I dont understand the fuss over these. Not once did I see a comparable frame to Alexa/F35. I saw their other demo at NAB and it had the same video feel. DR increase or not, the F35 still outshines by far. This would be a good wildlife or landscape cam though. https://vimeo.com/135603642
F35: C300 II, nothing like F35
- Thread starter VinceinLA
- Start date
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
I'd wait for a side by side with a known camera for reference.
For the longest time I didn't think there would be a successor to the F35, but the F65 frame grabs JM has shared has really swayed me that the F65 is not a shiny clean image like it's 4k brothers. I am convinced that the only 4k capable camera that will satisfy a F35 diehard is the F65. There is the very rare digital 35mm Aatons, but I feel they will remain in the hands of people who know what they are really worth for a long time. Ikonoskops have never dropped in value because those who buy them seem to hold onto them for a long time. I would love an Ikonoskop 16mm package as something small that could go into a backpack and travel, but they are way to expensive.
Nothing really to do with the C300 but I must say if you understand the powers of the F35 there is not really a comparison. I'm sure the C300M2 can do things the F35 can't, however F35 has some traits with motion and grain that we have yet to see any modern mass produced camera resemble.
Nothing really to do with the C300 but I must say if you understand the powers of the F35 there is not really a comparison. I'm sure the C300M2 can do things the F35 can't, however F35 has some traits with motion and grain that we have yet to see any modern mass produced camera resemble.
There's some truth to this, but some of it boils down to what the F35 is BAD at. Bad in low light. Not much shadow detail. Some boils down to what it's good at: no skew and an organic look.
In a side-by-side comparison with the same lighting and a good grade, I'm not sure the difference would be that visible. I suspect the F35 would struggle with the shadows in the demo piece and perform much worse technically. Remember, this is natural light with extreme contrast. It looks great from a technical perspective (teal skies and slightly oversaturated highlights aside, both easy fixes). But while the image looks good to me, it isn't as good as the $100 million+ features shot on the F35. Not close.
But it's largely the same reason HDR landscapes look like s*%t and 4x5 landscapes look great despite HDR providing 16+ stops of information and Velvia providing 4-5 at best. If you HAVE to light it well, it's going to look better when you do.
Sometimes I suspect this is why the Dragon and MX are so much slower than advertised. It forces you to light or churn out garbage. Dragon shines at 400ISO, not 2000 ISO as advertised. F35 seems to lose steam after 500 ISO. The best color negative film can maybe survive at 1000ISO, but it looks a lot darker to me than video at 1000ISO in the shadows, way more muddy, way smoother in the highlights though. Even the Alexa sort of peters out after 3200, whereas the C300 and A7S are better under worse light, though worse with mixed light clipping which low light seems to bring out even more...
Isn't the term "painting with light?" Not "painting with power windows?"
JMtheDP
Veteran
I shot some F65 material today that was knowingly a stop underexposed. I am interested to see how that turns out.
I am sure the C300 II will be an excellent camera, but I doubt anyone at ARRI is really worried about it. For my money, it is still the wrong shape.
Thanks Yachacha for your compliments
The cheque (check) is in the post.
I am sure the C300 II will be an excellent camera, but I doubt anyone at ARRI is really worried about it. For my money, it is still the wrong shape.
Thanks Yachacha for your compliments
The cheque (check) is in the post.I sat in a carefully set up 4K theater and was never once moved or impressed by the footage. I dont need to see a side by side; the feeling just wasn't there. This new footage is even more video-ish. I think I'm done considering it.
Policar nailed it. What the F35 is "bad" at, is a big factor. The CCD color/motion just isn't being equaled yet. I'm also getting tired of all the new cameras seeing way too much light. I've had, and seen in big movies, issues with green grass casting green light on faces that film would not have had the problem with. I assume the F35 in those circumstances would be similar.
Like movies in general, cameras may just get worse from here on out. Maybe 2010 was the peak of the golden age of cameras when you had a bunch of film cameras operating, along side F35's, early Alexas/reds and so on, and they were trying hard to look like film. Now it's just overly clean images, shooting at night with s*%t color in the day and, eventually, too much DR... and none of it is managing to MOVE me like these ancient boxes can.
Last edited:
C300 MK II is an intermediate step from one manufacturer. Since this is a Sony forum, I suspect the updated F-5/55/65 series will be taking another step in performance that will bring the top of the line a lot closer to Alexa 65 (and for a lot less to boot).
C300 MKII will compete against FS-7 on its low end and F-5/55 on its high. C500 MKII will probably be priced in line with F-55 or its replacement.
C300 MKII will compete against FS-7 on its low end and F-5/55 on its high. C500 MKII will probably be priced in line with F-55 or its replacement.
It is remarkably hard, without going to a rental house and shooting tests, to get a sense of what the image looks like coming out of the F65. All the big feature films shot using the F65 have been highly manipulated and de-noised. Before Mac, it was really hard to get a sense of the F35 footage because it was the same case of only big features and commericals. I need the shaky running around camera tests to give us a true sense of the camera, I like to see where the image fails and where it succeeds. The F35 fails when it isn't given enough light, almost every other camera fails during fast motion, the F35 does not. I did not learn this from watching F35 feature films, instead the real sense of the camera came to me when I saw other dvxusers taking theirs outside and playing with them with Nikon lenses.
I'm not advocating for crappy camera tests, but every clip that is shared contributes in helping us sense the abilities of this camera. Keith Lango shot a quick take outside his car in a snowy landscape, it's somewhere on the vimeo page. That shot alone convinced me that the F35 was capable of doing what I had only seen film cameras doing before.
JM you have access to the equipment and more importantly the knowledge to use them so I hope you continue to share the F65 with us.
I am trying to put something together over the next few weeks with the F23, I don't own any B4 cinema glass but I am finding it is remarkably easy to get a deal for a rental on a nice set.
I'm not advocating for crappy camera tests, but every clip that is shared contributes in helping us sense the abilities of this camera. Keith Lango shot a quick take outside his car in a snowy landscape, it's somewhere on the vimeo page. That shot alone convinced me that the F35 was capable of doing what I had only seen film cameras doing before.
JM you have access to the equipment and more importantly the knowledge to use them so I hope you continue to share the F65 with us.
I am trying to put something together over the next few weeks with the F23, I don't own any B4 cinema glass but I am finding it is remarkably easy to get a deal for a rental on a nice set.
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
This is my first time seeing that Australian C300II video. If I'm being transparent, I didn't finish watching it. It's always hard to tell on Vimeo or streaming codecs, but I thought there was some good shots in there. I just thought the concept was a bit trite (not that I am not guilty of worst). C300II isn't being marketed as competing with Alexa or F65. A comparison between the F35 also isn't fair, unless speaking of low-light or DPAF and such.
And while I have seen terrible things shot with C300, F35, F65, Alexa (some of which I shot myself), I have also seen some really incredible things shot with all of the above...well, not so much the new C300II yet, but that's because I haven't been looking, really. I'm sure folks will do great things with it.
I like to always remember that "a camera" is not "an image". A camera is only one part of a series of workflow that ends up entering people's eyes, somehow. What we really want to be good is the "image". That is what people see. This feels so obvious now that I say it out loud. Sorry, yinz!
A C300 shooting a scene that gives its dynamic range a decent amount of exposure latitude, with a 10bit codec or higher, will be very gradable. Raw, even more! Does it do raw? And if you light it a bit softer with wider sources (lighting for digital a bit softer than for film), then you have a good place to start. Throw some interesting glass on that C300, and if you can get away with it, even some pro mist filters, you minimize most of its digital characteristics. All you have left is the digital motion cadence of electronic shutter, and the grid array of photosites...which I agree is crap, but honestly, it isn't always a deal-breaker for me. Give those images a good timing, I would say chances are you got yourself a beautiful image!
In fact, this may benefit all the fore-mentioned cameras. The only thing about this softening approach to image creation is that one can only soften a thinner image (8-bit/10bit) so much before it turns to mush. At that point, you will wish for your sharp, digital-looking image back...hehe.
Disclaimer: this is just one technique for getting a type of image that I think can look good. It is only one technique out of many, and not all stories and moods benefit from this style. Using this technique in a way that doesn't serve your story or concept or idea, may yield negative results.
And while I have seen terrible things shot with C300, F35, F65, Alexa (some of which I shot myself), I have also seen some really incredible things shot with all of the above...well, not so much the new C300II yet, but that's because I haven't been looking, really. I'm sure folks will do great things with it.
I like to always remember that "a camera" is not "an image". A camera is only one part of a series of workflow that ends up entering people's eyes, somehow. What we really want to be good is the "image". That is what people see. This feels so obvious now that I say it out loud. Sorry, yinz!
A C300 shooting a scene that gives its dynamic range a decent amount of exposure latitude, with a 10bit codec or higher, will be very gradable. Raw, even more! Does it do raw? And if you light it a bit softer with wider sources (lighting for digital a bit softer than for film), then you have a good place to start. Throw some interesting glass on that C300, and if you can get away with it, even some pro mist filters, you minimize most of its digital characteristics. All you have left is the digital motion cadence of electronic shutter, and the grid array of photosites...which I agree is crap, but honestly, it isn't always a deal-breaker for me. Give those images a good timing, I would say chances are you got yourself a beautiful image!
In fact, this may benefit all the fore-mentioned cameras. The only thing about this softening approach to image creation is that one can only soften a thinner image (8-bit/10bit) so much before it turns to mush. At that point, you will wish for your sharp, digital-looking image back...hehe.
Disclaimer: this is just one technique for getting a type of image that I think can look good. It is only one technique out of many, and not all stories and moods benefit from this style. Using this technique in a way that doesn't serve your story or concept or idea, may yield negative results.
Last edited:
Thanks but that's all kind of standard forum response stuff when it comes to new camera-talk. The fact remains that a camera/medium DOES have a ton to do with what any DP can get out of the final image and the Canon stuff just doesn't cut it for me when it comes to people's faces and cinematic mojo. Film, Alexa, F35/65 is all that works for me when it really counts, and I've used/owned/tested just about everything else. I'm curious about the URSA mini, if its ever released, but for now......
Viddovation
Veteran
Considering Alan Gordon has 5 sets of DigiPrimes for under 10k apiece, one would think they'd be willing to rent out a set for something pretty low indeed...