Just got a new camera - Sony F35

Adamsenoj said:
Although it seems F3 shot in S-Slog is quite hard to tell apart from F35. Maybe if there are blown highlights.
Click to expand...


Nah, no way. The F3 was "officially" released as a B-camera for F35 shoots. But it doesn't look like its big brother.
There are a few reasons why the F35 footage looks the way it does:
- balance between highlights and shadows: the F35 is the only camera I know that allocates more dynamic range to the highlights than to the shadows. Very much like film does.
- colorimetry: I think this has something to do with using a massive resolution stripped sensor together with Panavision's magic touch. The amount of electronics inside the camera is insane. I've never seen anything like it.
- tone curve: this is really important and it's not directly associated with the SLog gamma curve (you could actually encode RED raw files as Slog and the end result will look pretty much the same - :laugh:). SLog was designed to maximize the bit allocation of the video signal). The tone curve applied within the camera mimics film tone curve like no other camera (yep, to my eyes it's better than in the F65).

Sadly, the F3 has none of the above, and F3 footage just looks like most other video cameras, not that filmic. And I say sadly, because when it was launched I had high hopes on the F3, since the F35 by that time was beyond the $160K...
 
Last edited:
Adamsenoj said:
Well, for one a "global shutter" is indeed closer to a mechanical one. Although I think mechanical still looks better. The other reason is probably the CCD instead of CMOS. Although it seems F3 shot in S-Slog is quite hard to tell apart from F35. Maybe if there are blown highlights.
Click to expand...


Hmm, to me the difference is night and day. I honestly don't like the F3 even w/ S-Log at all, at least for narrative type productions. It has a plasticy feel that many other Sony's have except for their ultra high end like the F35. I would honestly shoot a GH2 any day before I ever touched an F3 (I seriously dislike it lol). But damn, the F35 w/ a nice lens produces an image so rich and film-like it almost makes you want to go into debt to have it. And now w/ the BM recorder shedding off the extra weight... it almost looks practical as well. I'm still likely to go for the BMC, but this is such a tempting camera to invest in.
 
macgregor said:
Nah, no way. The F3 was "officially" released as a B-camera for F35 shoots. But it doesn't look like its big brother.
There are a few reasons why the F35 footage looks the way it does:
- balance between highlights and shadows: the F35 is the only camera I know that allocates more dynamic range to the highlights than to the shadows. Very much like film does.
- colorimetry: I think this has something to do with using a massive resolution stripped sensor together with Panavision's magic touch.
- tone curve: this is really important and it's not directly associated with the SLog gamma curve (you could actually encode RED raw files as Slog and it still would look exactly the same. SLog is designed to maxime the bit depth of the signal). The tone curve applied within the camera mimics film tone curve like no other camera (yep, to my eyes it's better than in the F65).

Sadly, the F3 has none of the above, and F3 footage just looks like most other video cameras, not that filmic. And I say sadly, because when it was launched I had high hopes on the F3, since the F35 by that time was beyond the $160K...
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. I think the F35 obliterates the F3 in every conceivable way... it's not even worthy of comparison imo. F3 just looks like handycam footage w/ some extra DR. Like you say, how it mimics the film tone curve is unlike any other camera, including the F65.
 
Yes, this would be incredibly easy to do. Do you own a dremmel or know someone who does? If not just measure how much needs to be shaved off the ear, unscrew the ear and take it to a cnc shop, would take less than 5 minutes. My friend has some rpps, I'll check into it.
 
Why is there the trend in Hollywood DPS and everyone else to dump the Sony F35 and go more towards the Alexa? I'm not questioning anyone decisions since Hollywood can do weird things like this all the time, I'm just curious why. I assume the higher base ISO of the Alexa was desireable to them. Also maybe it was a brand name. All Film DPs already have a great familiarity with the Arri brand name and the Alexa is built like a tank. The ergonomics of the F35 are...well...uglier. But the imagery is better I think. That CCD is pretty sweet.

Right now on ebay - three cameras - all seemingly not known to be cameras that will last long enough to justify a 10k to 15k purchase.

Curious, very curious.
 
Last edited:
eddavid said:
Why is there the trend in Hollywood DPS and everyone else to dump the Sony F35 and go more towards the Alexa? I'm not questioning anyone decisions since Hollywood can do weird things like this all the time, I'm just curious why. I assume the higher base ISO of the Alexa was desireable to them. Also maybe it was a brand name. All Film DPs already have a great familiarity with the Arri brand name and the Alexa is built like a tank. The ergonomics of the F35 are...well...uglier. But the imagery is better I think. That CCD is pretty sweet.

Right now on ebay - three cameras - all seemingly not known to be cameras that will last long enough to justify a 10k to 15k purchase.

Curious, very curious.
Click to expand...

Prettier pictures, better ergonomics, lighter weight (big productions aren't shooting to Hyperdecks), simpler workflow for HD acquisition/post, closer latitude to film.

The F35 spits out gorgeous images, but Alexa is prettier. IMO at least.
 
"Prettier" is a really subjective term. Certainly modern productions opt for new/easier/fuller-featured tools. I think the cost:quality ratio is the excitement behind the thread.
 
LeavingTheCandy said:
"Prettier" is a really subjective term. Certainly modern productions opt for new/easier/fuller-featured tools. I think the cost:quality ratio is the excitement behind the thread.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but there's no shame in newer being better in this digital age (which I wholehearted believe is the case with the F35 compared to the Alexa - which is 4 years the Sony's junior, in sensor tech at least), what's exciting is being able to have affordable access to this level of imaging technology.
 
I stand by Hunter's statement that he liked the f35 more than the Alexa.
judging by the trailers, especially real steel, it looks closer to what I like in 35mm shot-films than most Alexa films. And now I've probably seen 6 Alexa pictures in theatres. I am dying to go see Oblivion shot on the f65 even though its not really my kind of movie.

I am rooting for Sony.
 
Holy crap... I did not know real steel was shot on the F35. I own the movie, not the greatest film, but it looks absolutely stunning. I watched a few scenes just now and couldn't believe it... it legitimately looks like 35mm. I have to say, this may be some of the best F35 footage I've ever seen.

I've never spent too much time comparing them... but out of Alexa, RED and F35, I think the F35 is the only one where I simply don't notice that it's not actually film. Every time I see Alexa, I'm impressed with the wide DR and organic look. I see RED footage and am pretty impressed for the most part with how sharp and high res it looks... but F35 flys right below the radar in that you never think about it- it seamlessly blends in with what I've come to expect from film. It's incredible really.
 
I already mentioned this earlier in the thread: I had that kind of an awakening moment when, after watching Under The Hawthorn Tree, I went to IMDB expecting to confirm my thought that "and that's why film is still king". Yes, F35.
 
Samuel H said:
I already mentioned this earlier in the thread: I had that kind of an awakening moment when, after watching Under The Hawthorn Tree, I went to IMDB expecting to confirm my thought that "and that's why film is still king". Yes, F35.
Click to expand...

This has happened to me a few times too.
 
I find it amazing that anyone can afford a camera like the F35 these days. Many other great cameras going the same route during the next years so if you're shopping for used cameras I see a bright future ahead.
 
hunter richards said:
Yes, this would be incredibly easy to do. Do you own a dremmel or know someone who does? If not just measure how much needs to be shaved off the ear, unscrew the ear and take it to a cnc shop, would take less than 5 minutes. My friend has some rpps, I'll check into it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice Hunter. Do you think after altering the ears on the Red body to fit the F35, it would still mount on the F3 okay?
 
Sparky,
You'll have to modify the ears on the F35 mount, not the RPZ. It's close to fitting, but rubs on the back of the lens. However, it's really close to fitting. I can get it to seat, but can't turn the lock.
Don't loose too much sleep. :2vrolijk_08:
 
Thanks. Just out of interest would the Prolock adaptor (Nikon to PL mount) fit snugly into the F35 - this might be a nice combination with a Nikon 17-50mm. Best wishes, Sparky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top