to a viewable RGB image. A basic image processing system would be something like: sensor data -> (demosaic here if a Bayer CFA) -> black offset correction -> colour correction matrix -> gamma curve -> RGB Image. The colour correction matrix will be applying a colour space conversion from the native space of the camera sensor to REC709 colorimetry, for instance.

So, let's look at the original HDCAM: The recorded luma signal is 1440x1080, and the chroma is 1/3 of that at 480x1080, which is why it's a 3:1:1. The 3 you'll note does not refer to that 1440 is 3/4 of 1920, but that the 480 is 1/3 of the 1440. Now, the particular numbers for HDCAM work the other way to, referencing back to "4"4 as "full", but that screws up the meaning of 4:2:2 as had been used when you consider 16:9 recording on Digibeta would now, instead of being 4:2:2 as we know, it would have to be something like 3:1.5:1.5 referencing back to the full RGB image before it got anamorphically squashed prior to recording. Similarly with 16:9 DV we'd have them recording as 3:1.5:0. (not even to get distracted by how the "0" is used in 4:2:0 is a mathematical abomination.) Panasonic's DVCProHD follows this convention also, being luma reduced before recording to 960x720 (for 720p) from 1280x720, then the chroma is halved to 480 due to 4:2:2.

That there is no SDI transmission standard for the HDCAM native data luma and chroma sub-sampled format does imply that a 4:2:2 1920x1080 signal is created by the deck as an output signal to be transmitted over the SDI. At that point it is real 4:2:2 or else it couldn't be transmitted. 4:2:2 refers to the signal, not to it's content, so to say that real 4:2:2 is a 4:2:2 signal which comes from a source with a high-enough resolution in luma and chroma to justify such appellation is not correct. It's either a valid 4:2:2 format or it's not formatted correctly. The notation assumes nothing about quality and as noted above on 3:1:1 HDCAM does not tell us the luma resolution at all, just how chroma is sub-sampled compared to luma.

"It's important to understand this and realise that just because the data analyser, tech specs or marketing literature says the signal is 4:4:4 it does not necessarily mean 1:1:1 sampling of the light entering the camera lens." That is correct. 4:4:4 refers to no chroma sub-sampling at a particular part of an image recording chain and that is that. Indeed, it has never referred to back to even as far back as the previous full RGB image (see anamorphic Digibeta case above) never mind light entering the lens!

Graeme

Canon's HDV cameras are an example.

Graeme,

Thanks for contributing to this discussion. May I ask in the case of the Red, where does compression take place? I'm assuming before colour correction matrix (so colour correction matrix -> gamma curve -> RGB Image all take place in RedCine-X, not in camera).

But then that begs the next ? in my mind, "What is 'black offset correction'?"

The analogue output of a pixel in a sensor will not produce zero volts at pure black (lens-cap-black), but instead there will be an offset voltage. Colorimetry math assumes linear colour data with black at zero, so a correction needs to be made.

In the RED, the REDCODE compression works directly on the raw data from the sensor. There's no demosaic or colour correction before compression. In REDCine-X, the REDCODE decodes back to raw, and from there the image processing pipeline works on the decompressed raw sensor data.

Graeme

Right, Graeme, I know that the Red compresses before demosaic. It's kind of essential for a RAW workflow.

What I guess I was getting at is are there any steps that happen between sensor data and compression? It seems that black offset correction and maybe some other "low level" processing might/should happen before compression.

Thanks.

Black shading and pixel correction, then off to compression while still raw.

Graeme

Some of the other cameras bake in values like WB at the AD stage at very high bit rates (like 14 or 16 bits). (Not to imply there is some deficiency in how Red does it.)

Am I remembering correctly that there will be a new RedCode coming out that will be 16-bits? And will this be for across the Red line or just Epic-X?

Thanks again.

Yes and No, by definition Y'CbCr is both a description of the way the luma and chroma signals are encoded as well as being a family of non linear encoded color spaces, which includes some of the ones you have outlined above. RGB is both a description of both the image processing method and also a family of additive color spaces. RGB itself is a color space with unlimited gamut. Conversion between Y'CbCr and RGB color spaces can sometimes lead to an overall reduction in gamut.

It would perhaps have been clearer if I had used the term encoding instead of color space, but the argument remains the same.

If the source isn't up to it, 4:4:4 potentially brings no advantage over 4:2:2

I just noticed that the point I wanted to make and missed was that 4:2:2 is not a "colour space", although often referred to as one.

"If the source isn't up to it, 4:4:4 potentially brings no advantage over 4:2:2" - I know exactly what you mean here, but it's still a problematic statement because 4:2:2 is a chroma sub-sampling scheme rather than a quality statement. What you would do in this case is encode the same signal via different chroma subsamplings and then reconstruct them all back up to 4:4:4 and compare back to the original RGB. You'd then know which chroma sub-samplings would show in as a lower quality and which would not.

If we think of an HD camera image, it's colour space is REC709, and that is based on the RGB colour model, and it can be encoded as Y'CbCr which may use a 4:2:2 chroma sub-sampling.

With mapping between RGB and Y'CbCbr encodings, there can be a loss of precision due to rounding of code values. There are also many Y'CbCr code values that don't map to valid RGB values, so you can get in the situation where if you start with an RGB encoded image and adjust it in Y'CbCr you may find that some of the adjusted values map back to invalid RGB values which would probably get clamped. If you keep it un-clamped floating point all the way, you can transform back and forth quite freely though.

"RGB itself is a color space with unlimited gamut." no idea what you mean here.

Graeme

If you have your xyz axis representing RGB and these go from zero to an infinite amount of R, G and B then the gamut range is infinite. So the basic undefined RGB color space has unlimited gamut. All the defined color spaces are then contained within this unlimited gamut.

So yes, if you do that you can have an unlimited amount of RGB code values, however, that doesn't give you an infinite gamut. The gamut is constrained by the representation of the RGB primaries in xy, which is finite. Of course, you can define arbitrarily "way out" primaries, but I don't see that as a practical consideration. If you've not defined the RGB space, "basic undefined RGB color space", then you don't have a colour space and don't have any gamut. The code values of the RGB only become colours when you define what they mean in terms of the primaries.

Graeme

Re: Suitable for wildlife filming?
 

I just found out that no the F3 is not 100% content approved by the BBC and National Geographic; for more information read this blog; http://dylanreeve.com/videotv/high-d...is-not-hd.html

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

To meet their specs, all you'd have to do is add a KiPro Mini or something similar. There's no mention of it in their specs, but I'm assuming that the BBC requires you to use a lens, too. (Not included with the F3).

Re: Suitable for wildlife filming?
 

Hi Steve,

Welcome to DVinfo. You will find that a good number of the people here who use XDCAM based cameras already own an outboard recorder that does over 50 mbit 422 capture, most notably Convergent Design's nanoFlash unit. As such, this is not an issue for those of us with a nanoFlash or similar device.

There is a forum dedicated to the NanoFlash and the soon to be Gemini 444 uncompressed data recorder and you will find lots of information on these sprinkled throughout the this F3 forum and the EX1/EX3 forum here on DVinfo.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

Sony regard the on board recording as a proxy, they intend you to use an external recorder for the master recording.

Alan Roberts puts BBC camera settings in his assessment: http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/...ony_PMW-F3.pdf

Re: Suitable for wildlife filming?
 

Hiya I think you need to by a Nanoflash or similar the your sorted for the BEEB

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

to kinda bring back the topic to the question F3 vs RED....


I just got back from a shoot in Africa... We would have never been able to get our film shot on budget and on time if we were shooting with the RED system. The F3 did NOT over heat. In fact, I tried to make it overheat... We were shooting in 110 degree weather. I left the camera out in the sun with no cover for hours while rolling... I never once got an error or heat issue. That would have never happened with the RED camera.... Also the simple ease of backing up on set was much quicker and needed way less harddrive space to achieve.

If I had picked the RED system over the F3, we just never would have made our days in that heat, under those conditions. I was in the most testing environments with that camera, and never once did the camera tell me "nope I dont wanna work". I was shocked, and I would love to see what it DOES take to overheat that camera... African tropical weather and heat, with dust and rain and super high precipitation. It make feel plasticy, but it sure did handle the beating for a full month of shooting.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

The F3 specs say 0°C to +40°C (+32°F to +104°F). I am pretty confident you can extend that range by 10% without worrying. As a matter of fact, in March, we were shooting at -20F in Yellowstone with a PMW-350 that is also rated at 0°C to +40°C (+32°F to +104°F) and had no problem at all.

Thierry.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

Is overheating really an issue with current Red cameras such as Red One MX or Epic? I thought I had read about these issues with the first Red One model but Red fixed most or all issues with the MX model. Yes, no?

On the flip side, I really can't believe most of what I read on the net these days due to the rabid fanboy-ism. There are a few individuals I trust to tell the truth but even they succumb to the hype occasionally.

However, something that drives me bonkers is a manufacturer dedicating an entire forum to the first 100 or so owners of a piece of equipment such as the forum with a separate thread for each Epic owner. Really?! I mean, come on! And then there are numerous people praising and envying those owners. It looks to me like Red took a page from the Apple playbook - ie, make a product and create crazy hype around it. I thought the Reality Distortion Field was strong with Apple but Red's RDF is impenetrable.

To be honest, my biggest annoyance is all the 'Resolution is King' and nothing else matters mentality. I guess the most successful film looked like crap - Avatar because it was shot on small-3-chip-1080p cameras. To top it off, it was projected in IMAX and looked stunning!

Ok. My diatribe is over.

Now, about the F3 vs Red. The Red Epic is an amazing little camera and its light weight and small size allow huge cost savings in support gear from lower cost Steadicams to smaller jibs, cranes, tripods, etc...

For high-budget films and TVCs, if you can't afford the Alexa, then a Red is the best choice. However, if a DIT station is not in the budget, the F3 fits better in the overall workflow.

I still want to know what is better: the raw R3D format or 444 S-Log. Seeing as you must spend about $10,000 minimum for 444 S-Log recording (when Gemini is released), the total cost of ownership for both cameras is not very different.

For those looking to buy, I think the way Red has handled its customers is a big plus, ie., original Red One owners were offered great incentives for the updated MX version. I haven't seen Sony do anything like that for its customers.

One last quick point: Red does not have ND filters built-in and it has become evident that many many people want NDs built into the camera (thanks to the FS100).

No matter what, BOTH cameras produce AMAZING images.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

Any camera running in high temperatures will overheat, the new RED cameras are still prone to it as I've heard. On set we had 2 7D cameras, they shut down and over heated in a matter of minutes, we couldn't even get the camera mounted in the car, before it over heated.

I really love RED footage, but for me, the Epic is just kinda overkill and too small. My next camera after the F3 will most likely be a used Alexa, unless something better comes out between the F3 and Alexa market... I dont like the way RED handles the workflow or the costumer service for that matter. WAY too much ego and not enough actual help around the world. I know that If I'm shooting in Africa or Asia, I can have support with Sony or Arri... RED... well good luck with that.

When I had an issue with my cards, I called my sony rep in the states, and within a few hours I was getting help from an engineer at Sony UK trying to help get my situation fixed. Thats service.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

I've seen one Epic, and it had the noisiest fan I've ever heard on a camera. It slowed to near inaudible when recording, but the fact it had to run so hard when not recording makes for interesting speculation on their usability in hot environments.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

This thread has the most hits of all the threads on this camera.
I wonder why?

While working for Sony (Sony ICE , Independent DP team member) at the Sony NAB booth, a gentleman who I have never met informed me he was the President of the Red User Group. Sorry, I never took his name down. No disrespect,I literally met hundreds of DP's that week. Im sure if he wishes to add to this he can.

He ask me about the camera and then introduced me to two DP's who are Red users, and wanted to know more about the F3. After a bit of basic technical exchanges regarding the work flow in 709 and S Log, I demonstrated what I think is the most important feature of the F3. Sensitivity, period. After pumping up the gain to 18 and indicated it's ISO 6400 rating, their reactions were nothing but positive after seeing that there was little noise in the image.

Holding a Candle to the Sony PMW-F3 | CineTechnica

We discussed the ability to custom LUTs to the the 35 Mb proxy copy,and how that would ease the post session. We also discussed the RGB 10 bit uncompressed features, and how SR or the many third party non/compressed recorders were about to raise the bar for the common DP.
They told me they were going to buy two F3 for their next Doc. Not saying one was better than the other, only indicating the price point/performance/worklflow level brought them to that decision.

Look, Sony has gone 4K, 65mm with the F65 and has handed down the F35 imager to the rest of us. I'm sure the DSP in the F35 is way ahead of the DSP in the F3 and the FS 100. Of course!!!

They are moving into 4K with a a killer imager. It is 8 K that puts out a 4 K image. Red folks would ask me, Is the F3 imager 4K?,... no it is not, it is 3.5K. But we are talking about a sub 2K image as a standard for today and many years to come, until 4K TV is the norm. The comparison should be how Sony takes their 3.5K image and how Red takes their stated 4K and to produce a sub 2 K image.

I admit I have never shot with a Red One, and was very tempted to drop down the 1k for the first issue. And Im not in the know to the latest Red issue. So please add to this.

But I had to stick by what my then clients and same clients today needed. And the workflow just did not fit with them, so I waited for the next iteration of a single imager.

So Canon drops the 5D on us (An AP request), and many jump on it like fly on sh_t. Sorry Chris H.
Glad to see there were considerably less 5D geeks running around the NAB floor with modified mounts and Zeiss CP attached. I mean really, how can you take that codec and noise level seriously. I would love to hear from the newly ordained 5D DP's, who touted it's low light capabilities (This was all about spending less money on a good LD/Grip and camera package). and see a head to head comparison with the F3 18db ISO 6400 and say the DSLR is still viable. Viable yes if your business plan is 200-400/day for an A camera. Weddings anybody. Not a knock on wedding videographers. We are talking about many notches above that, "I will love you till death" moment.


Say good by to the DSLR period. (see the FS 100, same sensor and less $ after you factor in the extras to meet the feature set of the FS 100).


Argue this, if you have graded your 5D and had 12+ stops to work with, and no noise after 1200 ISO, please send me frame grabs and and the CC log, and I'll eat.... shut up. The F3 has a little noise at 18db/6400 ISO, and you would have to blow it up x2 to see it.

So its down to what your client needs. 8/10/14/16 bit. For now 8 bit is the norm. Tomorrow is another day. Im sure, with all the budget issues facing broadcasters and production facilities, 10 bit/ Log will slowly make its way where 8 bit is today.

Sorry for the rant.

Re: Sony F3 vs RED?
 

F3 vs RED

Regarding the Digital Cinema System Specification, which calls for a minimum of 2K (2048x1080),
I would like to hear comments about the possibilities of the Sony F3 being able to _output_
a 24pfs or 48fps@2K signal for capture?

I believe RED can do this now.

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.