F35 vs BM 4K vs GH4: resolution is not everything
- Thread starter macgregor
- Start date
Viddovation
Veteran
All this talk of RAW gets a bit silly. Also, given that the F35 does output RGB 444 at 10bit and 12bit uncompressed from an RGB stripe sensor, it's almost the same as RAW, in so much as that every single Red, Green, and Blue value can be mapped back to a set of two photosites on the sensor. This is real information that could be used mathematically for further interpolation, in a way that 444 from the bayer sensor Sony F3 cannot.
So no - the F35 doesn't output RAW, technically. But what it is capable of outputting is arguably just as good as RAW. Just different technology and process.
So no - the F35 doesn't output RAW, technically. But what it is capable of outputting is arguably just as good as RAW. Just different technology and process.
macgregor
Veteran
It all depends on the point of view. You could say the F35 is an basically a 6K RAW camera, that outputs 1080p 12bit 444 footage...
JMtheDP
Veteran
I think it is just easier if we leave the accepted definition of RAW as it is generally accepted - unprocessed (more or less) footage directly from the sensor, no processing applied/baked-in.
What doesn't help is when you are saying the words (rather than writing them) you can't see the difference between "raw" and RAW.
Viddovation, yes, technically it is almost like raw. But in the same way that a fuel injector is almost like a carburettor (different thing doing the same job) I feel keeping different names helps. Sony don't call it a raw camera. I don't. It's confusing enough as it is....
What doesn't help is when you are saying the words (rather than writing them) you can't see the difference between "raw" and RAW.
Viddovation, yes, technically it is almost like raw. But in the same way that a fuel injector is almost like a carburettor (different thing doing the same job) I feel keeping different names helps. Sony don't call it a raw camera. I don't. It's confusing enough as it is....
Viddovation
Veteran
I get where you're coming from. The downside of separate names and not making comparisons is the market is flooded with more cameras that technically produce "RAW" and that's the key word producers look for, regardless of whether there's an equivilent with a different name.
So, if you don't make these comparisons and explanations, you can get boned on the marketing side of the business.
So, if you don't make these comparisons and explanations, you can get boned on the marketing side of the business.
A raw camera records an unencoded image file. The file contains luminance data values only with meta data tags that tell processing software how to produce an encoded color image from the data.
It isn't video until it is encoded as such in either an RGB or YUV format. Not even viewable as a color image until that takes place.
It isn't video until it is encoded as such in either an RGB or YUV format. Not even viewable as a color image until that takes place.
Viddovation
Veteran
If you want to get super picky, all digital image data is stored as ones and zeros, and isn't viewable until processed by software and hardware into a visual image.
And the meta data doesn't tell the processing software "how" to produce an encoded color image - it's there to indicate how the shooter intended the image to be processed, based on the settings that were active in the camera at the time. The metadata is merely a "suggestion" or starting point. And that's always been the appeal of RAW - you're not baked in. With very limited caveats (compression, bit depth) you're getting working directly with the original photosite values at the time of capture.
But please understand - the arugment being considered here isn't whether the F35 outputs fit the technical merits of RAW (they don't) - but whether what the F35 is capable of outputting can be considered just as good as RAW - ie, does RAW (pick your camera) actually provide any real benefits over 12bit RGB 444 from the F35? What about 10bit RGB 444 from the F35?
It's true that with the F35 you're not getting pure, unadultarated photosite values in the S-Log RGB. So that's a distinction from RAW - a curve has been applied. But given the grace of the curve, and the flexibility with which it can be adjusted in post (particularly with 10bit and 12bit RGB 444) is RAW really *better*?
That's the question.
JMtheDP
Veteran
I would say RAW is only really useful if you happened to have a total muppet of a DoP who forgot to set the white balance correctly. Even that is usually recoverable in LOG.
At the low budget end of thing - and let's be honest here, that is what we're all pretty much using our F35s with - I have had many, many more issues with people doing a bit processing job of RAW.
Part of the appeal of the F35 for me was that I *know* what footage is being delivered. I think this was a massive part of the ALEXA's appeal when it came out - it wasn't the RAW side, it was the shoot to ProRes element that sold it for many.
At the low budget end of thing - and let's be honest here, that is what we're all pretty much using our F35s with - I have had many, many more issues with people doing a bit processing job of RAW.
Part of the appeal of the F35 for me was that I *know* what footage is being delivered. I think this was a massive part of the ALEXA's appeal when it came out - it wasn't the RAW side, it was the shoot to ProRes element that sold it for many.
Right around when the BMCC started shipping I was floored by the F35 samples from macgregor. Over the past year... shooting with the BMCC, and taking a really good hard look at the F35 and all the footage that's come out of the community, I have to say, it still has the most pleasing image out of all the cinema cameras to this day. There is simply nothing that's producing an image with this kind of color depth, perfect highlight roll off combined with silky smooth motion that makes it look so much like film.
I think I'm reaching the point where I can't hold back anymore. I love what the BMCC can do, but the F35 is simply on another level entirely. I can't even pin piont what makes the image so perfect, but it's undenaible, there's something there that no other Sony camera before or after has ever had. It has a mojo that you can't even get from Alexa imo.
I wonder if it's possible to find one in good shape with a nikon plate for 8k ? At that price, I think I could manage.
I think I'm reaching the point where I can't hold back anymore. I love what the BMCC can do, but the F35 is simply on another level entirely. I can't even pin piont what makes the image so perfect, but it's undenaible, there's something there that no other Sony camera before or after has ever had. It has a mojo that you can't even get from Alexa imo.
I wonder if it's possible to find one in good shape with a nikon plate for 8k ? At that price, I think I could manage.
Last edited:
goodgoings
Well-known member
l was looking at The Crying Game today and mind you it was a from a dvd, I thought of the Sony F35 as having a similar look to the film.
Viddovation
Veteran
To the best of my knowledge, there really weren't any Sony F35 cameras modded for Nikon by original owners. Given the original pricepoint, they would have rented with PL glass almost exclusively, I would expect. I'm not even aware of any being "Panvised", as Panavision already had the Genesis.
My point being, unless someone in this community is selling their F35, I doubt you'll see one for sale with the Nikon mod - that's likely an expense you'll need to calculate on top of whatever you pay for the camera itself.
Yep, I agree. I know it's only PL mount and that everyone who has a Nikon mount is using a custom plate. So, I suppose my only option would be to buy from someone here on the forums to get it like that. UGH... it's so tempting. I hate that the F35 exists. The image is just too good. The world is flooded with REDs / BMCC's / 5D's and Gh3/4's, but none of them make an image like this camera.
SJX
Veteran
It's just my opinion but I think buying a F35 to use with still lenses totally defeats the purpose. It reminds of people who buy Fieros to convert to Lamborghini replicas. It looks like a Lambo but it is still a Chevy. I think if somebody can't afford PL then he can't afford a F35. I know some here have done it but I just don't feel it. Besides once you converted your mount to Nikon you have basically killed any resale value unless you are lucky to find somebody who is after a ghetto F35. You have to destroy the stock front plate.
It's also not cheap or easy to do. All together it's not worth it in my opinion.
Coming from a little Blackmagic camera also consider your tripod, stabilizer, jib and everything around will have to be bigger. The F35 is what, 22lbs in a small kit? The F35 also plays better with 19mm rods over the smaller 15mm. This influences matte box, follow focus and other accessories choices. These are all things I'm having to consider so just wanted to lay it down for you too.
Viddovation
Veteran
I don't completely agree with SJX on this. I will concede that converting an F35 for use with still lenses defeats the designed purpose of the camera, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid choice. Even Kubrick had film cameras butchered so that he could put unique lenses one them (see Barry Lyndon). Mind you, if the choice is for cost instead of function, it should be considered carefully due to the following:
If you're considering a purchase, I would write out a cost accounting for the purchase, and I would see the relative cost difference of your Nikon mount method, versus selling off your Nikon glass, and starting to buy older PL glass - or doubling down for the Sony PL set at around $20k.
And I do think the Nikon mount is resellable - but not for what you put into it necessarily.
SJX does make incredibly valid points about the support economy for the camera. After I bought my F35 I realized I needed a new tripod head, 19mm baseplate and rails, 19mm mattebox, 19mm follow focus. Everything got heavier and bigger with the F35, and that transition felt expensive.
Kitting my F35 wasn't cheap - but the upside is, once you're kitted for the F35, it all transfers seamlessly to other highend cameras like the Alexa. And dollar for dollar, your lenses, mattebox, follow focus, and tripod head will all hold their value better than any camera or piece of kit with a circuit board.
- You'll have to permanently modify the front plate.
- Unless you find a second front plate, you're then stuck.
- You're likely to pay a fee on top of camera cost to get the mod done
If you're considering a purchase, I would write out a cost accounting for the purchase, and I would see the relative cost difference of your Nikon mount method, versus selling off your Nikon glass, and starting to buy older PL glass - or doubling down for the Sony PL set at around $20k.
And I do think the Nikon mount is resellable - but not for what you put into it necessarily.
SJX does make incredibly valid points about the support economy for the camera. After I bought my F35 I realized I needed a new tripod head, 19mm baseplate and rails, 19mm mattebox, 19mm follow focus. Everything got heavier and bigger with the F35, and that transition felt expensive.
Kitting my F35 wasn't cheap - but the upside is, once you're kitted for the F35, it all transfers seamlessly to other highend cameras like the Alexa. And dollar for dollar, your lenses, mattebox, follow focus, and tripod head will all hold their value better than any camera or piece of kit with a circuit board.
macgregor
Veteran
I agree with SJX. The F35 is a high end digital camera. If you can only barely afford it and all you can put on it is nikon glass (not that nikon glass is bad at all), I don't recommend jumping on that train. Bateries, tripods and support, baseplates, filters... this is not DSLR price level. We're talking high end level here. Get some cheap PL mount lenses at least.
SJX
Veteran
You going to bring Kubrick up? Don't bring up the name of the master in vain.:laugh:
He was Kubrick, he could do whatever he wanted. :happy:
But he didn't butcher his only sole personal camera that he could barely afford or butchered it because he couldn't afford PL.
I'm pretty sure all or most here would do because of cost.
SJX
Veteran
Oh the batteries! I remember when I tried to save some and went with the cheap chinese v-mount batteries and charger. One died mid shot. I ended up having to pay a lot of money for IDX ones and learned the lesson.
Viddovation
Veteran
I think practically speaking, you and macgregor are right. I certainly acknowledge the ancillary costs of moving to this grade of camera. And people do need to understand that they can't just swap out their DSLR body for the F35 at think they're kitted.
But I do think it's valid to allow for people who knowingly mod the camera for function.
The amazing thing for me about the F35 was I was able to get into an Alexa grade digital cinema camera essentially just for the cost of the support equipment - I'd say my kit is over $100k in cost, and less than $15k of that is actually the camera and recorder. It's all lenses and and support gear that's mostly Arri.