Just got a new camera - Sony F35

Hi Joemami,

I don't mind Chinese batteries as long as they don't explode on me. I imagine eBay is the way to go for these? Also thanks for the heads up on the extra Nikon plate. I will PM Mac right away.

Cheers
 
Hi Samana,

Basically ANY v-lock plate with an XLR output will be able to be used on the camera. The Sony one I can't remember the name for, someone else will and it fits the IF box neatly. However its nothing special. Just be aware if you are trying to power a lot from one camera that the camera itself is very power hungry and by the time you've powered the camera and a viewfinder you are already powering 65-70w of kit.

Two canare HD-SDI cables will be capable of taking 4:4:4 HD up to 12-bit at 30fps.
 
+1 for chinese batteries. If you go for the Sony battery plate, I suggest you buy batteries with built-in d-tap outputs, as the plate sadly lacks those.
 
I have the Sony V-mount plate on mine and like it better than Swit…it's very well made and fits like a glove.
My Swit plates don't seem very well made. :(
 
I would go for the sony battery plate. The holes match the interface box and it's well built and doesn't cost that much.
For batteries I have the following:

I got the C2-SM4010-150WH Package here
http://www.batteries4broadcast.com/vmc11.htm

And a couple of these http://www.ebay.com/itm/121018631453?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

The F35 with the sony evf in a normal temperature room runs exactly as many minutes as the Wh of each battery. So that the 150WH last 150minutes, ad the 90WH last 90minutes. Easy math!
 
Screen Shot 2014-02-14 at 12.37.55 PM.jpg

A few posts back got me sifting through the FDtimes archive. It refers to a 2k format for the F35. Are there any recorders that can do this? There isn't even a way to set the camera I'm assuming. Anyone ever get to use the codex recorder?
 
Well with on-board solid state recording ditched, I'd doubt there was an upgrade for 2K. Esp. when the sensor was specifically designed for 1080p? Besides upscaling F35 materials to 2K shouldn't be a hard task isn't it?
 
The onboard SR recording would have been the Sony SR-R3, essentially the Sony SR-R1 with the F35 docking kit and it's own firmware. It would have fallen between the SR-R1 and the SR-R4.

Mind you, excluding the 2k, ramping, and select FPS, most of this is still possible with the SR-R1.
 
Today I watched the flood of BM4K video samples, and I think that FullHD/2.5K is a sweetspot for filmmaking ( even downconverted to fullHD) .. 4K from those cameras have too much resolution not to look TV-like..even at blured parts of picture, it is too detailed and un-natural..

That makes F35 even more tempting for feature film..
 
It's all the rage, like megahertz used to be for computers. (made Facebook and envelope printing really rock!)
Forget IQ, it's all about the pixel-count…not for me though. ;)
 
I know this isn't really the place, but seeing as there has been a lot of talk about 2k vs 4k in this thread I'll give it a go:
Andrew Reid (who is prone to spread quite suspect claims) recently wrote that 4k 8-bit 4:2:0 can be converted to 1080p 10-bit 4:4:4. I know the subsampling claim is true, but I find it hard to believe the part about bits. Can you really dig up color and luma information that was never recorded? I guess that would be through an approximation between neighbouring pixels, or what?
 
4K 4:2:0 downsampled to 1080p would become 1080p 4:4:4. That is correct.

Now, bit depth does not work in that same way. Although you may get slightly better gradients when resampling (a dithered 2bit image could look like an 8bit image), I'm pretty sure 4K 8bit does not equal 1080p 10bit.
 
What really matters is the end results (ie. what we sees). At 4K I don't think the difference between 8-bit and 10-bit is negligible (at 1080 there is a visible difference though) as long as the color workflow is maintained in at least a 16-bit environment. Most current softwares do 32-bit floating point. From a 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 source one can perform some compression artifact removal and dithering BEFORE downscaling to create materials that behave like 10 bit 444.

But 4K 8-bit 420 and 1080 10bit 444, like Mac said, are technically not the same, that is talking from an acquisition POV. Most regular displaying devices can only do dithered 6-bit to mimick 8-bit and some have real 8-bit, so like I said, as long as color grading is done with a proper workflow, both would look the same with stuff from 4K maybe a little more detailed-looking.
 
I can see the logic behind 4K 4:2:0 becoming 1080P 4:4:4 but I cannot possibly see anyway 8-bit can suddenly become 10. It'll be guesswork surely? If you're super-sampling pixels, fine, but the "fine steps" were never there in the first place
 
JMtheDP: the fine steps are actually pixels too if you will. The main visible difference of 8-bit and 10-bit is from acquisition IMO. That is, if you shoot a smooth gradient, 8-bit will show banding and 10-bit won't. But either 8-bit or 10-bit or higher will behave the same in any color grading process. What I mean is, inside a 32-bit floating point environment, 8-bit footage with artifacts will behave like a 32-bit file with artifacts, while its 10-bit counterpart will behave like a 32-bit file without artifacts. The number of bits like you said is merely the number of steps (or bucket) that data is put into (forgive me for the lack of more correct wording). What I'm trying to say is if a 4K image is proper dithered in a 16-bit and 32-bit environment and then downscaled to 1080 and then encoded at 10-bit can then be regarded as a 10-bit image? The extra bits were never captured in acquisition but interpolated during post production by dithering? As long as banding is gone right?

Another argument is that if no dithering is involved then the 8-bit to 10-bit conversion is dependent on the downscaling algorithm, but it is possible due to the extra number of pixels recorded?

Guesswork and technicals aside, I think what matters the most is what our eyes see. Given the same size of displaying images, shouldn't more pixels equal visibly better gradation? In other words, in 4K 8-bit banding becomes smaller and less noticeable?
 
I guess so, but I would personally be terrified of any acquisition medium that was "4K" and 4:2:0 at 8-bit. That sounds to me like a serious case of wrong priorities. But then I'm in a minority on things like this I guess (compared with the average consumer)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top