Anybody used the F3?
Posted 24 February 2011 - 06:13 PM
Posted 25 February 2011 - 12:15 PM
Posted 25 February 2011 - 04:56 PM
I read that the resolution of the chip was only about 2.07 megapixels. Surely that's basically EXACTLY full HD resolution, but translates to lower than HD when the losses of bayer patterning are taken into account? I believe the picture's nice, but I don't like Sony being cryptic about it!
Posted 25 February 2011 - 07:59 PM
I read that the resolution of the chip was only about 2.07 megapixels.
I twisted the arm of one of the Sony guys last night, and got an approximate horizontal count of "about 2500". It's a straight up Bayer pattern, not a Q67. Given how well the Alexa does with 2880 horizontal, it might not be all that bad for HDTV. Dividing my number into yours yields 828, which is less than 1080, so they can't both be right, but they can both be wrong. I advised them to be forthcoming with the numbers, to forestall unfavorable speculation. The other significant tidbit is that the camera is linear only for now. They expect to have S-log enabled this April.
Posted 04 March 2011 - 10:50 AM
Edited by David Sellers, 04 March 2011 - 10:51 AM.
Posted 04 March 2011 - 04:40 PM
AFAIK the sensor has just the amount of pixels it needs for HD just like the Alexa. In comparison to smaller photosites sensors this means it performs better in low light, has no problems with moire patterns and does no pixel binning or line skipping.
Posted 04 March 2011 - 05:55 PM
Great write up Tim!
Edited by David Sellers, 04 March 2011 - 05:57 PM.
Posted 09 March 2011 - 05:02 AM
Hopefully I will be able to write up some sort of basic production report. I'll post it in the "in production" section and share what I can over the next two months.
Initially all I can say is that this may very well outperform everything else practically available right now, in terms of low-light ability/price/ease of use.
Posted 10 March 2011 - 11:42 PM
The images look good so far but I really want to see graded material on a large monitor before making a call. Certainly the camera has out grown it's physical format. That handi-cam setup is lame, truthfully.
Posted 17 March 2011 - 06:23 PM
When we walked in it was set up with an Angenieux 10:1 and it had a distinctive video look. Colors were a little too vibrant, but when DOF fell off it got somewhat muddy. (It was in the "Cine-like" mode and S-Log wasn't inabled because that firmware update isn't out yet) I was much more impressed when we put a Zeiss 35mm Super speed on. Color was much nicer and I was more able to appreciate the look of the video.
At one point we opened the window and shot the Milwaukee skyline at night, and the sky still had detail! We did some under cranking, and with a flashlight next to the camera we lit an overpass about 75yds away. I noticed it was actually pretty decent on the rolling shutter issues, and was incredible with low light. We pumped the gain all the way up, and it still was pretty noiseless.
Build wise it's basically a suped up ex-3 and the eye piece is annoying. (standard def, and in the way) If I had to make a conclusion, I'd say I'd love to have it on a shoot to put it through some practical riggers, but I was kinda thrilled to have my hands on an actual video camera again!
Posted 17 March 2011 - 07:25 PM
Posted 17 March 2011 - 10:51 PM
Posted 18 March 2011 - 12:15 PM
Posted 18 March 2011 - 04:49 PM
Interesting. I measure the Dynamic Range at 12+ stops.
I've just finished shooting a 3 camera F3 shoot and Im impressed with the camera. I'd certainly consider it over a RED for certain drama productions.
Posted 18 March 2011 - 08:36 PM
My main complaint is the absolutely horrible eyepiece and viewfinder. I shot a night scene with very minimal lighting and it was dead black in both, but when I looked at the HD onboard there was plenty of information there. Unfortunately, the camera is pretty heavy, so mounting a decent onboard to operate off of makes it pretty unusable except for very short takes. Ergonomically, it's very bad as well. The majority of my shots were handheld (some pretty lengthy) and it would have been very nice to have been able to put the thing on my shoulder. How do the camera manufacturers still not get this?
I was impressed with the dynamic range (at least based on what I saw on the computer after downloading). There was much more detail in the highlights and shadows than I could seen in the onboard monitor. We did some car work on a very sunny day in Los Angeles shooting inside the car and the sky was holding. I even tried to blow out the background for a couple of cheats we did and it was tough! I was blown away.
We wanted Super Speeds but ended up shooting on CP2's and I was worried about the loss of a stop, but it ended up not effecting me much at all. The camera performed pretty well in low light.
Overall I was pretty happy with the camera. I wouldn't want to use it on a feature or TV show both because of the VF and monitor, and because of the ergonomic issues, but for small projects I can see it having it's place.
Posted 19 March 2011 - 01:58 AM
I wouldn't want to use it on a feature or TV show both because of the VF and monitor, and because of the ergonomic issues, but for small projects I can see it having it's place.
You don't think those problems are easily addressed with accessories? Much like almost every other digital camera? You can put an Alexa on your shoulder out of the box and shoot all day, but most others have the same problem. Not saying that's OK, just it's very simply addressable in the grand scheme. Then you have the advantage of small size, you won't be hold a RED for long with one hand in a tight space. And Steadicam?