Sony PMW-F3 Differences Of Opinion

If it's not one Sony video camera causing controversy, it's another. Now it's the Sony PMW-F3's turn to be the subject of disagreement. Alan Roberts has issued a technical report on the picture quality of the PMW-F3, and wrote this about noise levels:
Since the slope of the gamma curve is unity when the signal level is about 50%,
it is also clear that the noise level is only about -48.5dB rather than the claimed -63dB in the specification.
- ADDENDUM 68 : Assessment and settings for Sony PMW-F3
This prompted a response from Alister Chapman at XDCAM-USER:
Now I don’t have the ability to measure noise as Alan does and I normally respect his results, but this noise figure does not make sense, nor does his comment that the camera has similar sensitivity to most 3 chip cameras. To my eyes, the F3 is more sensitive than any 3 chip camera I’ve used and it’s a lot less noisy. The implication of the test is that the F3 is noisier than the PMW-350. Well that’s not what my eyes tell me.
- Alan Roberts F3 assessment. Confusing Reading
and Philip Johnston at HD Warrior:
I am very much with Alister on this one the F3 is the cleanest, best picture at this price point you will see and I can assure you beats all the older APPROVED HD camcorders by a mile.
- Sony PMW-F3 Investigation
The report also has a very odd passage about the resolution of the sensor:
The specification claims it to be 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 ” sensor, which in turn implies that the pixels are about 5μm square. Given that the sensor is ‘super 35mm’ size, it must be 24x13.5mm. For the pixels to be 5μm spaced, the sensor width must be about 4800 pixels, making the sensor approximately 4,800x2,700. 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.
- ADDENDUM 68 : Assessment and settings for Sony PMW-F3
While Sony has been coy about some details of the sensor in the camera, they have clearly said that the sensor has 3.4 megapixels, so it's puzzling that the report instead comes up with a different number by a reverse calculation based on the sensitivity. Others have noted some other minor errors in the report (see: DVInfo.net: F3 BBC Report)


This may all appear to be just a minor disagreement between camera buffs, except that Alan Roberts opinion about a camera is very important; he does evaluations for the BBC, and those evaluations determine whether the BBC approves a camera for production or not. And the BBC's approval follows on to whether a lot of other broadcast institutions will allow the use of the camera.

Will Alan be joining in on the discussion? That seems unlikely. He's already sick of arguments about the Panasonic AG-AF100 and posted the following in a thread in a discussion about that camera on the DVDoctor forums:
...in the last couple of years or so, things have been changing. Now, the questions are more along the lines of 'you've got it wrong because...', and some of the posters and postings are clearly biased for/against individual cameras and/or manufacturers.

I have always been totally neutral on such things, I measure and report. My neutrality has often been questioned; I've been accused of being in the pay of both Sony and Panasonic, so I suppose my neutrality is still observable. It will always remain so.

The recent furore over the AF101 has been the last straw. I got so angry with the continued blether about it that the fuse finally blew. So, here's my statement for the future:

I WILL NO LONGER READ, OR REPLY TO, ANY COMMENTS ON ANY CAMERA, FOR ANY REASON.

If you want to talk rubbish about cameras, get on with it, I won't comment either way.
-forums.dvdoctor.net: AF101 tests up


BBC Mirror by Daniel Bronwing: BBC R&D White Paper WHP034
ADDENDUM 68 : Assessment and settings for Sony PMW-F3 [PDF]
XDCAM-USER: Alan Roberts F3 assessment. Confusing Reading
HD Warrior: Sony PMW-F3 Investigation
DVInfo.net: F3 BBC Report
forums.dvdoctor.net: AF101 tests up




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sony GV-D200 review

Image
Sony GV-D200 I've been using a Sony GV-D200 deck to transfer old Video8 and Hi8 tapes. Some of these tapes are over twenty years old, and no longer having a Hi8 camcorder that worked I was concerned that if I didn't do something about transferring them to a more modern format soon, I might never be able to. While Sony no longer make camcorders that use these tapes - that I know of - Sony does still sell the GV-D200 deck (or Video Walkman, as it's sometimes labelled.) They also offer the GV-D800, which is almost identical but adds a small LCD screen for about $120 more. I didn't think I'd need a screen since I was using this to capture to the computer, but you will need an external monitor when you first set it up. Physically, the device is small. At 5 7/8" wide, 5 3/8" deep and 2" high, it's the smallest video deck I've encountered. I used to have a Video8 deck that I thought was small; and it was twice as deep and twice as high. The t
Read more

Response: Which iPhone to Get?

Image
In response to my iPhone musings, I got the following reader email which actually sums up a lot of my second and third thoughts too: You might have a point about the fancier camera, but otherwise I would buy the smaller model. Its screen is about the same size as that of my Nexus 4, and I don't feel at all like it limits me with a too-small screen. But I do sometimes stretch to get my thumb the reach to the other corner of the screen. It is plenty big for a phone. A phone is a pocket thing. (Well, in my case it lives an ancient REI soft sunglasses case that I have on my belt.) Ubiquitous, handy, convenient, almost always with me. Small is crucial for all of that. Certainly a large screen is cool, but you need a place to put it: don't break a fundamental feature of a pocket phone by getting too big. That is what your small tablet is for. I have my phone with me almost always. I have my Nexus 7 tablet with me nearly as much. The bigger screen is great, yet it fits in some
Read more

Should you buy the Sony NEX-FS100 Kit Lens?

Image
The Sony NEX-FS100 is available in two configurations: B & H : NEX-FS100U Camcorder only $4,999 B & H : NEX-FS100U (with 18-200mm lens) $5,599 But what does that extra $600 get you? It get's you this: Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens for NEX Camera This lens is also available separately for $799.99, so at $200 off you'd think everyone would be jumping on it. But not so fast... In his article about switching from the Canon 5D Mark II to the Sony NEX-FS100 , Paul Antico  at Need Creative says of the kit lens: 7) Its 18-200 F3.6-6.3 kit lens absolutely sucks and should be avoided (thankfully, you can order it without one) [ 1 ] But is it that bad? At B & H 's site, 43 reviews give it an average of 4.6 out of 5 stars. That's not a bad rating, though many of these people are using it for stills, and the most common complaint noted is how large and heavy it is. Of course this feeling of size would be exacerbated when you put it on a tiny camera
Read more