F3 BBC Report
 

Alan Roberts BBC test report for the F3 is now available at BBC R&D White Paper WHP034 - Alan Roberts

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

So by his measurements, the S/N ratio is -48ish?

And the AF100 is -49ish?

What?

I'd sure really like to understand his methods better, because his results don't match my eye. In addition by his own admission, he states that because pretty much all cameras have gamma correction before any sort of output that you can measure, direct measurements won't be accurate. I don't know if this is really true, or?

Anyway, sure glad I tested both AF100 and F3 before I bought, because if all I did was read this document to make a choice, I'd be missing out on a whole lot.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Yea and the EX1/3 are -47db at +3db gain on their report.. Kinda odd.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I don't mean to nit pick too much, but I see two errors right on the first page:

". . .but the supplied BP-U60 has a nominal capacity . . ."
Unless they are bundling a battery in the UK, the camera does not come with one.

" . . .the lens mount is standard PL, and has hot connections for the supplied Sony lenses . . ."
Does he not realize he's looking at an adapter? The native mount is an F3 mount.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I'm wondering now if he has a typo and ment to say the F3 is -58.5db.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I have recorded 56 hours of F3 material on both Nano and internal. Only once did I see aliasing, and it was from a tight patterned shirt a grip was wearing during my last trip to London. It showed up in a fold of the shirt, changing the presentation of the H/V pattern more diagonal. This seems to make sense from Adam Wilt's Mega Trumpet test. See ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews .

Ill be returning to London and hiring the same grip with the same shirt. I will try to repeat the situation. I'll set Detail Level to 0, Detail Frequency to +99, and Aperture level to +20 as per pp10-11 Roberts Addendum 68 and see what we get. If it is still pronounced, I'll buy his shirt and burn it :) .

Mean while most of the material from the F3 has been posted for three network prime time programs (Sorry no frame grabs due to property rights), with very favorable reviews.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

There was some other factual errors like not being able to be remotely controlled (RMB-150 & 750 both work with F3). Maybe his criteria for "remotely controlled" is more stringent? Overall it seems like his time with the camera was really limited and he didn't do much research along the way.

Anyway, I don't want to pick his paper apart in fanboy fashion, because I really do believe by the tone of his writing that he doing his best to be scientific and impartial. There is however that one big head-scratcher with the noise level....

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I still say it has to be a typo. That is a HUGE difference from the claimed S/N ratio. Greater than any other camera he tested I bet.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Roberts is also claiming that "the sensor has approximately 12.9 Megapixels, typical of a digital stills camera." Sony's F3 brochure states that the 'effective resolution' of the sensor is 3.3 Megapixels (2.4K)? What's going on with this report?

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Here's another error:

"Sensitivity was not measured directly. The specification claims it to be T/11 at ISO800, and since ISO800
corresponds to 0dB gain, this means that the sensitivity is very . . ."

0db corresponds to ISO 400 not 800.
And even that is bogus. The ISO varies depending on the paint settings.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Apparently he missed it when Sony clearly said the pixels are 4 times bigger than a typical SLR's pixels.

In fact the whole report is riddled with typos and mistakes including this one: " . . . and audio via SLR connectors."
Sloppy work.

Seems odd he says "The lens mount is standard PL, and has hot connections for the supplied Sony lenses and for the Cooke /I range of lenses." but hen he makes no mention of the Arri LDS interface.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

he also says " Noise performance is good, 18dB gain may be reasonable for best quality programme-making."

So forget about dbs and numbers

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I think he's referring to the camera as supplied to him, rather than how you'd purchase the camera. I guess he's interested in the high end sector and how the camera is set up for his test.

The noise levels are interesting, his graphs indicate the same low figure. It could be his test equipment's calibration is off? In practise, no one has commented on the F3's noise levels, whereas the AF 100's have been commented on. The reference to "18dB gain may be reasonable for best quality programme-making" seems contradictory.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I don't get the noise figures either. I don't quite understand why he off hand ignores the +2db bump in his noise plot at 0db say it's "not significant" when if you follow the otherwise reasonable looking noise/gain plot you would see an improvement of around 4db in the noise figure. The plot does not make sense, noise and gain almost always go hand in hand and most of the plot makes complete sense, the big bump at 0db is very odd. I would have a much easier time believing -52db (strangely close to that of the FS100) than -48db. Did he have +9db programmed and not zero db??


Alan is also implying equal R G and B pixels which is not typical of a bayer sensor which normally has 2 green for each red and each blue. Now Sony have not said that the F3 is bayer, so perhaps this is something different. Zone plates don't normally lie.

I also don't follow the pixel count logic:
quote
"implying that the sensor has dimensions which are related to those numbers, probably 2200x1238"
then
"and that the sensor resolution is probably much higher than 2200x1240"
and
"the native resolution of the camera does not reach the limits of the 1920x1080 format"

Now I know that a bayer sensor will produce a final resolution lower than the pixel count, but it all seems confused and the final conclusion that it must be a 12 mega pixel sensor because it has similar sensitivity to a 3 chip camera, well that's conjecture beyond belief. Also I don't see how 4,800 x 2,700 is a "reasonable fit" with 2,200 x 1,238, there is a pretty big discrepancy even if you do multiply 2200 x2. Anyway we know the sensor to be 3.5MP gross with 3.3MP active.

What we might be seeing is conventional conclusions about an un-conventional sensor?

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

looking at the noise plot again, Alan is suggesting that the F3 is noisier at 0db than at +6db. That really does not tie in with my visual observations. It implies we should be using either +6db or -3db but not 0db.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I was a little surprised to see that Alan forgot to add the customary conclusion to his report. Reading in between the lines, is it fair to assume that along with an external recorder the F3 is 100% compliant with the BBC's (and Discovery/Nat Geo) HD requirements?

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I always wonder how the heck are they going to know what whether you used a nanoflash or SxS cards?

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I think there is a machine that spots the characteristics of different cameras and recording systems. All part of checking SD or up-rezzed material within an HD programme.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Can they really tell SxS 1080 4:2:0 from 4:2:2 ? I'm dubious but very interested.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

You can if you know what to look for very easily spot the difference between 4:2:0 interlaced and 4:2:2 interlace. With progressive it's a lot harder, but the difference can be seen as a difference in chroma resolution from horizontal to vertical.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Have you guys heard of shows getting busted for trying to pass?

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I don't know about busted, but I've heard of BBC shows needing to redo material and they weren't even HD.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Yes, a major UK based production company is having to re-shoot an entire series after trying to pass off XDCAM EX as XDCAM HD. They were contracted to shoot on XDCAM HD but used EX instead. It's possible that they may also get sued.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Alister,
Do you know how they were caught? Was it the footage itself, or did they get busted in some other way - i.e word of mouth, set photos, etc.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

No, I don't know.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

As a documentary editor when you look at material you get a feel for picture characteristics. When cutting a mixture of formats together although there is nothing wrong it can be easy in many cases to spot EX1 material for example in amongst HDCAM pictures as the lens quality can jump out at you if nothing else.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

The engineers tend to use higher quality monitors, which reveal flaws giving clinical, rather than the nicest looking pictures.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Lens quality is pretty easu to spot, but for example, would you be able to easily spot EX or F3 footage shot on a Nanoflash at 8 bit 4:2:2 from an SxS card at 8 bit 4:2:0. Lots of people have said you generally only see it in the grading.
Who's to say how you shot the camera unless there is a real gotcha. Do they do an investigation with interviews and make you swear on the bible?

I've been asking this of a few people recently and no one has given me a clear answer except they have good monitors and are smart engineers. No doubt but what is it they will look for if the images look good as we know they can from either an EX or F3 if shot right in the first place. Certainly as good as lots of stuff shot on 720 HDCam did.

There must be people BS'ing this and getting away with it but I guess they're not about to come forward are they. Kind of like cheating on your taxes.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I was recently involved with a documentary for a major UK broadcaster who insisted on XDCAM HD 50Mbps. Fair enough as they are the commissioner.

I explained the additional cost to the producer who had planned to shoot XDCAM EX (PMW350/EX1/3). The producer explained to the commissioner that XDCAM HD would cost x pounds more. They then decided that XDCAM EX would be fine. The additional cost was small, I think we added about 50% cost of the Nanoflash and CF cards but it was enough to make XDCAM EX "good enough."

I would never lie to a client but if if they want higher end kit, the budget should reflect those demands.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Regarding lens quality....

On F3 footage, regardless of using a nano or not, a poor lens will taint the image more than a sub-par recording media. I suggest folks budget for renting good lenses, prior to shooting important projects.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Timur,

Exactly my question - How the heck do they know what you shot on? Can they spot a poorly shot film with a weaker camera and crappier lenses with the correct codec, as opposed to a well shot film with sharp lenses but the EX SxS 4:2:0 codec - and then reject the latter?

I'm not trying to be difficult or obnoxious here i just don't get it.

Lenny

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I don't know if this would be how they'd do it but looking here:

Chroma subsampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are artifacts in 4:2:0 that a program could possibly be used to detect.

I'm not saying this is what they'd use, but it's an example of the test equipment available to engineers.

http://www.cnrood.com/PHP/files/vide...nix-PQA500.pdf

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I shot a lot of stock footage for Corbis Motion; now Thought Equity, and their technical engineering department picks apart the footage and sends me a detailed report of all that did wrong ie.... illegal over saturated colors and whites too high above 100IRE, usually accompanied with a hand written note that says "Looks amazing!". Their standards are 1920x1080 minimum, 100mbps, 422 color space. Technically speaking the HVX200 was the only non 2/3" camera they accepted a few years ago when i was shooting for them. They did not accept 720p in any shape or form. I did a bunch of 60p slow motion work with a SGproREV1 and too kthe 720p, brought it in to Final cut, and output it as 1080 24p, and submitted it with fingers crossed. Thy bought the entire lot of footage, with the usual "illegal whites" and a note that said "The 720p holds up well....." So go figure. I think its more about content.

so maybe stating the already stated
 

will sony bring out a shoulder mount version of this camera,surely it'll become the indi industry standard if they did, using the pmwf3 as the B camera???

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Yes. It's called the SRW9000 PL.

Yes but in Australia
 

thats an $80k camera, not $20 odd k like the f3

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

You'd need to use HDCAM SR or similar for a shoulder F3 to become the industry standard. With the current codec it's fine for non HD broadcast work, or the B camera.

I think you'll just have to pimp your F3 in the short term, unless Sony decide to repackage the camera into a shoulder body as they've done in the past with some of their handicam style offerings.

Perhaps Sony may bring out a tapeless HDCAM SR camera to compete against the Epic for those producers who don't want a RAW workflow.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

I would say Sony will release a shoulder mount using the F3 sensor at some stage, but to make it worth the size increase and not to under cut their higher end it would probably included a fixed SR-R1 type deck, S-Log and a commensurate cost increase.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

Excuse me if I'm misundertanding what you are speculating about, but Sony has already announced a new version of the 9000PL that will use 1TB SR memory cards instead of tape. That's the same cards that the upcoming SR-R1 will use. THAT will be the camera to have.

Re: F3 BBC Report
 

That could be the camera I had in mind, I haven't been following the Sony 9000 developments.