F3 BBC Report

[Leonard Levy]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Timur Civan]

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.

[Adam Letch]

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???

[Aaron Newsome]

Yes. It's called the SRW9000 PL.

[Adam Letch]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[David C. Williams]

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.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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.

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

I also don't follow the pixel count logic. What we might be seeing is conventional conclusions about an un-conventional sensor?

The problem is that while Sony refuses to provide specifications (see Juan's video where actually say he can't provide the numbers) they have said that 3.37Mp are "used." That forces assumptions to be made.

But Allan's paper -- if you read it carefully -- works through the process very clearly. Here is my parsing of it:

Figure 1 shows the luma resolution when the camera was in factory default settings for detail enhancement.

The result is not free from spatial aliasing, there [ARE] both horizontal and vertical visible aliasing. The aliasing, is, [UNUSUAL], both first and second order, i.e. frequencies are reversed and then reversed again.

The first alias [IS] centred on 1920 and 1080,

WHICH IMPLIES IT IS FROM THE RECORDED FRAME-SIZE.

while the second aliases are centred on about 1100 pixels and 619 lines, implying that the sensor has dimensions which are related to those numbers, probably 2200x1238.

MY ESTIMATES ARE 2456 AND 1380. HOWEVER, THE VERTICAL ESTIMATE IS TOO HIGH.

THIS IS A 3,389,280 PIXEL FRAME. SONY SPECS 3,370,000 PIXELS.

THIS IS BOTH: THE FRAME THAT RESULTS FROM THE "DOWNSCALE" OF THE PHOTOSITES FRAME AND THE PRE-DEBAYERING FRAME. THIS FRAME , THROUGH DEBAYERING, BECOMES 1920x1080.

The F3 specification [IS] T/11 at ISO800, and since ISO800 corresponds to 0dB gain, this means that the sensitivity is very similar to that of a 3-sensor 2/3-inch sensor,

IN HIS EXPERIENCE, THIS VALUE, IS WHAT HE TYPICALLY SEES FROM 2/3-INCH CHIPS

which in turn implies that the pixels are about 5μm square.

THESE CHIPS, HE STATES, HAVE A TYPICAL SIZE OF 5μm

Given that the sensor is ‘super 35mm’ size, it must be 24x13.5mm. [Not the 23.5x15.6 of an APS-C]

SIMPLE MATH, GIVEN THE DIMENSIONS

For the pixels to be 5μm spaced, the sensor width must be about 4800 pixels, making the sensor approximately 4,800x2,700.

MY ESTIMATES ARE 4912x2760 WHICH MEANS THEY WOULD BE SLIGHTLY SMALLER AT ABOUT 4.784 WITH AN AREA OF 9.568

This fits reasonably well with the estimations in section 1.2.1, and means that the sensor has approximately 12.9 Megapixels, typical of a digital stills camera.

MY ESTIMATE IS 13.56MP.

It also explains why there is little or no coloured aliasing,

and why the red, green and blue signals all have the same resolution and aliasing.

THE LATTER "MAY" BE A GOOD CLUE BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO WAYS A CHIP COULD WORK.

PERHAPS YOU ARE CORRECT, ALTHOUGH THE CHIP HAS A BAYER FILTER, IT MAY NOT BE BEING READ-OUT AS SUCH.

Figure 3 shows the result for setting progressive, again with factory detail settings. There appears to be no difference in resolution between progressive and interlace, a sure sign that the native resolution of the camera does not reach the limits of the 1920x1080 format.

WHICH IS TRUE, GIVEN THE REZ HAS BEEN MEASURED MUCH LESS THAN 1000TVL/ph.


IF you assume the chip is a Sony 16MP chip that is being read-out slightly differently, it is possible for everything Sony has said is true while Allan's measures are valid and his speculations are very good.

I've got to do more digging on the how the increased sensitivity is achieved. Juan seems to imply it is because the photosites are 4X bigger. Of course, the critical question is bigger than WHAT? Did he say?

Sony IMX046 chip is a 1/3.2 type 8MP sensor that has a very tiny 1.4 µm photosite x 2 is 2.8sq x 4 >> 11.2sq >> 5.6 µm

But, HOW the data are read-out could be contributing as well.

[Erik Phairas]

Sorry for the paraphrase Steve but Juan doesn't "imply" that pixels are four times the size, he flat out says they are. Plus he goes to a lot of trouble to point out the sensor is not from a stills camera, it is a moderate resolution chip purpose built for video.

He says that, and has pictures to make his point even more. He would have to be grossly misinformed (or lying) to be wrong.

I am no expert, I am just repeating what was said.

[Brian Drysdale]

As I mentioned on the FS 100 thread, Alan Roberts' assumption seems to be based on an ISO of 800, which is a rating similar to that of the Alexa and Epic, which do have rather different pixel counts.

[Steve Mullen]

I said;

"I've got to do more digging on the how the increased sensitivity is achieved. Juan seems to imply it is because the photosites are 4X bigger."

It = the greater light sensitivity.

And, where do I say it IS from a still camera?

Where does Allan say it IS from a still camera?

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, Alan doesn't say it's a still camera sensor, just his guessimate at the pixels based on his line of thought and a passing comment on that number: "the sensor has approximately 12.9 Megapixels, typical of a digital stills camera".

That figure is roughly the same as a Sony F35 or Panavision Genesis sensor.

If his guessimate is accurate is another matter, but he gave his reasoning behind the figure, which may or may not not apply in practise. However, that's in the nature of these things.