Just got a new camera - Sony F35

By the way... when I'm on a set that isn't run and gun, I use my laptop for scopes. If you happen to own a thunderbolt capable Mac, this option costs you $265 or less. Essentially, all it takes is a Blackmagic Mini Recorder ($150 retail), and some software called Scopebox ($99) and a thunderbolt cable ($15 online). The Minirecorder takes a standard single link SDI or an HDMI input. I open the feed in Scopebox, and get real-time software generated scopes. Further, your laptop can be used as a video village monitor, and the same hardware can be used for live steaming to the web through your laptop. Just last week I used the recorder to email some frame grabs for a job I was doing solo to the client for approval. Handy kit, particularly if you don't get a fancy recorder package.
 
So I'm wondering how everybody who uses it with the Hyperdeck is doing to monitor sound? Separated recorder and a soundman?
 
I haven't shot with sound yet myself, but doesn't the HDMI output of the Hyperdeck include a sound signal? If so, many monitors have a minijack output for headphones. Some monitors even display audio waveforms onscreen.
 
But if you have no onboard monitor like when shoulder shooting? Don't see many monitors with audio levels either.

I'm curious because I think most here use the Hyperdeck?
 
I used a ki pro mini on a project when the client wanted audio video synced. It worked fine but the next project with same people we just brought in a 702t for the sound guy and went back to slating sync it was just as easy. Any time you want audio you need someone who knows how to capture clean audio, if they know how to do that, they also own an audio recorder.
 
Yeah, as above, I haven't done anything without a proper sound guy in a very long time.

i recently had some people ask me if I had my own grip kit (track and dolly) which I thought was odd enough, but then when they start asking if I have my own sound recorder (kit, not the person), you know what kind of operation it is...
 
To what i understand the F35 image has some quality that the much later F5 or F55 are missing, is it true?
And if yes, and it's not to silly to ask, but how things like the color science and so could be less accurate than what it was few years ago already?
Just curious....
 
There are two main reasons: 1. The F55 and F5 are both CMOS sensors, and thus produce images with a different characteristic from the F35s CCD. 2. The F35 does a lot of internal processing, while the F5 and F55 leave it for post. It's possible to get equally beautiful images from those cameras, but it will require extensive grading.

Edit: Regarding color latitude, I believe only the F65 surpasses the original F35, which captures almost exactly the same ranges as celluloid, while F5 and F55 are narrower. But don't quote me on it!
 
If you use IDT/ODT curves in post, with or without ACES workflow it's not that extensive anymore like it use to be before the curves were out.

Still the F35 is much more effortless indeed.
 
vincent thomas said:
To what i understand the F35 image has some quality that the much later F5 or F55 are missing, is it true?
And if yes, and it's not to silly to ask, but how things like the color science and so could be less accurate than what it was few years ago already?
Just curious....
Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly the impression many of us on this forum have, and it's one of the reasons we've bought these cameras. Of course, you can find fanboys for almost all of the cameras out there...

I would say this - it's worth keeping in mind that the guts and soul of the F35 were originally developed as the Panavision Genesis. The first movies shot on the Genesis hit cinemas in 2006. While the exact nature of the partnership isn't public knowledge, what is clear is that Sony was eventually able to release the F35, reusing the same guts developed as the Genesis.

This partnership was between two very well respected companies, with very long track records, to develop a digital cinema camera to replace film. As the Genesis, you couldn't buy it. Period. It was only available as a rental from Panavision. As the Sony F35, you could buy it, for a cool $250k. It wasn't designed to be an everyman cam. It was, from start to finish, designed as a flagship product for major motion pictures.

The Genesis wasn't made to own - it made to make art. It wasn't for sale, it was designed not be be affordable, but to be the best money could rent. For me, it's not hard to imagine that this means a certain magic went into it that didn't go into lower end products like the F5 and F55.

Beyond that, I can add this - the F35 and Genesis use a CCD. Making CCDs the size of Super35 is apparently very difficult, particularly at the quality control level required for this flagship product. To my understanding, not only did it require exceptional equipment, but numerous chips failed the QC process.

Even today RED makes it clear that in their own chips they do QC, and many are rejected. Even among those approved, the best ones go to the EPIC cameras, and the lower grade go to Scarlet cameras.

For numerous reasons, there is very little development today on CCD imagers, particularly for large sensor cameras. CCD imagers draw more power, and even the global shutter problem is being overcome in modern CMOS sensors. CMOS sensors are also easier to reliably produce in larger numbers with acceptable QC.

Today's camera market is a numbers game. With so many "good enough" options, it not terribly practical to design a camera at the $250k pricepoint anymore.

In so many ways, the F35 is the legacy of a different generation, designed with a different mentality and purpose. That is has an essence and soul today's cameras miss doesn't surprise me.
 
Last edited:
Viddovation said:
Well, that's certainly the impression many of us on this forum have, and it's one of the reasons we've bought these cameras. Of course, you can find fanboys for almost all of the cameras out there...

I would say this - it's worth keeping in mind that the guts and soul of the F35 were originally developed as the Panavision Genesis. The first movies shot on the Genesis hit cinemas in 2006. While the exact nature of the partnership isn't public knowledge, what is clear is that Sony was eventually able to release the F35, reusing the same guts developed as the Genesis.

This partnership was between two very well respected companies, with very long track records, to develop a digital cinema camera to replace film. As the Genesis, you couldn't buy it. Period. It was only available as a rental from Panavision. As the Sony F35, you could buy it, for a cool $250k. It wasn't designed to be an everyman cam. It was, from start to finish, designed as a flagship product for major motion pictures.

The Genesis wasn't made to own - it made to make art. It wasn't for sale, it was designed not be be affordable, but to be the best money could rent. For me, it's not hard to imagine that this means a certain magic went into it that didn't go into lower end products like the F5 and F55.

Beyond that, I can add this - the F35 and Genesis use a CCD. Making CCDs the size of Super35 is apparently very difficult, particularly at the quality control level required for this flagship product. To my understanding, not only did it require exceptional equipment, but numerous chips failed the QC process.

Even today RED makes it clear that in their own chips they do QC, and many are rejected. Even among those approved, the best ones go to the EPIC cameras, and the lower grade go to Scarlet cameras.

For numerous reasons, there is very little development today on CCD images, particularly for large sensor cameras. CCD images draw more power, and even the global shutter problem is being overcome in modern CMOS sensors. CMOS sensors are also easier to reliably produce in larger numbers with acceptable QC.

Today's camera market is a numbers game. With so many "good enough" options, it not terribly practical to design a camera at the $250k pricepoint anymore.

In so many ways, the F35 is the legacy of a different generation, designed with a different mentality and purpose. That is has an essence and soul today's cameras miss doesn't surprise me.
Click to expand...



Should we make this post a sticky on the forum? :thumbup:
 
To see you Miguel to praise high end costly gear, even though, already outdated but ten years later, is really funny. Not because of your skills as shooter, on the contrary ; ) but only because I still remember when I saw your eye at first time beyond a Z1 or a FX1?! I don't even remember anymore... ;-)
 
Emanuel said:
To see you Miguel to praise high end costly gear, even though, already outdated but ten years later, is really funny.
Click to expand...

LOL if the F35 was truly outdated it wouldn't be kicking the behind of many or most new cameras. 10 years old? Is it 2018 already?
 
JMtheDP said:
Try watching DSLR footage in the cinema, that is where you notice a difference.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Öhmm... Phlrrmm... What difference would that be? Would Black Swan and it's train scenes look better if shot with a higher end camera? Nope. Some of it was actually shot with a DSLR.

It's about The Look, not about The Sharpness or Cleanliness.

That said, isn't this in the wrong thread? Nothing to do with the F35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top