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.

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.

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.

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 (http://www.cinematography.net/Gothenburg/Goth-Alexa-RED.html)

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

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

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.

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.

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? World's First Sony F3 S-Log Test - Behind the Scenes on Vimeo

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.

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 ?

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.

What are the PBS rules?

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

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

Thank you Alister, this is great news!

The current BBC approved list is here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/site/BBC_Approved_HD_Cameras.pdf

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 (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011/04/19/nab-redux-pt-1-cameras/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FjvaG+%28Vincent+Laforet%27s+Blog%29)

Does the BBC broadcast an interlaced or progressive signal? If it's interlaced, it would make more sense why they want 4:2:2 since interlacing halves the vertical resolution.

The BBC transmits 1080 interlaced.

Well maybe I've been too harsh in my attitude towards broadcast specs. If there really is a reason for this I stand corrected - not that anyone at BBC gives a hoot what I think of course.

IIUC, 4:2:2 was originally designed around the interlaced format. It saves bandwidth over 4:4:4 and makes the horizontal and vertical resolution close to being proportional. B/c interlacing essentially halves the vertical resolution and 4:2:2 sampling halves the horizontal resolution.

Displaying 4:2:2 progressively is something that it wasn't originally designed for. Which doesn't mean it's bad for that purpose. But the improvement over 4:2:0 progressive is surprisingly hard to notice. And it seems odd to value on direction's resolution more than the other's.

From comparisons I've seen using progressive images, the jump from 4:2:0 to 4:4:4 was considerably more visually noticeable than going from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2.

I had lunch with someone who is often cutting things that are borderline broadcast standards and seems to have been around the block a bit with PBS about it. His take was if you cut and deliver in 4:2:2 unless there are give away shots where the weakness of the original codec is apparent then they don't have any way to tell for sure. They will just be looking for bad video. If you shoot it right you're probably fine. of course he may be wrong and probably has not been dealing with BBC either.

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

The easiest, most reliable way to test DR is to point a camera at a test target with a known wide dynamic range. I'm using the DSC 18 step, 17 stop chart at the moment and it works very well for this, and is clear and easy to read. Simply set the camera so that the brightest step is just clipping, then count the number of distinct steps you can see. Then subtract one to get the number of stops dynamic range. If do this, in a darkened room to avoid any stray light confusing the results, and you can only come up with 11 stops, you are doing something wrong.

HDRx is working well in practise and being actively developed. To say it's a low priority is incorrect. As noted above, Mike Seymour of FXphd has some fantastic examples of what can be achieved with the HDRx, and Davinci were demoing great HDRx support for the forthcoming Resolve 8.

Graeme

You can make your own DR chart using a large sheet of 0.3ND. O.3 ND is 1 stop, so by building up overlapping layers of 0.3ND each layer is one more stop than the previous layer. Using 18 layers will create an 17 stop range chart. The accuracy will depend on the quality of your ND sheet and any errors are cumulative, so this is not going to be 100% accurate, but it will allow you to compare like for like and deduce which is better or worse. The chart will also need a very even source of illumination from behind such as a lamp bounced off a white reflector.

That's a good idea Alister. A stouffer backlit wedge chart is also quite affordable, but only goes up to 13.66 stops, which is no longer enough. Although you could heavily ND one half of it to extend the range somewhat in a similar method to what you describe.

Even illumination is indeed important, as is making sure either the room is dark, or you create a black fabric tunnel between the chart and the camera to ensure stray light doesn't get in. I've used both methods successfully.

Now, it's worth remembering "why a backlit chart" rather than a front-lit chart. Well, the wider the DR of the chart, the easier it is to measure where the camera's range fits, so having a chart with a wider DR than the camera makes life much easier and gives less room for error. A good front lit chart could have a DR of around 5 or 6 stops before you just can't get any more out of the printing process. A backlit chart has basically the practical limit of how bright you can make the light-source without melting the chart (yes, I've melted a chart trying this) and how dark you can make the darkest step, but still let "some" light through. Going beyond 20 stops is rather hard.

Graeme

Hi Alister,

With the F3 and S-Log, the DR captured from a test chart is a little over 13 stops. BUT, with the compression of the highlights, can you conclude that more than 13 stops is actually being recorded due to the extra 2-3 stops of light that would normally be blown out and another 1 stop of shadows which would be crushed without S-Log?

Maybe Nate can answer my next question: when grading S-Log footage, is it possible to 'expand' the highlights; thus, increasing the appearance of DR? Or has the highlight compression 'compressed' it so much that there is not enough information available?

Thanks

. They will just be looking for bad video. If you shoot it right you're probably fine. of course he may be wrong and probably has not been dealing with BBC either.

The guru from the BBC Academy give the impression that they were doing more than just looking at the delivered material during the quality checks. Also, it wasn't just the acquisition codec, but issues from the post work flow as well that they were looking out for.

The BBC commissions many of their HD programmes and they have rejected programmes and insisted on the production company re-shooting them. That's probably not a risk worth taking from the business point of view.

HDRx is working well in practise and being actively developed. To say it's a low priority is incorrect. As noted above, Mike Seymour of FXphd has some fantastic examples of what can be achieved with the HDRx, and Davinci were demoing great HDRx support for the forthcoming Resolve 8.

Graeme

Just quoting Ted from his Epic tour. That's what he said, low priority in comparison to everything else that is on your collective plates.

Also, referring to Geoff Boyle's test comparing usable stops, testing cameras back to back on the same setup.

David, getting HDRx working well was my top priority until I managed to figure it out.

I know Geoff, and I know he likes to do his charts the way he always does his charts, but they're quite useless for measuring DR - for instance, if you take a single chip on the chart, one which just shows clipping and try and track it all the way until it disappears in the shadows, well, it never disappears - it's still there because the range of exposures used (the 7 stop range of the lens, doubled up with a change in exposure) is really not enough to exercise cameras with extended dynamic ranges. On Geoff's test, take the centre mid-grey chip on the chart and track it's exposure. In the first shot it's clipped, in the second one it's not. That is the least clipped chip on the chart that actually clips, thus it can be used to test DR. Down at the bottom that chip never gets dark enough to vanish into the noise floor, hence the whole range was not exercised by that test.

Graeme