Ahhh, now I understand. :)

Whats important to remember, while yes, may clients are used to paying for "DSLR" prices, the step up from the DSLR is the AF100. The F3 will hold its own better in the higher end market usually take up by RED. Not because the F3 is going toe to toe with the RED in terms of image quality, though for 95% of applications a good 1080p image is more than enough, simply because not every production has the post production firepower, or budget to support a full RAW workflow. Sometimes things need to be cut that day. The F3 either through on board XD cam, or with an external tape less work flow, offers excellent image quality with a fast painless turn around. This is the world the F3 will live in. Higher end productions, with the budget for a higher end camera, but that are looking for cost effective post. Although i will be investing the F3 as well as an Epic, i estimate based on a lot of research, and customer inquiry that the F3 will be the profit maker. Where the Epic will be the flagship of my company.

Resale value will most likely remain high, as it offers the benefits stated above.

Nate,

FWIU, the AF100 has a very high level of default edge sharpening. But that can be dialed down via camera settings. With new cameras that have lots of settings, it's hard to fairly compare someone else's footage, b/c you don't know how it was shot.

And even movies with huge budgets feel that 1080p acquisition is good enough, films like Tron shot on the F35, Avatar shot on modified HDC-1500's, HDC-1600's and other HDCAM cameras.

As an aside it was a bit of a shock to see images with vertical smear again in Tron. I noticed it and realised what it was, my wife just put it down to lens flare.

Of course.

The footage I'm talking about, I shot. Albeit in a short demo in a shop. But I did dial down the detail myself.

The differences between he F3 and AF100 pq go way beyond those issues, from what I can tell.

Nate, I've been looking for a good replacement for my older Panasonic BT-LH1700WP -- which I have never been that happy with. 12v power and c-stand mountable are musts. Other than that, I'm open to suggestions. I have a couple of monitors in mind, but I'd like to hear what you are recommending. I have a Leader LV5330 on order so I don't care about scopes and other features, I just want a damn nice picture.
Thanks.

(sorry to hijack the thread)

Nate,

I'm sure you're busy, but if you get the time, could you post some of the footage you've collected from using both cameras or export TIF's from DaVinci to show us what you're seeing?

I'm asking b/c it's been near impossible as of yet to see a comparison of these two cameras.

Thanks.

Sony will be throwing down the towel down at some point in the coming months. I was working CES for a company that build the video wall Sony was using in their booth. At some point there was a conversation with some Sony engineers and the principals of this company. There is a F1 in the works that will be going against the AF100 in features, size and price. No other details were discussed.

Thanks
David Rogers

Wouldn't that make the S35 NXcam useless?

Perhaps they are one and the same... S35 NXCAM = PMW-F1 ?

Now we just need to figure out the release date, detailed specs and a price. NAB still seems so far away.

There's been quite a lot said about this publicly - Sony | Micro Site NXCAM & AVCHD and look at the top banner, "New Concept NXCAM Super 35mm E-mount Lens Camcorder"

What is known is that it'll be the same sensor as the F3, but use AVC-HD as native codec, and have a native E-mount for lenses. Expectations are that it will be in the same price range as the AF101, and be far more modular in construction - the big hope is far better ergonomics than either the AF101 or the F3.

There's still a lot unknown, but it should be released in detailed form at NAB, and be on general sale a couple of months later.

Sorry...that's a little more work than I care to undertake. Besides, it's just my own eyes and experience I'm talking about, not carefully shot charts under controlled conditions.

Also, as I mentioned above, I feel display devices are too big a variable. Too many variables, not enough science.

That's the thing, the most accurate monitors for post and mastering make for lousy field monitors.

My Dreamcolor, while not 100% accurate, is better than the 19" JVC HD-CRT I had before it. Shane Hurbut has taken to dragging Dreamcolors out on shoots, but I wouldn't recommend it to normal people who care about their gear not getting trashed.

I guess maybe the TV Logic 24" or FSI LM-24 series? I feel strongly that if there's a great deal of 1080p consumer panels out there in the wild (and there are tons), then you need to be viewing pixel-for-pixel as you do your post. That means 24".

I did my ridiculous 11 camera Green Day concert on Red, but yet did the color on the aforementioned JVC crt. Some of the concert had to be lifted in exposure, and I lifted things more aggressively than I would have if I had been seeing noise in the blacks better with pixel-for-pixel display. As it was, the JVC CRT smoothed over a lot of that noise, and I saw it later when broadcast.

Nate,

Well Shane is known, FWIU, for doing what few others are willing to try ;). E.g. his work with DSLRs.

BTW, how did you calibrate your dream color? E.g. what calibration software and Rec 709, P3, full swing or studio swing?

Thanks much!

Oh, I'd try it in a second, if I could afford a tussle with insurance after/if mine bit the dust on a job. I had two jobs in sandstorms in the desert this last year. Sometimes a-listers get to do stuff simply because production can afford to cover it/fly new gear in when things go wrong.

He's a bit fearless, and I think that's why all the up-and-comers love him, but it's not for everybody. I suppose you grow a pretty thick skin after the whole world hears a jerk yell at you on the internet.

I haven't yet. It's just in 709 mode and by my experience and eye it is close. Calibration for working in 709 involves the probe HP makes specifically for the monitor, and that probe talking directly to the internal LUTs and software in the monitor itself. No outside signal modification or software. I intend to get that probe sometime this year.

If however I did need to make outside tweaks, I'd make a LUT in Resolve to tweak the output to suit a probe, and then permanently apply that LUT to monitor output (again, in Resolve).

I had to look up what you meant about "full-swing" and "studio swing". I'm doing everything 709 by the book, so I guess that means studio (64-940 10 bit legal).

My search on that brought up a convo between you and Mike Most though, talking about how a lot of folks are doing things full-range and then hitting the button to clamp down to legal on tape outputs. Since so many jobs are now web-only, I might rethink my strategy and just make everything full range now, and then have the clamped tape outputs be the special case.