F35: F35 vs Thompson Filmstream Viper

G

GordanWillis

Carbonite Member
I now think the best looking movies I ever saw shot digitally - Benjamin Button and Zodiac well a lot of them were on the Thompson Viper -
here's a spec sheet - http://www.cinematography.net/Files/viper_brochure.pdf

I wonder if the f35 is in some ways similar with 12 bit uncompressed out to dpx like on the odyssey 7q - or at least pretty similar? Of course the 2/3 in chip isn't as nice as super 35mm frame on F35

Curious how they compare. SO I looked for films not shot by Savides or Claudio Miranda.

They look so beautiful - the color - also seems like going to cineon and then film out - let me know what y'all think of it. But without them - man - well, glad our lord MacGregor got us into the F35. Thank you

Also to look for more common viper stuff here's some stuff -
https://vimeo.com/7141146
https://vimeo.com/89664626

https://vimeo.com/88307547
 
Last edited:
Miami Vice used the Viper for the night scenes and I always thought it looked just like 'gained-up' video. Camera and sensor tech has come along way in the last decade.
 
And in some ways sensor tech hasn't - switching from CCD to CMOS - affects how color is seen by the sensor - debayering and the actual motion of the camera and how it handles highlight roll off.

Just because things change doesn't always mean it's marching forward towards progress. There is a reason people still shoot major motion pictures on film stock when they could also just go digital.
 
You'll get no argument from me, there. Manufacturers are switching to CMOS chips in ENG cameras and if there is definitely a place to not have to worry about flash banding or skew it's in that arena. I have a C300 and an F55, but my VariCam's with their 3 CCD imaging system look GREAT. If my house was burning down and I could only save one of my cameras out of the office, it would STILL be my VariCam(2700/P2).

My point was just that I never thought the Viper looked that good. And maybe I just always saw it at its worst because I usually only really heard it being touted when they were using it for low light shooting and it looked bad. That's why I made the comment about how far the tech has come in a decade. Just look at the C300 in low-light and how clean it is. Blows the doors off of something like the Viper that was state of the art and cost as much as a house 10 years ago.

And speaking of film, they did shoot Miami Vice with a combination of film and digital(Viper and F900).
 
Google is also showing me the Sony F23 and Zeiss DigiPrimes for Bejamin Button, which is going to be my new combination here shortly.
 
I think Miranda only used the f23 and digiprimes for a few shots - but he became a user of the f23 for avatar and then f35 for tron after this - so maybe he also preferred the f23 and f35 over it all -[ also just shot tomorrowland on the f65.
 
Will, the Viper was 2/3", so wasn't Benjamin Button primarily on the DigiPrimes, regardless of the scene was shot F23/Viper?
 
I believe Benjamin Button used the F23 for the hospital scenes as the Viper was a noisy so-and-so. The Viper, from what I recall, has a mechanical shutter in it.
 
I am fascinated to hear that with today's camera options that anyone would want to go back to a 2/3" system. We "put up" with that because it was what was available at the time, but it was quickly forgotten once the 35mm sensor cameras became available (which is why there are so few F23's around). One of the last things I shot on 2/3" was a film noir feature on the F900 and Digiprimes, in 2005, and used every trick I'd learned from years of wringing some version of "film look" out of that size sensor in a progression of cameras (Beta, Digibeta etc), but a year later we did pickups on the brand new Genesis and it was like the heavens opened and sun shone in.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I am fascinated to hear that with today's camera options that anyone would want to go back to a 2/3" system. We "put up" with that because it was what was available at the time, but it was quickly forgotten once the 35mm sensor cameras became available (which is why there are so few F23's around). One of the last things I shot on 2/3" was a film noir feature on the F900 and Digiprimes, in 2005, and used every trick I'd learned from years of wringing some version of "film look" out of that size sensor in a progression of cameras (Beta, Digibeta etc), but a year later we did pickups on the brand new Genesis and it was like the heavens opened and sun shone in.
Click to expand...

I have several reasons for being excited by the prospect of the F23 with it's 2/3" format.

First off, cost: the F23 cost me $3,600 and I've locked in to buy a set of 8 digiprimes that would have cost $130k new for less than 10k today. That's Master Prime quality glass at dslr glass prices.
Second, color fidelity & greenscreen: The F23 provides a 10bit RGB 4:4:4 image composed of 6.22MP of total color information. That's 2.07MP per color channel, the same as 16:9 4k(UHD) bayer sensor for the Red and Blue channels. Due to prism, the channels are also more accurate since they are effectively stacked on top of each other. This combination alone should pull impressive green screen keys next to 4k bayer sensor cameras. But additionally, the smaller sensor with deeper depth of field is great for green screen because it makes it easier to keep everything in focus so you don't contaminate the key.

Being different: When the Genesis arrived on the market it was still genuinely expensive to shoot Super35 - digital or film. I argue that part of the appeal of shallow depth of field isn't inherent - rather, part of the appeal is that it had been expensive to achieve, and was only used by productions with money - and that made you look automatically more professional if your project was Super35 (or larger). And in the video world we used adapters to fake it. But today you can have shallow depth of field from an $800 DSLR, and Youtube is littered with short form videos shot on APSC and full frame cameras. Shallow depth of field is no longer synonymous with professionalism and large budgets. It's available to everyone, and it doesn't separate you from the crowd.

Based on the prices I was able to pay, I see the F23 as opening new possibilities for me. And it's the very fact that professional DPs on household name productions have abandoned 2/3" that made my purchase possible in the first place. So trust me, I'm grateful.
 
Those are interesting points, James. I can see the advantage for pulling keys.

As far as small chip gear separating one "from the crowd", for me I feel that one's work should represent that factor rather than equipment considerations. I'm something of a reformed gear head and these days I prefer to use the same lenses and camera for the majority of what I shoot, until the look calls for something radically different.

There is to me a certain parallel that can be drawn between 2/3" and Super35 digital cameras, and 16mm and 35mm fiilm. I shot many projects on 16mm wishing we had the budget for 35mm, there were only a few that really called for 16mm for one reason or another. You did gain a heavier grain structure in 16mm which itself was a look (comparably, noise on a digital sensor is rarely thought of as desirable, except when it is emulates to film grain!). Without those "advantages", it's hard for me to imagine anything about the look of 2/3" that represents a bona fide advantage, other than it simply being different.

Ultimately, I'm suggesting that one's own craftsmanship, experience, work ethic and personality should be the primary focus for anyone looking to stand out from the crowd--one's reel, credits, reputation and how one comes off in the interview SHOULD far trump the novelty of one's equipment package. I say should because I am well aware that low-budget producers shrewdly bundle DP's and their equipment together as a way to get something for nothing, which is terribly backward (because they may end up selecting the wrong DP just because they like their equipment, which will hurt them in the long run).
 
CharlesPapert said:
Those are interesting points, James. I can see the advantage for pulling keys.

As far as small chip gear separating one "from the crowd", for me I feel that one's work should represent that factor rather than equipment considerations. I'm something of a reformed gear head and these days I prefer to use the same lenses and camera for the majority of what I shoot, until the look calls for something radically different.

There is to me a certain parallel that can be drawn between 2/3" and Super35 digital cameras, and 16mm and 35mm fiilm. I shot many projects on 16mm wishing we had the budget for 35mm, there were only a few that really called for 16mm for one reason or another. You did gain a heavier grain structure in 16mm which itself was a look (comparably, noise on a digital sensor is rarely thought of as desirable, except when it is emulates to film grain!). Without those "advantages", it's hard for me to imagine anything about the look of 2/3" that represents a bona fide advantage, other than it simply being different.

Ultimately, I'm suggesting that one's own craftsmanship, experience, work ethic and personality should be the primary focus for anyone looking to stand out from the crowd--one's reel, credits, reputation and how one comes off in the interview SHOULD far trump the novelty of one's equipment package. I say should because I am well aware that low-budget producers shrewdly bundle DP's and their equipment together as a way to get something for nothing, which is terribly backward (because they may end up selecting the wrong DP just because they like their equipment, which will hurt them in the long run).
Click to expand...

I agree that it's how we do our work that is crucial to separating ourselves from the crowd. Gear is just a tool. I already owned an F35 and Arri Ultra Primes. I'm just expanding my toolbox. But we also don't work in a vacuum, and often our past work defines which opportunities for future work we are given. Being able to master different tools and looks and finding ways to make your work standout from that of your competition is important.

Shallow depth of field can look gorgeous. But we also value it because it makes it easier to force the audience to pay attention exactly where we choose. They don't really have an option - the rest of the frame is a blurry (beautiful) mess. But with deep depth of field you have to work more carefully - between direction, lighting, and composition, to achieve the same end - pushing the audience attention where you choose in the frame. I see this as challenge and a skill worth improving on.

And again - price was a consideration. Given that I already own the F35, the F23 shares a number of accessories and even provides spare parts if worst comes to worst. I've also got the pair of F23s scheduled for use in a multi-cam music showcase, where they'll shine with servo zooms in a less cinematic setting.

I definitely don't mean to indicate that I will move all my shooting to 2/3". Between the F35, FS7 and A7S, I own multiple large sensor cameras, and will also happily work with rented Reds and Alexas when they fit the project.

As for indie producers doing DP/gear bundles... I know that game, and I've used it to my advantage in the past. Moving forward, since I acquired the F23 and DigiPrimes for so cheap, they'll be offered in that sort of bundle, with the UltraPrimes held back for clients who can pay rate.

And... the long shot gamble that may or may not pay off: 4k 2/3" cameras are coming. They may not ever become popular for cinema, but they will be demanding of very high quality glass, and are likely to find appreciation for greenscreen work at a minimum. Given this, the DigiPrime lenses may go back up in value in the coming years. If so, the lens investment may pay off in rentals or resale, regardless of the F23".

And I would just say... I don't mind being different. I don't always want to fit in.
 
We did some tests back when these cameras came out and pulling green screens from F23/Viper footage was an eye opener.
 
Harry Lime said:
We did some tests back when these cameras came out and pulling green screens from F23/Viper footage was an eye opener.
Click to expand...

Harry - from reading your posts over the years it seems you're in the know when it comes to high end effects compositing. Have you seen a better camera than the F23 for pulling keys? Which cameras, if any, are better, and why?
 
One would have thought only something like the F65 *might* be better for pulling keys than the F23, but the 23 is probably as good as HD ever got.
 
JMtheDP said:
One would have thought only something like the F65 *might* be better for pulling keys than the F23, but the 23 is probably as good as HD ever got.
Click to expand...

With the F65's 8k, I wouldn't be surprised if it out performs the F23. But I'd love to do a side-by-side and see what actually happens. And the depth of field issue favors the F23 where pixel count doesn't.

But in fairness - after looking at the Viper brochure and how it's sensors work, the Viper may very well best the F23, and perhaps even the F65 for this application. It has even more photosites than the F23, and filmstream output makes them all available for post.
 
The Viper's real weakness was it was technically very slow if you properly filtered it. Ie. to correct the green cast to the image you wound up knocking the camera to something like 160 ASA, if memory serves.

That and it only spat out uncompressed HD, but that isn't an issue nowadays.
 
Viddovation said:
Harry - from reading your posts over the years it seems you're in the know when it comes to high end effects compositing. Have you seen a better camera than the F23 for pulling keys? Which cameras, if any, are better, and why?
Click to expand...

I've been in high end visual effects since the very early 90's with my expertise being compositing. I've used Nuke since the alpha version at DD and a long time ago I also was a Flame jockey. I've acted as VFX, comps sup, built many pipelines (but I'm not a full techie) bla bla bla.... :-) Oh, and I'm a camera dork and photographer.

The Viper GS/BS test we did for a certain director was as eye opener. Simply the purity of the color from the 3 CCD camera was visible from the moment we pulled it up in the Nuke viewfinder. The next thing that struck you was the almost total lack of grain. And it was different grain than film, which looked 'messy' in comparison. It was a medium shot of a girl with lots of blonde hair. I remember us taking one color sample in Ultimate (Nuke) and it just went bink! and there was a key with all of this fine hair detail that would have taken tons of work with a filmscan. Keying with that much color latitude and almost no grain really blew our minds. The Viper footage had a serious green cast to it.

But 3-CCD cameras are a thing of the past.

Uncompressed is always easier. RAW is best.

Color latitude and lack of compression trumps resolution any day.

Compression is your enemy. It results in edge artifacts and banding when you key and suppress spill.


ArriRAW is probably my favorite. Uncompressed and the roll off in the highlights makes it easier to key bright areas. The keyers seem to like LogC, because it's so close to Cineon. The Alexa is a little noisier than the Sony's

I didn't work on Oblivion, but got to play with the F65 footage. I was really impressed. Huge latitude and we couldn't find a clipped highlight even in the explosions.

F5/F55 RAW is great. The roll in the highlights is not as smooth as the Alexa, but Sony color is very accurate and stable from black to white.

F3 uncompressed slog 10bit RGB 444 works great.

XDCAM was a PIA. We recently had to key a show that was shot on an F5 in XDCAM and it was a nightmare. Not sure what the compression ratio was, but we could literally see the block pattern.

Black Magic cameras in RAW works just fine. I think the worst I could say is that the GS we got from a BMCC was REALLY grainy. It almost felt like working on a film scan and I'm not talking about VISION3. But it was uncompressed RAW.

RED is mixed bag, because it's always compressed (cineform) and you can feel the compression, when you are manipulating the footage. I've mostly worked with RED ONE, MX and Epic. No Dragon. You see these little black dots and there is noticeably less latitude. Gradations tend to band and breakup a lot quicker. Fine detail like hair etc tends to get lumpy and block up. The highlights are harsh and can be difficult to key smoothly, if contrast is high. RED is probably my least favorite. You also need to filter some models to properly shoot GS or BS. It seems like something of a black art.

Prores 444 is a mixed bag of goods. You can only get a key to look so good. Lots of edge artifacts and you end up eroding and blurring edges etc.
Haven't tried Prores444 XQ yet.

Canon 5D was the worst for keying. Nice camera, but it's not for keying.
 
thanks for this Harry
I think the Alexa CGI heavy films look quite amazing like mad max and Gravity.
But I still aethetically fall back towards film and living with grain to add to realism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top