Just got a new camera - Sony F35

It has been a little while since I've used a RED EVF, but from what I recall...

1. The Accuscene has proper controls on the side for everything you need (Peaking, contrast, brightness) as well as it's own very logical menu. No silly RED menus to deal with - big plus for me.

2. It DOES, however, have false colour mode - from what I can tell accuscene basically invented it. Another plus.

3. The accuscene has several modes for viewing, including a mono mode with an incredibly high refresh rate (200hz+) - great for handheld, the picture is always fresh so appears sharper if you're being jogged about

4. Probably of GREATEST SIGNIFICANCE, the Accuscene can be fine-tuned to the camera it is attached to - meaning colours/black levels etc... are perfect. I have not seen ANY Sony viewfinder produce an image so close to the one on my Sony OLED. It's like looking at the OLED down a tube. Really.

5. I *think* the accuscene is a little sharper than the RED EVF, but this could be a trick of the mind. It does make some sense though, as the RED only output a low-res signal, where the Sonys give a full HD one.

So, those are all important points. The sheer size of the thing can't be understated, but it is actually remarkable comfortable to handhold with and I personally prefer viewfinders over monitors whenever possible.

Other key things in the Accuscene's favour for me over buying a third party EVF:

It connects directly to the VF port on the F35 (or any sony hd camera up to the F65 - not the f5/55 though). So, one cable and it takes power from the camera. Hugely important for me.

The cable is nice and long, so you have a lot of options for positioning. There is basically no need to buy a viewfinder extension (if anyone here has a Sony colour finder and wants an extension, I'm selling an Optex one!)

Last, but not least, the thing has an eyepice demister! LUXURY! SWEET LUXURY!
 
Well when new the accuscene retailed for twice that of a Sony equivalent - about $20,000.

I paid a good price for it, thats all I'll say! it seems accessories do not depreciate like bodies do.
 
You know, I don't think anyone has mentioned in any of the many F35 threads around here, that the old girl actually has a higher pixel count chip than the F5 and F55.

I am well aware it's not the same type of chip by any means, but still interesting nonetheless. The vertical resolution of the chip is also identical to the F65, although that camera also has a curious sensor layout.
 
Yeah, John Galt talked about this at length in his 'Demystifying Digital Cinema' series. How they could have made the Genesis/F35 a 4K raw camera, but that storage requirements, circle of confusion and 2K digital cinema projection made it unsuitable for shooters (at the time).
 
That's a good series of videos, if anyone on here wants to know more about the techy side of the cameras.

I think ARRI are also very much of the opinion that "2K" is the best you can extract from a 35mm-sized sensor. I am glad for it, as it validates us lot choosing this old dinosaur in the face of younger competition!
 
JMtheDP said:
That's a good series of videos, if anyone on here wants to know more about the techy side of the cameras.

I think ARRI are also very much of the opinion that "2K" is the best you can extract from a 35mm-sized sensor. I am glad for it, as it validates us lot choosing this old dinosaur in the face of younger competition!
Click to expand...


I think that's until you see sony F65 footage displayed in a 100inch 4K monitor...
 
I don't doubt it's remarkable. Hopefully in three years time we can all get together and show off our £8,000 F65 rigs - I already know I can use my lenses, batteries, follow focus, matte box, etc.... from my current camera (one of my reasons for upgrading, 35mm kit is timeless).

What saddens me the most is that thanks largely to RED, the "resolution" of a camera has become held as the sole test of a camera in the eyes of the uninitiated (not implying the F65 hasn't made developments in other areas too, I am in awe of it's abilities - but even if I had one right now I'd probably be doing a lot in HD still because of the obscene amount of data it spits out). Hence the wave of low-budget productions who chose RED "because it's 4K" without any actual considerations for their needs.

I am sure all of us on this board would agree that (within reason) the DoP is more important than the camera that they use, but sadly the privilege of the DoP being able to choose what format best suits them or the production is something that seems to be eroded more and more. I only need to go on Film & Tv Pro etc... to see shedloads of people who have no camera department, but already know they're shooting on the C300.
 
Here's a question for you all. Most of the framerates for this camera seem to have two options, such as 23.98P 444 and S23.98P 444. Anyone know what the S stands for or what the difference is?
 
Amusing thread.

Sparky874 and LeavingTheCandy, are you still doing the F35 vs F3 comparisons?

I would be really interested in seeing that. I'm curious how they compare in dynamic range while both in slog.
On paper the F3 should be better with 13.5 stops vs 11.3 stops in the F35. But in reality it may be different.

So is the test still happening?
 
SJX said:
Amusing thread.

Sparky874 and LeavingTheCandy, are you still doing the F35 vs F3 comparisons?

I would be really interested in seeing that. I'm curious how they compare in dynamic range while both in slog.
On paper the F3 should be better with 13.5 stops vs 11.3 stops in the F35. But in reality it may be different.

So is the test still happening?
Click to expand...

The F35 delivers way more than 11.3 stops... that is a very conservative measurement.
 
SJX said:
Can you point to a test which shows this?
Click to expand...

My own tests... 15 stops (note necessarily usable DR) http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/792395_10200423210886962_437091511_o.jpg
Art Adams tests (note, this review is with an old firmware, and also I think he set the mid gray wrong, but he gets +14stops, again, not necesarily usable): http://provideocoalition.com/aadams/story/non_technical_f35_guide/P8
Even the "questionable" Zacuto test, which says 11.3 but forgets about couting the mid gray, which is a step, making it 12.3 according to them.
I'm not saying this camera is the best ever in terms of DR but it is a bit better than a 5D.
 
15 stops? This would put the F35 above the Alexa. But looking at material from both cameras it's clear the Alexa has more dynamic range.
 
I trust macgregor's DR measurements, and would love to see what his take on the Alexa is... but I woulnd't count the mid gray as a stop either: if B1 and B2 are two levels of brightness separated by one stop and you have a camera that can just distinguish between them, it is recording 1 stop of DR. So, if it can distinguish 15 stops of light, it's recording 14 stops of DR. At least that's how I count them.

Check the table on the right-side here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range
A power factor of 32, which means the camera can distinguish 1-2-4-8-16-32, counts as 5 stops of DR.
 
Well, I count steps of resolved detail between pure white and pure black. Mid grey is one of them.

Red's chart shows total dynamic range, which one is mid grey? It doesn't matter, it's a step:
RED+dynamic+range+dragon+sensor+mx+epic.jpg


I'm not a physicist but I think the term dynamic range is not the right one to use for what we do in photography, but it's spread in the field and whether is the right term or not, eveyone seems to understand what it means.
If you do not wish to count the mid grey as a step in the dynamic range chart, just remove 1 stop to each camera in my graph.
 
It seems like DR is perceived as the holy grail of image quality. For me, there's things equally, if not more important: noise, color, artifacts, etc.
I've yet to have a client complain about DR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top