Just got a new camera - Sony F35
- Thread starter macgregor
- Start date
Film is magic. Big screen magic. If you disagree, and feel your digital cameras are capable of the same phenomenon, go shoot a roll of film 8mm, 16mm, 35mm whatever you can get your hands on, shoots something beautiful, then sit down and watch that film projected through a film projector. Any true cinematographer I have encountered has a love of film, whether they shoot it on not, they know of it's magic.
Like Hunter and Macgregor have both said, f35 is the closest thing to film we've got.
maybe it's the waves of the CCD over the 1's and 0's of the CMOS.
If it's down to a pro's and con's list
Go with the BMCC, of course it's going to win.
The F35 isn't a contender for the contest held by the FS700's, C300, BMCC for the swiss army knife of cameras.
It's for those who feel a global shutter is a requirement of a true movie camera.
One day our F35's are going to breakdown beyond repair, F35 is a completely different beast than modern cameras.
In the argument about size of the camera I do think it's a bit of BS about the F35 needing 2 or even 1 assistant. I have a shoulder rig F35 with lens and battery that's just a pinch over 20lbs. It is just as easy to hold as any ENG camera that operators keep on their shoulders for hours on end. Of course I had to spend time and money to get my camera so compact, but it's the same as getting a rig for a DSLR, you need to wisely arrange your components for how you want to use the camera. Of course it's not as easy to focus as an ENG 2/3 sensor, so an assistant would be great for focus, but people shoot 5d's by themselves. The F35 brain, not that large stripped down, is compact enough in size and can be configured into a single user setup.
Like Hunter and Macgregor have both said, f35 is the closest thing to film we've got.
maybe it's the waves of the CCD over the 1's and 0's of the CMOS.
If it's down to a pro's and con's list
Go with the BMCC, of course it's going to win.
The F35 isn't a contender for the contest held by the FS700's, C300, BMCC for the swiss army knife of cameras.
It's for those who feel a global shutter is a requirement of a true movie camera.
One day our F35's are going to breakdown beyond repair, F35 is a completely different beast than modern cameras.
In the argument about size of the camera I do think it's a bit of BS about the F35 needing 2 or even 1 assistant. I have a shoulder rig F35 with lens and battery that's just a pinch over 20lbs. It is just as easy to hold as any ENG camera that operators keep on their shoulders for hours on end. Of course I had to spend time and money to get my camera so compact, but it's the same as getting a rig for a DSLR, you need to wisely arrange your components for how you want to use the camera. Of course it's not as easy to focus as an ENG 2/3 sensor, so an assistant would be great for focus, but people shoot 5d's by themselves. The F35 brain, not that large stripped down, is compact enough in size and can be configured into a single user setup.
Jusgorilla
Well-known member
Yay some action going on here!
In recent experience with shooting a test B cam with the BMC next to the F35, my editor threw in some BMC shots which I kept, but man, they couldn't be more different.
In retrospect I wish I hadn't used any of the BMC shots, as they just didn't please me at all.
Now grading the BMC to match the F35 was a ball ache, and one thing that really stood out was how the BM 180 degree shutter rendered unpleasing motion compared to the F35, it just didn't look as natural as the F35 motion.
Just sharing my experience, I'm not against the BMC, it has its place in the field, but since there is a comparison going on here, I'm just giving my 2 cents.
In recent experience with shooting a test B cam with the BMC next to the F35, my editor threw in some BMC shots which I kept, but man, they couldn't be more different.
In retrospect I wish I hadn't used any of the BMC shots, as they just didn't please me at all.
Now grading the BMC to match the F35 was a ball ache, and one thing that really stood out was how the BM 180 degree shutter rendered unpleasing motion compared to the F35, it just didn't look as natural as the F35 motion.
Just sharing my experience, I'm not against the BMC, it has its place in the field, but since there is a comparison going on here, I'm just giving my 2 cents.
keithlango
Well-known member
I'm still knee deep in writing my next screenplay, but I've been tinkering with my F35. I'm mainly just shooting tests with the goal of learning how the camera responds in various lighting situations, exposure settings, etc. Here's a color corrected frame grab of my latest test. I purposefully allowed the highlights to blow out, exposing for the skin tones of the talent. Natural lighting, no bounce or fill. There was a remarkable amount of detail still left in the highlights when I threw a grad exposure adjustment on the right side of the image. The clouds formed out of the seemingly blank milky white sky. Compared to the 8 bit world I came from this 10-bit 422 ProResHQ workflow is just so much fun.
Tokina 28-80 zoom, Nikon mount. Stopped down to F16. Color graded in DaVinci Resolve 10. Used the sLog->cineon LUT, then the Cineon to Kodak 2393 LUT. Added a slight touch of Magic Bullet Cosmo in After Effects to soften the skin. These forum posts mangle JPEGs, but if you want a better sample you can check out my Flicker version.
Tokina 28-80 zoom, Nikon mount. Stopped down to F16. Color graded in DaVinci Resolve 10. Used the sLog->cineon LUT, then the Cineon to Kodak 2393 LUT. Added a slight touch of Magic Bullet Cosmo in After Effects to soften the skin. These forum posts mangle JPEGs, but if you want a better sample you can check out my Flicker version.
macgregor
Veteran
And ever since his movies don´t look as good as they should.
Revolutionary road, No country, Jesse James, all amog the finest examples of cinematography.
In time... :huh::huh::huh::huh: Prisioners... even skyfall, I am not going to say they look terrible (well the first two do look like cheap), but definately not as good as when he shot on film.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I don't think Life of Pi is a good example, since most of it is CGI. But yes, for my standards, I think you can find great-looking movies shot on basically every pro camera out there. Including F35 (The Flowers of War), Alexa (Hugo) and RED (The Secret In Their Eyes).
Brandon Ruiz
Member
I shoot with Alexa and Epic on almost every shoot. They don't come close to film. It's just leagues beyond anything any digital camera can produce. That being said I really think Macgregor needs to spend some time with the BMC for himself because unfortunately for the camera and its super low acquisition price, it will primarily be used by people who just don't understand how to use it to its full potential. Don't go by what you've seen on the web. In my opinion, its better than the RED, comparable to the Alexa.
Well, if the Alexa was a super 16 cam with annoying aliasing artifacts.
Well, if the Alexa was a super 16 cam with annoying aliasing artifacts.
I just saw the zacuto 2011 shootout again. I paid attention to the first episode testing how the cameras handle highlights. I noticed how beautiful the F35 looked. The F35 looked the most like film. Film did look better than the digital cameras. I think in this test the F35 is the best digital camera. I hope zacuto can make another shootout with the F35, bmcc and film.
In defense of those people that "don't understand", the camera's kind of weird. We were all told to ETTR (to an extreme), that's actually not really right, and we're all still trying to figure out other things like IR pollution and more.
The aliasing/moire's super annoying... but, I actually have a Mosaic Engineering prototype 2.5K Blackmagic with me right now, and once that's tuned I don't think there's anything else I have an issue with. The noise can be a bear, but so can others.
I'm biased, though: I have four 2.5Ks and one Pocket camera. =B
I don't think it has the same look as the F35, which renders motion well and is definitely resolving more. I do think it's unnervingly close to Alexa when handled properly.
Backing out of this conversation now! xDDD
eddavid
Carbonite Member
I go whereever Mac goes. I am a Mac fanboy. I am a loser. But agreed on Deakins - Fargo looked amazing. Film still has that something and F35 gets there closer than most of these guys. Just watching the latest trailers before gravity - film is still king. A dying king. Oh well - the world has gone mad.
eddavid
Carbonite Member
just shot in haiti on the f35 and some f3 on the steadicam - https://vimeo.com/77066922
bill totolo
Veteran
Ed,
I would say you served your client VERY well. Nice work.
I would say you served your client VERY well. Nice work.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
I have worked with very high end post houses on such matters as relighting on Alexa and Red Epic footage. You will never get photoshop-like power with video, simply because the images moves - an actress turns her head, and the re-light you did to hide the bags under her eyes a few frames ago no longer quite works, for example. No matter how good your tracking may be shading re-design (which is what you can do on a single frame in photoshop - at some level a highly photoshopped images, even though it may look "real" is a more a computer painting than a photograph) will very quickly break-down as things shift. This is not really a limitation of technology, but of 3D geometry, parralax, light fall-off etc. which change on every frame, and no computer no matter how powerful could ever accurately guess what is what in a frame, and smoothly interpolate things, without hours and hours of hand-guidance from an operator. There are things you can do, yes, but most are very labour intensive (despite many apps being no-wait state, so it's not the computer slowing you down), and even if you were willing to put in that labour nowhere near what you can do with stills and photoshop.
Not to mention - digital re-light often looks like just that. Other than subtle fixes, it often looks really cheap and ugly in a hurry.
Bottom line - getting exposure is not lighting, lighting is "painting with light" and a good DP leaves very little for post.
Is anyone else experimented shooting with the hyper gammas instead of SLOG? I've been trying them out to see what I could do in a quick turn-around situation or simply the client doesn't want SLOG.
It's my understanding that 1 and 2 and for 100% white and 3 and 4 are the same as 1 and 2 except they record up to 109% whites. I have 8 Hypergammas on my camera, not 4, is it possible that someone has added more, or did the firmware update add 4 more. Even with the hyper gamma on, the color is much less punchy than today's digital cameras.
I read in an forum post searching for the F35 on google "It appears that newer F35 cameras also have access to slog2 too"
http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=40779&sid=c18e2377840073a028e63228ba61da09
Look down to the 2nd post to see the reference. I can't find any other information on this. What are the advantages of SLOG2 over SLOG?
It's my understanding that 1 and 2 and for 100% white and 3 and 4 are the same as 1 and 2 except they record up to 109% whites. I have 8 Hypergammas on my camera, not 4, is it possible that someone has added more, or did the firmware update add 4 more. Even with the hyper gamma on, the color is much less punchy than today's digital cameras.
I read in an forum post searching for the F35 on google "It appears that newer F35 cameras also have access to slog2 too"
http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=40779&sid=c18e2377840073a028e63228ba61da09
Look down to the 2nd post to see the reference. I can't find any other information on this. What are the advantages of SLOG2 over SLOG?
starcentral
Veteran
You are correct that 1 & 2 have a 100% white limit while 3 & 4 are limited to 109%. 1 & 3 will give a slight boost to the mid tones and are designed to give a better signal to noise ratio. 2 & 4 are designed if extra dynamic range is important.
If you are handing footage over to your client in a fast turn around situation you might want to give them a legal signal (hypergamma 1 or 2) since with their post process they might only handle a maximum of 100% white.
In lower light conditions I've always found hypergammas 1 or 3 to be a great advantage because as mentioned you will get a boost in the mid-tones in-camera and get a real nice look when skin tones are important.
I don't know what the other 4 hypergammas on your camera would be but can only suggest they were perhaps some custom ones created by some third party.
As for slog2 vs slog here is an good article from Abelcine that can explain it better than I can: http://blog.abelcine.com/2013/01/18/sonys-s-log2-and-dynamic-range-percentages/
If you are handing footage over to your client in a fast turn around situation you might want to give them a legal signal (hypergamma 1 or 2) since with their post process they might only handle a maximum of 100% white.
In lower light conditions I've always found hypergammas 1 or 3 to be a great advantage because as mentioned you will get a boost in the mid-tones in-camera and get a real nice look when skin tones are important.
I don't know what the other 4 hypergammas on your camera would be but can only suggest they were perhaps some custom ones created by some third party.
As for slog2 vs slog here is an good article from Abelcine that can explain it better than I can: http://blog.abelcine.com/2013/01/18/sonys-s-log2-and-dynamic-range-percentages/
Jusgorilla
Well-known member
I stumble on this too, but cannot find anymore info on how to get Slog2 into the F35.
Nate Weaver says "The only difference between S-Log and S-Log2 that I know of is how far the highlights go and how far the Log curve compresses them"
and Abelcine reports "
S-Log2 is said to have 1300% dynamic range, versus the 1000% of the original S-Log - See more at: http://blog.abelcine.com/2013/01/18/sonys-s-log2-and-dynamic-range-percentages/#sthash.WbNvsbIX.dpuf"
As far as I know the F35 has a max 800% Dynamic range according to the F35 manual, so a gamma curve of 1300% would probably not be suited anyway.
Even the latest CPV FileEditor doesn't have Slog2 as an option, which to me means it's not available for the F35, but I dont think is a biggie anyway.
This Cam is super close to film, and doesn't need to be tweaked.
Last edited:
macgregor
Veteran
BTW, there is something that I've been thinking lately: Color space on the F35.
As you all know the F35 has a very wide color space. Much wider than sRGB/709. Check this:
Now, in the same way adobeRGB or prophoto RGB profiled images looked washed out and without color in lower gamut color spaces (such as sRGB, which is what 99.9% of people use anyway), the footage shot on the F35 on Film mode (which sets S-Gamut as fixed) should in theory appear dull and flat in smaller gamut viewing condictions such as sRGB and rec709. But it should look vivid and wonderful if viewed on a display capable of displaying a wider than sRGB gamut.
Now there are few displays with such wide gamuts (dreamcolor perhaps could replicate this) but it's not going to be practical in any case since the audience will watch whatever we've shot in rec709/srgb most probably, or XYZ if we're lucky.
In photoshop is easy to convert from a wide color space to a smaller color space. We've done this many times to convert from AdobeRGB to sRGb, so that the colors appear normal when watched on a sRGB monitor. But I haven't seen yet any similar color space conversion (for the F35 or for the F65) on grading applications. And I think it would bring our footage to a new level because we've all been watching the Slog/Sgamut footage under sRGB specs, making the colors dull and flat.
Any thoughts about this?
As you all know the F35 has a very wide color space. Much wider than sRGB/709. Check this:
Now, in the same way adobeRGB or prophoto RGB profiled images looked washed out and without color in lower gamut color spaces (such as sRGB, which is what 99.9% of people use anyway), the footage shot on the F35 on Film mode (which sets S-Gamut as fixed) should in theory appear dull and flat in smaller gamut viewing condictions such as sRGB and rec709. But it should look vivid and wonderful if viewed on a display capable of displaying a wider than sRGB gamut.
Now there are few displays with such wide gamuts (dreamcolor perhaps could replicate this) but it's not going to be practical in any case since the audience will watch whatever we've shot in rec709/srgb most probably, or XYZ if we're lucky.
In photoshop is easy to convert from a wide color space to a smaller color space. We've done this many times to convert from AdobeRGB to sRGb, so that the colors appear normal when watched on a sRGB monitor. But I haven't seen yet any similar color space conversion (for the F35 or for the F65) on grading applications. And I think it would bring our footage to a new level because we've all been watching the Slog/Sgamut footage under sRGB specs, making the colors dull and flat.
Any thoughts about this?