Sony PMW-F3 Will Support Dual-Link HD-SDI

[Dean Harrington]

I have faith that this new camera (full 35mm frame - bigger than RED sensor) will make beautiful images with a NanoFlash and as it is bought and used Convergent Design and/or other companies will come out with a Dual HD/SDI 4.4.4 recorder. The NanoFlash is 8 bit at the moment and given it's success Convergent Design will respond to what people need to get the best images at the best quality. The NanoFlash presently covers my needs for the production levels I do regularly ... the future ... that's in the future as they say!

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Dean,

Thank you for the confidence in our company!

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Dean Harrington

I have faith that this new camera (full 35mm frame - bigger than RED sensor)

Dean, just for clarity the F3 has a Super 35 sized sensor, according to Alister Chapman of 23.6mm x 13.5mm which would make it fractionally smaller than the Red sensor. Both sensors are significantly smaller than "Full Frame" 35 mm stills sensors which are apporx 36 mm × 24 mm.

[Dean Harrington]

unless there is a mistake in this article ... the only place where I've seen the sensor size listed ... it's 14mmX25mm whereas the Red One is 13.7mm X 24.4 ... you are correct that ""Full Frame" 35 mm stills sensors ... are approx 36 mm × 24 mm

[Luben Izov]

Hi Dean,
It seems that the Sony F3 numbers are rounded. I think that the RED info is correct. From the article below I read 27.1 diagonal witch is small compare to RED. "This CMOS image sensor, Super 35mm chip size of the film corresponds to a large CMOS image sensor (1.7 type, diagonal 27.1mm) are."
The link below is from Sony Japan
Google Translate

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Mark Job

...But you can't achieve the look you describe with a capture device which is only capable of grabbing 60 % of what the F3 can actually produce, so whatever advantage you gain by having the $16K Cine Alta camcorder is nullified by using a capture device. Why purchase a Dual - Link 12 bit camera only to record in 8 bits on an MPEG 2 codec ??? Isn't this a little like Rembrandt trying to paint with an exi-sketch ?
...If this is the case, then why don't you also consider purchasing a cinedeck recorder, which is capable of capturing directly to Quicktime, Avid DNxHD, or Cineform codec, plus uncompressed and dual link ? This capture device will give you 10 and 12 bit capture to get 100 % of the sensor data from the F3. If you're going $16K, then why not go $7K more and complete the chain ?

Mark,
If you think the F3 is all about bit rates and capturing a stream of data, then I feel sorry for you. You've missed the point of the camera and are probably not even in the target market for it. If you really want to use a Rembrandt analogy, here's how I would compare it. Rembrandt could have painted "The Storm on the Sea of Galilee" using top-of-the-line oil paints that cost a fortune. Or, he could have used a less expensive brand and painted the exact same scene. Once the painting was finished, framed, and hung in a gallery, 99% of the people who view it would not be able to determine what type of paint was used -- NOR WOULD THEY CARE. Only a few very picky art experts would be able to see the difference.

[Alister Chapman]

There is a lot of confusion over the sensor size. Sony are claiming the sensor to be "Super 35" equivalent. The problem with this is that Super 35 is 24.89 x 18.67 mm which is roughly a 4:3 frame size as Super 35 is normally shot using Anamorphic lenses. The F3 does not have anamorphic optics, so the sensor must be 16:9, so what we end up with (and these dimensions are from Sony's on literature is a sensor that is 23.6 x 13.3mm (27.1mm diag). This is actually closer to 35mm 3 perf (24.9 x 13.9), so I'm really surprised (and confused) by Sony calling it "Super 35", because it's not.

I too look forward to the stunning images that I will be able to record on my NanoFlashes from the F3. One thing to consider is that if you do go to 4:4:4 10 bit, you will be dealing with huge files requiring much more expensive media and if your coming from EX1's etc a whole new far more processor intensive workflow. I think an F3 recording to a NanoFlash at 100Mb/s will look stunning and be perfectly acceptable for most HD productions, even high end ones. Of course if you are making a movie and you have the budget then there are other more expensive or less flexible options.

[Luben Izov]

Thank you Alister!
That post of yours clears the fog for me. I had a conversation last night about that, but I didn't have the numbers until Mike's post http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/converge...ml#post1587638 and I made a search. Mike made a small mistake as you would see on the second number that throw me off. Thank you
Cheers

[Dean Harrington]

Alister ... that clarifies the sensor size a bit ... so it's a bit smaller than Red One.

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Mark,
If you think the F3 is all about bit rates and capturing a stream of data, then I feel sorry for you. You've missed the point of the camera and are probably not even in the target market for it. If you really want to use a Rembrandt analogy, here's how I would compare it. Rembrandt could have painted "The Storm on the Sea of Galilee" using top-of-the-line oil paints that cost a fortune. Or, he could have used a less expensive brand and painted the exact same scene. Once the painting was finished, framed, and hung in a gallery, 99% of the people who view it would not be able to determine what type of paint was used -- NOR WOULD THEY CARE. Only a few very picky art experts would be able to see the difference.

...Oh I see now. So your saying you are purchasing a $16,000.00 Cine Alta Sony Series Camcorder so you can capture in 8 bits, because it is good enough and 99 % of the people won't notice. OK. Sure. Why not ? I think Rembrandt would have used the best paints, the best brushes, and the best canvass, because he was an artist, and quality is always recognized my friend ;-) I'm sure once you see the incredible quality this camera will output (Especially in 12 bit Dual Link mode), then you will not want to compromise. I'm sorry, but I hear this kind of argument from some folks in the industry from time to time, and I find it quite disconcerting to say the least.

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

There is a lot of confusion over the sensor size. Sony are claiming the sensor to be "Super 35" equivalent. The problem with this is that Super 35 is 24.89 x 18.67 mm which is roughly a 4:3 frame size as Super 35 is normally shot using Anamorphic lenses.

...Alister, this is incorrect. Super 35 mm was created to be able to get an Anamorphic aspect ratio, without having to use the slower Anamorphic lenses. Super 35 mm format uses sharper Spherical lenses.

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

The F3 does not have anamorphic optics, so the sensor must be 16:9, so what we end up with (and these dimensions are from Sony's on literature is a sensor that is 23.6 x 13.3mm (27.1mm diag). This is actually closer to 35mm 3 perf (24.9 x 13.9), so I'm really surprised (and confused) by Sony calling it "Super 35", because it's not.

...Super 35 mm *is* a 3 perf pull down format.

[Andrew Stone]

One thing about the F3 that hasn't been talked about much is the weight. It weighs 2.4 kilograms or just over 5 pounds. Lenses are going to be a kilo and up putting the camera in the 7 to 12 pound range when modestly kitted out. People should keep in mind that when you look at cameras with similar output capacity you are well exceeding 22 pounds or 10 kilos (I am using rough figures here), but when you begin to measure the weight compared to the big cinema cameras which weigh 30 to 50 pounds you get a sense of what an achievement this camera is. Granted there isn't a 3GHD-SDI recorder built into the unit but you can hook it up externally and away from the rig, keeping the weight down.

This is a huge deal to Steadicam Operators who are using smaller rigs that top out between 20 and 30 pounds of payload. If the weight was up around 15 pounds for the brick, those people (me included) would have to begin to get financing together for a rig that will set them back 35 grand and up. I'm figuring this camera with lens and typical motors, FF transmitters, rails, mattebox, batteries and external recorder (nanoFlash or Ki Pro Mini) will be in the neighbourhood of 20 pounds / 9 kilos which to me is a good weight to get good pan inertia and not to the point where you are exhausted after a few minutes of flying the rig.

Obviously, lens weight is the big variable here with some bruisers weighing easily double the camera's weight but if you are the owner/operator of both the camera and the Steadicam rig you can easily control the kind of lenses that get put onto the rig like the Zeiss Compact Primes and the Sony primes which I assume are going to be comparatively light, as well.

[Doug Jensen]

Mark,

I am impressed that you can know so much about what is good enough for me and my clients. It's funny how I've been under the impression that 8-bit has been good enough since I switched to XDCAM almost 5 years ago. Silly me.

Seriously, am I really debating the technical merits of the F3 with someone who still shoots with a Canon XL H1 as their main camera? Isn't that 1/3" 1440x1080? I can see that this discussion is about to start going down a slippery slope, and I've already said too much, so you can have the final word. I won't be responding to whatever else you have to say on this topic. If you think 10-bit is the holy grail, then go for it. As for me, I won't be needing it anytime soon, and I suspect that I'll have a lot of company.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Mark Job

...Alister, this is incorrect. Super 35 mm was created to be able to get an Anamorphic aspect ratio, without having to use the slower Anamorphic lenses. Super 35 mm format uses sharper Spherical lenses.
...Super 35 mm *is* a 3 perf pull down format.

Mark is correct, Super 35 was not designed as an Anamorphic format. It instead reclaimed the full 24.89mm width of the negative that had been partly occupied by the optical audio track when talkies came in. It is a shooting format not a release format and can be cropped to give different aspect ratios as required. "Super 35" refers to the width of the negative, the vertical dimension obviously varies with aspect ratio.

Although the F3's sensor is not quite 24.89 mm it is pretty close to a Super 35 1.78 crop. I think it is a fair description as it is best to be slightly under sized than oversized as an oversized sensor could lead to vignetting when used with "Super 35" lenses.

For the record, Super 35 exposes more width on the negative than Anamorphic 35 but overall provides significantly less negative area. I'm not sure of the exact figure off the top of my head but I'm sure it is easily found via google.

Basically if the the F3 sensor is 23.6 mm it is near as damn it is to swearing Super 35 (1.78) sized... (althought technically it is very slightly smaller). Everyone happy?

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Mark,

I am impressed that you can know so much about what is good enough for me and my clients. It's funny how I've been under the impression that 8-bit has been good enough since I switched to XDCAM almost 5 years ago. Silly me.

....Sorry mate. I wasn't trying to be a jerk about this- I'm simply pointing out that such a camera deserves a recorder capable of capturing whatever the sensor can output. If you want to shoot XDCAM HD 4:2:2, then this is a perfectly good 8 bit broadcast format, which I use often myself. After all, the Vancouver Winter Olympics were all shot in XDCAM HD 4:2:2 8 bit in Long GOP 50 Mbps, and it looked fantastic.

[quote=Doug Jensen;1587800Seriously, am I really debating the technical merits of the F3 with someone who still shoots with a Canon XL H1 as their main camera?[/QUOTE]... Yes you are :-) I just shot a documentary production for TV & Internet streaming in the Canon 24 F format using the Flash XDR for about 70 % of the production. The rest was actually Thick raster HDV.

[QUOTE=Doug Jensen;1587800Isn't that 1/3" 1440x1080?[/quote]...Only on tape it is. With the Flash XDR it jumps up to full raster HD in 4:2:2 color space. We shot at Long GOP 50 Mbps. Looks and sounds really great ! :-)

[QUOTE=Doug Jensen;1587800I can see that this discussion is about to start going down a slippery slope, and I've already said too much, so you can have the final word. I won't be responding to whatever else you have to say on this topic. If you think 10-bit is the holy grail, then go for it. As for me, I won't be needing it anytime soon, and I suspect that I'll have a lot of company.[/QUOTE]...No. No. Not at all Doug ! My apologies :-) I'm naturally a pain in the ass ! It took years of careful training to perfect ;-) I'm told I get down right nasty when I beta test. BTW, I think 12 bit 4:4:4 Uncompressed 3G is the Holy Grail. I've gone on ad-nauseum about 10 & 12 bit uncompressed. I think Dan & Mike @ CD really appreciated that ;-) I also drink 20 to 30 cups of coffee per day ! ( I think I'm addicted to caffeine :-) ) Can't you tell ? I also shoot with a Kodak Z - 8 Plastic lens 1080p 30 pocket camera. $149.00 Canadian - It's 10 bit according to Kodak !