F23: Just Got A New Camera - Sony F23

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4d9wiLfBE4

A quick test clip with the F23 and ENG Fujinon lens. Almost impossible to judge after youtube compression. The grain is turned into blocks.

I am trying to setup a real test shoot with my F23. I need to borrow cinema 2/3 glass.

I think F23 is a tad noisier than F35 at equal iso.
 
Was the shutter turned off in the video Yachacha?

Whats everyone's thoughts on the new sony HDC-4300?
The footage didn't inpress me much from that camera.


It would be great if 4k 2/3 starts making a big come back. Slowly but surely.
 
For better or worse it's true that the era of the 150K+ or even 100K camera is behind us.

In a way it's unfortunate. Because it has become a race to the bottom.

In a perfect world we would have all these affordable cameras that deliver 80% of the package and still have the top end cameras that can deliver the 110%. Because they could afford to spend the money on the R&D, design and construction and carry a price tag to match.

But the reality is pointing in a different direction, again unfortunately.

As much as there is this notion that it's possible to have a camera on the level of the Alexa or F35 for $5000 because technology gets cheaper, it' just not true. Not entirely.

What gets cheaper is all that concerns and spins around electronics and software. But that's not all a camera is. Even if we could have a camera that would give indistinguishable quality from IMAX, all neatly tucked in to a button sized body, who would want that as a main camera?

It doesn't matter if all that is inside an Alexa could be sold for $2000. The R&D and manufacturing costs of all the non-electronics and non-software parts would still carry a premium.

But that is still a fair distance in the future. For the moment what we have is cut corners.

The cameras have the numbers and specifications accounted for. But not necessarily the image. For anybody paying attention it's not difficult to see through it. It's not hard to notice that despite numbers, somethings are just not there.

Case in point, cameras are starting to ship with higher dynamic range numbers. Numbers that even for film would sound daunting are now becoming common ground. As these start hitting the market though, another side is also becoming clear. The numbers are turning out to be the easier and unavoidable part. A graceful and well behaved control of the highlights on the other hand is still eluding all but the cameras that occupy that high price niche most would love to disappear. Not a coincidence. The higher the price the less corners need to be cut.

Same can be said about color. As more and more cameras offer raw and add useless 444 recording options, skin rendition is still the weakness.

If better results have been achieved with higher priced cameras it's obvious where the problem really is, for the moment.

But even in the future when electronics capable of Alexa 65 level of quality cost $5000, a well designed, developed and made theatrical production camera will still be a niche product. It will still be expensive to make anything which is not driven by software if any level of precision and robustness is to be expected. The cameras will still have to carry a premium if they are to be fully finished products at released, if they are to be made without cutting corners and made with quality in mind over large scale sales.

Will the current race to the bottom allow cameras to be made this way? Or will manufacturers have to compromise more and more making what is crap today become the holy standard of tomorrow because people will just get used to it or will be willing to accept it as long as they can save a buck?
 
It is simply a far more stable and sustainable business model to be the maker of basic but reliable Hondas then it is to make Bugattis. Will a Honda ever be a Bugatti? No way. But it is increasingly difficult for our industry to support the Bugatti model.
 
I'm quite okay with this development. At a certain level of quality (which has basically been reached already anyway), there just isn't a need for much higher performance/image quality.

At the end of the day, it frees up more of the limited budgets we have these days for lighting and lenses - and beyond the point of diminishing returns with sensors, those two things matter more anyway IMO.
 
Mitch Gross said:
It is simply a far more stable and sustainable business model to be the maker of basic but reliable Hondas then it is to make Bugattis. Will a Honda ever be a Bugatti? No way. But it is increasingly difficult for our industry to support the Bugatti model.
Click to expand...


Naturally. But it's still unfortunate that things have to be this way.

Even if I can't afford a Bugatti, it's nice to know as an auto enthusiast that there are cars out there which aspire to be more than just a means of transportation. On that same note, just because we have cameras that get the job done it doesn't mean there is no place for cameras that go the extra mile going beyond just a technically sound image.

Regarding the car analogy though, I don't think Honda is the right fit here. A Honda, despite not having the flair and pedigree of a Bugatti is still a great automobile. Very well made, dependable and well engineered.

But what we are getting in this new climate of companies competing at flee market levels of commerce do not qualify to be compared to a Honda product. Honda makes a sound product any way you look at it.

I know I'm nitpicking and you didn't mean anything bad when you mentioned Honda in your analogy. But I thought it would make a good counter point.
 
Grug said:
I'm quite okay with this development. At a certain level of quality (which has basically been reached already anyway), there just isn't a need for much higher performance/image quality.

At the end of the day, it frees up more of the limited budgets we have these days for lighting and lenses - and beyond the point of diminishing returns with sensors, those two things matter more anyway IMO.
Click to expand...



We are in full agreement that we have reached a point where image quality is “good enough”.

But to me this was reached when Panavision and Sony launched the Genesis. From that moment on everything is just gravy. Anything before that point just doesn't hold up well. Things shot on the old F900 and specially the Varicam look truly dated these days. Even the Viper which was ahead of it's time shows it's wrinkles if you look slightly closer.

But the Genesis still looks great. One can always nitpick. But that was the point where I told myself, we are there.

The problem is, cameras being released today still don't reach that standard set by the Genesis way back in 2004.

So while I agree with you that “there just isn't a need for much higher performance/image quality “ if compared to the Genesis, there are only four cameras today that could be said to have improved anything over the Genesis. And those are not the cameras being discussed. The cameras I was making a point about are all the others which are still bellow the Genesis even if they were released over a decade later. Certainly, those cameras cost a fraction of the Genesis but this is the whole point. If they are still not up to the standard of the decade old Genesis, this is a counter point to the concept of "technology is cheap enough today to get us $150K camera performance for $10K".

It still takes money to get ultimate quality in 2015 and it will for a while.

As for point of diminishing returns, this can be subjective. But to me, great skin rendition and graceful highlight roll off are not what I would call “diminishing returns”, specially in a theatrical camera or high end TV serial production. To me this is a basic need. Getting rid of distorting rolling shutter effects that free your camera to do more is also not something I call “diminishing returns”. Having a camera that allows me to get what I want without having to jump through all sorts of hoops is definitely not “diminishing returns”.

To each his own. But at the moment the cameras that get you these much needed “diminishing returns” qualities are only the top priced ones. To me, personally, I would round them out to three, if you don't count the Genesis.

And image quality is far from the only thing that matters in a professional production camera. But this other side is not likely to get as cheap as the electronics side of things, as I mentioned earlier.
 
F23 and The Big Bang Theory

F23 and The Big Bang Theory

Cameraman Steven V. Silver, shot the first 6 seasons of The Big Bang Theory using the F23. And just look how that show has suffered from being held back by old technology. He gave up the latest and greatest technology in favor of beautiful skin tones, increased depth of field (a benefit of a smaller sensor when shooting a 3 camera comedy) and not to mention all the time and money he saved Chuck Lorre in post!

Will all the hilarious 4K comedies streaming on Netflix, no one will ever again bother to watch any of those out-dated Big Bang Theory episodes. What a shame...

Bazinga!
 
Mitch Gross said:
I can tell you that the days of the $150K top tier production camera are pretty much done, never to return.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I imagine Arri is going to move 50-100 SXTs this year, yeah? Those are $125K with the necessary AKS.

I think SONY is done in that market, yes. Talk about strategic missteps.
 
Nate Weaver said:
I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I imagine Arri is going to move 50-100 SXTs this year, yeah? Those are $125K with the necessary AKS.

I think SONY is done in that market, yes. Talk about strategic missteps.
Click to expand...
50-100 cameras is fine for ARRI operating in that stratosphere, but besides those cameras and some Phantoms, there is little to no market for such things anymore. It's a drop in the bucket compared to F55, C300 and other such cameras.
 
For those who may be curious about the F23, I'd like to share a music video I directed on it. I'd ask though, that in this instance criticism be reserved and negative judgements against the camera not be made on the basis of this footage. The reason being several fold: the DP was a friend of mine, using the camera for the very first time, and unfortunately, it was one of the very last projects he worked on before he passed unexpectedly. Furthermore, there were some technical issues with certain shots which it wouldn't be fair to pixel peep. I'll be happy to accept criticism of my work as a DP on other posts - I'm still alive to take the hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msovMTNZVdo
 
my girlfriend was sitting next to me when I started playing this music video and watched it to the end so she could see the story unfold, so if anything, good story telling.

Was this on digiprimes? SLOG? What is your coloring process?

I would totally believe if this video was FS7 or URSA 4k, granted I don't have a 4k screen to judge from. I like the rolloff of the F23 better than modern cameras also. The F23 is definitely still capable against "4k" cameras. I am sure on the indie filmmaker front, 2/3 is long gone, but in TV, especially anything live, 2/3 inch lenses are still the standard. I work on a few shows that have switched to F55 and then adapt the 2/3 lenses with the Sony or Abel b4 adapter. I find it amusing that this is the chosen combo because after the 2.5 stops of light loss, it really is hard to use indoors and I always feel like its softer on the edges from the extra glass. I think the F23 with 7Q is a much better contender for any 2/3 lens application simply because todays modern 4k cameras are S35 or bigger, but many productions still demand super long, wide, stabilized zoom lenses and these lenses really only exist in 2/3 format.

The Panasonic 4k varicam will come in a native 2/3 mount. I doubt we will see many films or dramatic TV on this particular camera. But I also bet they make far more 2/3 models if it catches on as the live production camera, which it will if sony doesn't answer with a 2/3 native 4k camera.
 
yachacha said:
my girlfriend was sitting next to me when I started playing this music video and watched it to the end so she could see the story unfold, so if anything, good story telling.

Was this on digiprimes? SLOG? What is your coloring process?

I would totally believe if this video was FS7 or URSA 4k, granted I don't have a 4k screen to judge from. I like the rolloff of the F23 better than modern cameras also. The F23 is definitely still capable against "4k" cameras. I am sure on the indie filmmaker front, 2/3 is long gone, but in TV, especially anything live, 2/3 inch lenses are still the standard. I work on a few shows that have switched to F55 and then adapt the 2/3 lenses with the Sony or Abel b4 adapter. I find it amusing that this is the chosen combo because after the 2.5 stops of light loss, it really is hard to use indoors and I always feel like its softer on the edges from the extra glass. I think the F23 with 7Q is a much better contender for any 2/3 lens application simply because todays modern 4k cameras are S35 or bigger, but many productions still demand super long, wide, stabilized zoom lenses and these lenses really only exist in 2/3 format.

The Panasonic 4k varicam will come in a native 2/3 mount. I doubt we will see many films or dramatic TV on this particular camera. But I also bet they make far more 2/3 models if it catches on as the live production camera, which it will if sony doesn't answer with a 2/3 native 4k camera.
Click to expand...

I wrote the treatment and directed, so thank you for the compliment!

Yes - Sony F23, Digiprimes, O7Q. 422 Prores.
 
Very clean James, good work with your buddy. May he rest in peace.

What f stops were you guys shooting at?
 
jo kami said:
Very clean James, good work with your buddy. May he rest in peace.

What f stops were you guys shooting at?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I wasn't paying attention to the T-Stops much that day. And I'd ask, but...

I think we frequently tried to ND as needed and stay fairly open. But for her singing to camera we may have have been stopped down a couple - we commented back and forth about checking focus - she would sway closer and farther from camera, and the slider move also changed her distance - and we noted that the 2/3" sensor format made it far easily to stay focused in that environment. Which, in turn meant less takes and less time on that setup.
 
jo kami said:
The F23 handled the LED's really well.
What zoom lens did you use for the live performance section?
Click to expand...

I believe the Fujinon HA14x4.5 Long Zoom Lens for the jib.

F23 handled the stage LEDs wonderfully. Was super obvious when the concert cut to the FS7 as third camera handheld!
 
Hah! That's good to know. F23 is very underrated these days.

Another question: does the f23 need dual link or quad link for 60p 444?
Bummer that the newest firmware for the o7q won't allow for dual link high frame rate recording. Hopefully the new firmware help somehow...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top