F35: F35 vs Thompson Filmstream Viper

Film grain really was the enemy for us for greenscreen keying up until the most recent film stocks where digital had already taken over, now with digital and almost zero noise in the exposed area of the key, absolute clarity, with 12/14 bit or colour gradation and no compression of any sort (RAW), plus the extreme high resolution all contribute to pulling a perfect key (and resolution is VERY important)

While grain can be organic and add ''realism'' and filmic look in all types of shppting, having it i keying is just contamination and artefacting in the key that makes your images look worse.

A 3 chip 2/3" F23 with a razor sharp cine lens and feep DOF with that kind of colour information in the signal, it will probably be a perfect camera for getting the best of keying.

I am eager to hear more about the f23 experience. I have a 2/3" camera with a 4-35mm f2.8-5.6 cine lens and the depth of field is just screaming video-ish, TV set-com video-ish, only works for wide landscapes and extreme tele shots, in between, it's a harsh, harsh aesthetic, though I don't have any other lens options so perhaps that's the problem not the sensor size it self.
 
Last edited:
a good test would be F23 vs new Panasonic Varicam 2/3. My guess is the 2nd is going to be a whole lot cleaner.

Viddo, would you post more on your multicam setup? This is a great example of one situation where F23 is your friend over the F35.

Every TV show I have seen that has moved to F55 and F5 also uses adapter to stick with ENG lenses. For years every kind of live to tape show; talk show, game show, award show uses the 2/3 format, they have since SD video. The pluses are many for multicam- fast zoom servo lenses, easy focus, huge zoom ratio. This is where the F23 excels over the F35. I also found that you can clean up the F23 image nicely to match more modern cameras.

I have just begun to scratch the surface of the F23 but from the shoots I have used it on, it brought the cinematic feeling to the eng world, it did not feel like a video camera. I think the way it sees the highlights gives it the quality of it's F35 brother.
 
2/3" has died a very early death for a lot of people. It's crazy, everyone going nuts to upgrade from cameras with easier focusing, and genuine 1080P resolution from 6MP's worth of sensor, to stuff with bigger lenses, harder to focus, and a dubious "4K" from 6-8mp of sensor.

In my mind S35 has absolutely no place for a lot of documentary work. Using something like an F55 over a 2/3" broadcast camera is ludicrous but so many people are doing it. It's fashion of the worst kind, basically!
 
I'm getting a slow start with the F23. Should have lenses in the next couple weeks and then I'll start running tests.

I'm expecting for some simple multicam situations I can genlock the cameras to each other with a single BNC cable and record both cameras to one O7Q+ recorder, generating files with matching start and end frames for both cameras. I'm also going to evaluate whether there are situations where the F35 could be a third camera on the genlock.
 
JMtheDP said:
2/3" has died a very early death for a lot of people. It's crazy, everyone going nuts to upgrade from cameras with easier focusing, and genuine 1080P resolution from 6MP's worth of sensor, to stuff with bigger lenses, harder to focus, and a dubious "4K" from 6-8mp of sensor.

In my mind S35 has absolutely no place for a lot of documentary work. Using something like an F55 over a 2/3" broadcast camera is ludicrous but so many people are doing it. It's fashion of the worst kind, basically!
Click to expand...

I've been punched in the face by this for the last two years or so. Classic story of WRONG tool for the job. I've had to use my C300 in ENG/doc situations so many times when we should have been shooting on one of my VariCam's, that it's probably the reason that I hate(shooting with) the camera SO damn much(I love the image, just hate the camera). My 55 is worlds better because of it's design, but still, it's not for everything. Why are camera decisions rarely made by those who actually use them?
 
although I agree with you guys that the F55 and C300 as 35mm sensors are NOT the cameras for docuwork. The F55 with Sony made B4 adapter which doesn't require crop mode on the F55 is very well made and becoming popular in hollywood. Despite the backward reasoning of using a 2/3 lens to cover a 35mm sensor, it fixes all the problems of 35mm DOP and image quality is pretty damn good. One TV show I saw this combo used was Save Our Business on TNT, another is the Eric Andre show.

Now I'm not talking about the indie filmmaker bunch, but for certain work we have all pointed out 2/3" lenses are still the best option and I would argue that the 2/3 to s35mm adapter for the F55 and the one made by Abelcine to adapt to PL mount are very professional and they do make the F55 a viable 2/3 option camera. The adapter looses light through the enlargement process but the F55 can make that up with gain in low light situations. It's a sort of odd statement, but I believe the F55 is one of the most popular 2/3" cameras being used in television production in the US right now, maybe the F800 still has it's hold as workhorse. I don't think 2/3 is quite as dead as it appears although from a filmmakers view, most I chat with don't know the 2/3 format exists at all.

http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/broadcast-products-hoverlord-shoots-with-sony-hd

comparison between F23 and F35 image at bottom of the page
 
Last edited:
I think I was the one who brought the F23 up in the thread over at the other forum section a few months ago, where somebody asked for camera suggestions for green screen and everybody was suggesting 35mm cameras by default.

I fully agree larger sensors are overused today. When you see people trying to cover a live event with a Canon 5D you know things have gotten out of hand. Had to ask if he was getting paid for it.

Back to green screen, I suggested the F23 exactly because of the 2/3” sensor. Out of focus things do not key well. But there are several other factors besides the camera when we are talking green screen shooting. All of them more important than the camera choice. And within the camera subject, 2/3”, on paper should be more practical. But only on paper really. It depends what you are comparing it to.

I have shot extensively for green screen and I have built two green screen stages from scratch for my own use. So I have my share of experience in green or blue screen production and also post-production, having been working on Eyeon Fusion (now Blackmagic for better or worse) for the last few years.

Harry already covered the important needs within the camera very well and I agree resolution is at the bottom of the pile. It helps but not at the sacrifice of the other aspects.


But other things to consider for a headache free (or closest to it) green screen production, in order of importance:

Pureness of the background color
Background lighting
Separation
Foreground lighting
“Codec” choice
Camera choice

There are some details in between but these are the bulk of your worries.

What makes the 2/3” more practical is as already mentioned the deeper depth of field. Not only because the edges on the talent will be sharper and more in focus, and nothing is worse keying than out of focus things, perhaps only noise, but also if you need moving shots. It will be way easier to solve your camera move if your tracking marks are in focus. Motion blur will also affect it of course. But as it's difficult to play with the shutter for some types of production such as drama, it's better left alone.

But back to the F23, while it would be more practical than the Blackmagic cameras (which I think was what was being suggested in the other thread) or the F35 for green screen production, I wouldn't say it would be better than some of the other modern S35 cameras such as the F55 or specially Varicam 35.

You see, the F23 is a very low ISO camera. Since the F35 and the Blackmagic are also not much better, the F23 with it's deeper DOF would have an edge for green screen. But the Varicam 35 is ISO5000 and cleaner than the F23 at it's native ISO. That means you can close the lens down to achieve 2/3” level DOF and probably still be above the F23 ISO and cleaner. But in the end of the day even if not having the luxury of closing the lens to increase DOF 35mm is not the end of the world. The Spirit was shot fully on green screen with the Genesis to HDCAM tape.

The other thing to consider is that shooting green screen with an older and slower camera such as the F23 makes for very warm sound stages. Believe me, I have done it. You need a considerable amount of light and you don't want to use LEDs or Fluos for everything. Unless you are shooting in a state of the art facility this is something to consider. Talent in suits and warm costumes in such conditions make for cranky talent.

So despite being tempted to get a F23 for cheap I have always held back once I thought it through. In the end I always felt it would be just because I could. Just because I can now afford the camera I drooled over back in the days when I shot with my Canon XL.

If at all, it would be only for green screen as for drama I prefer 35mm and for documentaries, ENG or any other application where 2/3” would be more practical I would rather get a shoulder camera then. Not a hybrid cinema-ENG beast.

And this is yet another side. The F23 is more outdated than the F35 and just doesn't translate as well to modern times as the F35 does. It's not only because it's older than the F35. It's because it was always a mutant of sorts.

Cameras like the F23 and Viper were made to be cinema cameras in a time we couldn't have digital 35mm cameras. They were always part ENG and part cinema camera. A hybrid always meant to be a stepping stone, an in between point. Once we were able to get the real thing and 35mm digital became available, the F23 and Viper fell from grace.

This probably explains why Sony offered the F23 to F35 upgrade. They always knew it was meant to be a place holder till technology caught up. It's most likely also the reason the huge majority of F23 owners upgraded them to a F35, at least according to the info I have. This is why they are rare in the used market. It is basically an ENG camera designed to look and be used as a 35mm camera. So now with 35mm digital cameras the F23's use for cinema is very limited and the people who need a 2/3” camera don't need one that thinks it's a Panavision. It's basically a”marketless”camera now. Same concept applies to the Viper.

So while cool cameras and basically being given away today, a F23 or Viper just do not have a whole lot of applications where they would be useful. But who knows. Maybe someday I will get one just for nostalgic sakes.
 
Aaveum said:
I think I was the one who brought the F23 up in the thread over at the other forum section a few months ago, where somebody asked for camera suggestions for green screen and everybody was suggesting 35mm cameras by default.

I fully agree larger sensors are overused today. When you see people trying to cover a live event with a Canon 5D you know things have gotten out of hand. Had to ask if he was getting paid for it.

Back to green screen, I suggested the F23 exactly because of the 2/3” sensor. Out of focus things do not key well. But there are several other factors besides the camera when we are talking green screen shooting. All of them more important than the camera choice. And within the camera subject, 2/3”, on paper should be more practical. But only on paper really. It depends what you are comparing it to.

I have shot extensively for green screen and I have built two green screen stages from scratch for my own use. So I have my share of experience in green or blue screen production and also post-production, having been working on Eyeon Fusion (now Blackmagic for better or worse) for the last few years.

Harry already covered the important needs within the camera very well and I agree resolution is at the bottom of the pile. It helps but not at the sacrifice of the other aspects.


But other things to consider for a headache free (or closest to it) green screen production, in order of importance:

Pureness of the background color
Background lighting
Separation
Foreground lighting
“Codec” choice
Camera choice

There are some details in between but these are the bulk of your worries.

What makes the 2/3” more practical is as already mentioned the deeper depth of field. Not only because the edges on the talent will be sharper and more in focus, and nothing is worse keying than out of focus things, perhaps only noise, but also if you need moving shots. It will be way easier to solve your camera move if your tracking marks are in focus. Motion blur will also affect it of course. But as it's difficult to play with the shutter for some types of production such as drama, it's better left alone.

But back to the F23, while it would be more practical than the Blackmagic cameras (which I think was what was being suggested in the other thread) or the F35 for green screen production, I wouldn't say it would be better than some of the other modern S35 cameras such as the F55 or specially Varicam 35.

You see, the F23 is a very low ISO camera. Since the F35 and the Blackmagic are also not much better, the F23 with it's deeper DOF would have an edge for green screen. But the Varicam 35 is ISO5000 and cleaner than the F23 at it's native ISO. That means you can close the lens down to achieve 2/3” level DOF and probably still be above the F23 ISO and cleaner. But in the end of the day even if not having the luxury of closing the lens to increase DOF 35mm is not the end of the world. The Spirit was shot fully on green screen with the Genesis to HDCAM tape.

The other thing to consider is that shooting green screen with an older and slower camera such as the F23 makes for very warm sound stages. Believe me, I have done it. You need a considerable amount of light and you don't want to use LEDs or Fluos for everything. Unless you are shooting in a state of the art facility this is something to consider. Talent in suits and warm costumes in such conditions make for cranky talent.

So despite being tempted to get a F23 for cheap I have always held back once I thought it through. In the end I always felt it would be just because I could. Just because I can now afford the camera I drooled over back in the days when I shot with my Canon XL.

If at all, it would be only for green screen as for drama I prefer 35mm and for documentaries, ENG or any other application where 2/3” would be more practical I would rather get a shoulder camera then. Not a hybrid cinema-ENG beast.

And this is yet another side. The F23 is more outdated than the F35 and just doesn't translate as well to modern times as the F35 does. It's not only because it's older than the F35. It's because it was always a mutant of sorts.

Cameras like the F23 and Viper were made to be cinema cameras in a time we couldn't have digital 35mm cameras. They were always part ENG and part cinema camera. A hybrid always meant to be a stepping stone, an in between point. Once we were able to get the real thing and 35mm digital became available, the F23 and Viper fell from grace.

This probably explains why Sony offered the F23 to F35 upgrade. They always knew it was meant to be a place holder till technology caught up. It's most likely also the reason the huge majority of F23 owners upgraded them to a F35, at least according to the info I have. This is why they are rare in the used market. It is basically an ENG camera designed to look and be used as a 35mm camera. So now with 35mm digital cameras the F23's use for cinema is very limited and the people who need a 2/3” camera don't need one that thinks it's a Panavision. It's basically a”marketless”camera now. Same concept applies to the Viper.

So while cool cameras and basically being given away today, a F23 or Viper just do not have a whole lot of applications where they would be useful. But who knows. Maybe someday I will get one just for nostalgic sakes.
Click to expand...

Great perspective. My perspective... I never worked where you or Harry or some of the other big boys here worked. So, I never played withe F23 back when. For me, the price point was right. $3600 and $3100 for my F23 bodies. I'm spending more on the Digiprimes, but I think those may come back into vogue down the road. A Varicam 35 looks beautiful, but sure costs more than $3600! Mind you, I'm not trying to book the F23 on $1500 days against an Alexa. That isn't gonna fly!

Nor am I going to try and use it for huge sound stage green screen where the lighting budget would have to swell. I'm going to try it out, and if all else fails it can be sold to the next collector, converted to an F35, or be raw parts.

The world isn't going back to CCD technology. The F23 and F35 and pinnacle points of that line, and their relative rarity means they're far more likely to hold some sort of museum or collector value 30 or 50 years from now than the other cameras made in far greater numbers.
 
Yes a full fledged F23 setup might be impractical but already owning F35, I have parts needed to make system work. I was saving for an A7S rig, the F23 cost the same to me. I am using F23 on television project next week, main advantage is we need stabilized 42x lens on the camera. A7S was small and could see at night, i might get one as they drop more in value. The F23 could use ENG lens and outputs nice 444 12-bit to my 7Q, both have uses in a stable of cameras.

Maybe viddo and I are cases where the curiosity got the cat, but I imagine I will be able to use my F23 as often as my F35 in professional settings.
 
Viddovation said:
Great perspective. My perspective... I never worked where you or Harry or some of the other big boys here worked. So, I never played withe F23 back when. For me, the price point was right. $3600 and $3100 for my F23 bodies. I'm spending more on the Digiprimes, but I think those may come back into vogue down the road. A Varicam 35 looks beautiful, but sure costs more than $3600! Mind you, I'm not trying to book the F23 on $1500 days against an Alexa. That isn't gonna fly!

Nor am I going to try and use it for huge sound stage green screen where the lighting budget would have to swell. I'm going to try it out, and if all else fails it can be sold to the next collector, converted to an F35, or be raw parts.

The world isn't going back to CCD technology. The F23 and F35 and pinnacle points of that line, and their relative rarity means they're far more likely to hold some sort of museum or collector value 30 or 50 years from now than the other cameras made in far greater numbers.
Click to expand...



I certainly see where you are coming from. Like I said, it's indeed very tempting giving the quality the camera is capable of and the current price point. I was just trying to analyze it from a practical stand point. But I'm sure you will be able to put it to good use and if you can't you will sell it, like you said. Nothing wrong with that approach.

I'm aware that somebody buying a used F23 may not exactly be in the same market to which the Varicam 35 is aimed at. I just used it as an example of how a 2/3” sensor is not more practical for green screen based only on the fact it yields a less shallow depth of field out of the gate.

But yes, the F23 is most definitely one of the best 2/3” HD cameras ever made and the best 2/3” CCD based one for certain. In the same way the F35 can be said to be the best HD camera ever put out.

That both can be had for such an affordable entry price today is the best part of the hype based market we are living through today. And it will only get better. With the diminishing returns but ever accelerating rhythm of new camera releases, more and more cameras perfectly capable of current image-making will sell for ridiculously low prices.

Watch what will happen to the FS700. A camera capable of 4K up to 60fps, HD high-speed, decent dynamic range and image quality, which will have it's price dragged to the ground just because another camera which will probably do 10% more than it is about to be released.

“New is always better!”. God bless ignorance. A great time for those who can see through the sandstorm.
 
yachacha said:
Yes a full fledged F23 setup might be impractical but already owning F35, I have parts needed to make system work. I was saving for an A7S rig, the F23 cost the same to me. I am using F23 on television project next week, main advantage is we need stabilized 42x lens on the camera. A7S was small and could see at night, i might get one as they drop more in value. The F23 could use ENG lens and outputs nice 444 12-bit to my 7Q, both have uses in a stable of cameras.

Maybe viddo and I are cases where the curiosity got the cat, but I imagine I will be able to use my F23 as often as my F35 in professional settings.
Click to expand...

Did the F23 get the 12-bit update? I had the impression it topped at 10-bit, like the Genesis.
 
Aaveum said:
But other things to consider for a headache free (or closest to it) green screen production, in order of importance:

Pureness of the background color
Background lighting
Separation
Foreground lighting
“Codec” choice
Camera choice
Click to expand...


I fully agree. Camera and codec choice is important, but the lighting of the process screen can make or break you. And you rarely see a properly, nay perfectly lit green or blue screen.

Budgets are shrinking and more people are shooting. Unfortunately many shooters do not have the proper training to light and shoot a process screen. I really wish the ASC or someone would get involved on the education side of this, since this type of work has become common place.

The lighting on most screens is uneven or too dim. Sometimes the process screen isn't lit at all, except by the illumination intended for the subject.

Aside from improper lighting the most common problem post encounters is the poor condition of the actual process screen. Patchwork and faded screens are common. Creases, wrinkles and folds are a pain. Not all cloth that is green or blue is suitable for process work. There are different types of blue / green that are intended for video or film.

Advances in technology have added more complications.

Some cameras need to be filtered in order to properly shoot a process screen. This seems to be a problem in particular with RED cameras. There are several articles on the web illustrating these issues.

New light sources like LED etc have gaps in the color spectrum of their output, which can complicate things.
Some people mix different types of lights. Just because it says 'tungsten balanced' does it mean that they are all equal.

And then there is the IQ test. Yes, I have seen actors in blue jeans shot against,...blue screen.


Anyhow, the choice of codec and camera is important. But if the lighting and the screen is wrong you're SOL. :-)


PS: It seems to be an unwritten rule of the universe that no matter where you place a tracking marker on a process screen it will inevitably intersect with the head of the talent with the most freewheeling and longest hair.
 
Last edited:
I also strongly feel that lens choice is often overlooked, the fashion of vintage lenses and character lenses causes no end of optical issues. Light bending around edges differently (so different diffraction for R,G and B) can be a nightmare for edges. I've had edges that are literally a couple of pixels different in the various channels, which is compounded by all the issues discussed above.

And the reality is no green screen is perfect, and in an awful lot of cases there are no green screens either. In fact it's more common without as sometimes it causes more issues elsewhere (especially multicam shoots)

Ah, Roto...

And as Mr Lime points out the vfx law of tracking markers starts where murphy left off...!

Or reflections.

cheers
Paul
 
paulcurtis said:
I also strongly feel that lens choice is often overlooked, the fashion of vintage lenses and character lenses causes no end of optical issues. Light bending around edges differently (so different diffraction for R,G and B) can be a nightmare for edges. I've had edges that are literally a couple of pixels different in the various channels, which is compounded by all the issues discussed above.
Click to expand...


Very good point. Especially if any hard light is involved.

Over on the Duclos blog they tested the new Leica Summilux-C, along with the Zeiss Master Primes. The Lux showed pretty much zero color fringing even wide open, which would make them perfect for FX work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top