F35 DPX 444 12 bit RGB vs Red one mx RedDragonColor2

eddavid

eddavid

Carbonite Member
I have been busy today!

Here's a quick test I just did with the latest firmware - F35 into Odyssey 7Q+ 12 bit DPX 4444 RGB


make sure to download the file - still encoding to 1080p

So SHOOT OUT!
CAM A - Sony F35 recording 444 GRB 12 bit DPX files into the Oydssey 7Q+. Slog - gamma. DCI P3+ as Gamut. 180 shutter.
CAM B - Red One MX recording 4k 16x9. Red DragonColor 2 as gamut and Red Log Cine as Gamma.
Applied same lut to both! Visioncolor impulz Kodak 50.FPE with red log gamma setting to it.
Added gorilla grain.
First leg - normal color correct
2nd leg - pushing color to extreme
My Results:
1. Red One and F35 can match pretty easily - shutter on f35 was less staccato at 180 shutter - maybe at a 144 degree shutter motion can match perfectly
2. F35 can be pushed a heck lot more color wise
3. F35 has better highlight rolloff - very organic. Red one mx looks like how the panasonic hvx200 handles highlights - very video-e
4. Red One has more resolution - shot some test charts to show that
Overall F35 I think matches film a lot more because of how it handles highlights - the motion on it, maybe I need to shoot at 144 degrees to give it a little more choppiness, maybe that would help - anyway it's all personal taste at this point.
And there is super 16mm film shot by Hunter Hampton as the baseline - this is what I want my stuff to look like -I love film.
Let me know thoughts.
 
Thanks for putting that together. I'm camera agnostic (I don't own either) but what can you say, the F35 is the sh**. I was most surprised at how well the resolutions matched up, not that I personally care much about that spec., I just wish producers could understand how little it matters. Don't you just love camera marketing? The F35 color and highlight clamping are just not matched outside of Arri products. If only Sony would just put this tech into something new with a "5K" logo on the side. :(

Have you noticed much difference with the F35 shooting to 422 10bit? I really want to use one soon but it will likely be going into my "monitor" which is a Blade. Also, how would you compare the ASA of the two cams?

All that snow looks quite foreign to the 75 degree sunset here.
 
Last edited:
Nice test Ed David.

Despite the HD label, the F35 resolves more detail than many cameras which were supposed to be "sharper". I'm not talking about lines on a chart but fine detail in wide shots. The nice thing about it is that, much like scanned 35mm film it never looks artificially sharpened such as the low to mid end "4k" cameras.

Vincein, I agree with you. Market unfounded prejudice based on numbers on a paper and hearsay is totally obfuscating objectivity. Most just can't tell the difference between marketing and the truth or will choose to ignore it. Many won't see past what others are saying.

When it comes to approaching 35mm film aesthetics, apart from the Alexa the F35 is the only other option in my opinion. But as the Alexa has it's advantages over the F35 with lower noise (for those afraid of it) higher ISOs and dynamic range, the F35 also has advantages of it's own over the Alexa with better color and motion rendition. I would also give a slight edge to the F35 for highlight handling and skin rendition. To me, if I want a 35mm film aesthetic, can't shoot film and am shooting a project with mostly night externals, low-key lighting and need to fit the current market expectations for aesthetics, I shoot Alexa. If I'm shooting something largely composed of day externals under harsh sunlight I would choose the F35, if I'm in control of such decision. But as you say, producers can only see marketing.

The chances of Sony reviving the F35 way of doing things at this point is probably null, unfortunately. It's also unfortunate that Sony chose to go against everything they were preaching with the F35 when they developed the following cameras. Even with the F65, where they at least tried, they strayed. Some will say they were just responding to the market. But if you want to be a market leader, well, you lead, you don't follow. You set the standard, like ARRI is doing now.
 
Last edited:
Aaveum said:
Nice test Ed David.

Despite the HD label, the F35 resolves more detail than many cameras which were supposed to be "sharper". I'm not talking about lines on a chart but fine detail in wide shots. The nice thing about it is that, much like scanned 35mm film it never looks artificially sharpened such as the low to mid end "4k" cameras.

Vincein, I agree with you. Market unfounded prejudice based on numbers on a paper and hearsay is totally obfuscating objectivity. Most just can't tell the difference between marketing and the truth or will choose to ignore it. Many won't see past what others are saying.

When it comes to approaching 35mm film aesthetics, apart from the Alexa the F35 is the only other option in my opinion. But as the Alexa has it's advantages over the F35 with lower noise (for those afraid of it) higher ISOs and dynamic range, the F35 also has advantages of it's own over the Alexa with better color and motion rendition. I would also give a slight edge to the F35 for highlight handling and skin rendition. To me, if I want a 35mm film aesthetic, can't shoot film and am shooting a project with mostly night externals, low-key lighting and need to fit the current market expectations for aesthetics, I shoot Alexa. If I'm shooting something largely composed of day externals under harsh sunlight I would choose the F35, if I'm in control of such decision. But as you say, producers can only see marketing.

The chances of Sony reviving the F35 way of doing things at this point is probably null, unfortunately. It's also unfortunate that Sony chose to go against everything they were preaching with the F35 when they developed the following cameras. Even with the F65, where they at least tried, they strayed. Some will say they were just responding to the market. But if you want to be a market leader, well, you lead, you don't follow. You set the standard, like ARRI is doing now.
Click to expand...


The thing about the noise on the f35 - in essence I rate it as a 640 ASA camera. I rate the Alexa as a 800 ASA camera. that's not too much of a difference.
also using a noice reduction program like neat video - and you basically have a look as clean as the Alexa.

I really think the f35 lost out moreso due to it having a bulky recorder and the Alexa coming in with pro res and other nicer simplicities and a much easier menu system. And of course the f35 cost 200k, the alexa I think was $65k.

I honestly think if Sony was more dynamic of a company - they would revive the F35 sensor and put it in possibly a smaller carbon fiber camera body and have a simplier menu option - I think someone on this board tried that.

But I don't know the cost on the sensor - when the camera came out it was $200k but maybe if someone could figure out what sensor it is - and use this - that would be a powerful camera.

Ideally it would be sony. But of course, Sony is more concerned with the f55, f5, and fs7 at this point. I don't think many people at any company would be comfortable admitting that their best camera was from years ago - that their latest technology is not as nice.

That takes a lot to admit - that your best work was years ago.
I can barely admit that!

Art Adams talks about this so well in his response to Red's CEO calling him out: http://www.provideocoalition.com/when-a-camera-manufacturer-hates-me
 
Last edited:
Thanks much for the shootout Ed, have always been a fan of your cinematic eye. Can you explain what you mean by the DCI P3+ as Gamut on the F35. Is that somewhere in it's settings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top