Justify an F35 vs an FS7

More than the F35 colors, I am in LOVE with the F35 motion.

That is where the cinematic mojo comes from. Lovely CCD motion. This is the reason why I have an F35 myself. I would get an Alexa if I could... it's got that high end motion rendering (plus I love the way it desaturates the highlights.)

The other cameras are getting closer for sure, F3/F5/F55/FS7..etc. Similar to the 1 GOP hack for the gh2 a few years back.

We should make a compilation video of all the Sony cameras and see who can really tell a difference. If you can't then you really don't need an F35. There is definitely some fanboy-ism in the F35 world, and Manuel "Film Scientist" touched on it very well with "attributing emotional feelings to ephemeral qualities"
 
Film Scientist said:
Here’s my take on the comparative list between an F35 and an FS7.

I agree there should be objective means to measure image quality, otherwise we can quickly fall into the audiophile trap of
attributing emotional feelings to ephemeral qualities. But it’s helpful to realize that CMOS and CCD chips are still inherently analog devices.
Chip technologies have their pros and cons, some are more sensitive others more subtle.

Please take this apple-to-pear-comparison with a grain of salt.

1-Resolution
The F35 yields over sampled 1080p signal, from a striped CCD sensor.
12441600 active pixels (x6 times oversampling of HD resolution~2,073,600 pixels)
5760 Horizontal resolution: 1920 red sub pixels , 1920 green sub pixels, 1920 blue sub pixels.
2160 Vertical resolution: 2160 red sub pixels, 2160 green sub pixels, 2160 blue sub pixels.
Each pixel generated, is summed from 6 sub pixels of full RGB data at 14 bits.
(3 times horizontal resolution oversampling, 2 times vertical resolution oversampling to yield 1920 x 1080p)

FS7 is a Bayer CMOS sensor, that outputs 4K raw and 1080p
11.6 pixels quoted, but seems more like 8.8k are active.
The press release doesn’t specify number of actual photo sites (maybe a purposeful marketing omission)
~4096 horizontal resolution: 2048 Green sub pixels, 2048 Blue sub pixels (assumes Bayer Pattern)
~2160 Vertical resolution: 2160 Green sub pixels, 2160 Red sub pixels (assumes Bayer Pattern)
1 pixel of RGB data is generated from 2 Green sub pixels, 1 blue sub pixel and, 1 red sub pixel.
Utilizes traditional 4:2:2 sampling sampling scheme to capture interpolated color for ‘4K’ or 1920x1080p

Each chip is designed with a purpose built low pass filter that when combined with a lens determines the ultimate real world resolution.
In terms of luminance resolution both cameras are comparable in resolution, but color resolution is often forgotten in the world of 4K, the F35 beats it hands down (It’s sampling more real color data)

2. Sharpness
Is a combination of many factors…
Density of CMOS or CCD chip, quality of debayer or processing + low pass filter + Lens + recording encoding method log 4:4:4 vs. raw 4:2:2
FS7 claims 11.7 million (not sure how many are active)
F35 has 12.4 million
I would expect the F35, to be slightly sharper if we had access to the raw data.
But with cameras outputs we downscaled to 1080p, sharpness will be pretty close to equal

3. Dynamic range
F35 - at native ISO 450, 12 stops (11.3 per Zacuto test), good highlight sensitivity (with seemingly more stops devoted to highlights like film)
FS7 - at native ISO 2000, (14 stops according to manufacturer), stops above and below middle grey still TBD
I wonder if the high ISO of the FS7 will affect highlight sensitivity above middle grey in favor of a lower noise floor.

4 - Color
F35 - True RGB 4:4:4 @ 1920x1080. 14 bit AD to 12bit conversion. Tungsten balanced chip (3200k)
FS7- 4:2:2 @ ‘4K’. RAW. Daylight balanced chip.

Most Bayer chips still rely on the brute force method of adding more sub pixels to interpolate color.
So as cameras increase in resolution, they will be able to extract more color from larger arrays of 4:2:2.
What the F35 misses in resolution and sharpness, it more than makes up for by capturing subtle color hues and natural grain
by utilizing a very efficient RGB stripe method processed in-camera.

5. Noise
Both cameras would need to be tested at similar ISO to properly evaluate.
F35 - Will naturally be noisier due to base ISO 450, but sampled information/noise represents real, not interpolated RGB data (so noise looks better.)
FS7 - The base ISO of 2000 equals more sensitivity, and less noise.
I tend to light everything to ISO 450 anyway, high ISOs tend to lose the ‘movie look’ for some reason.
Note, most movies shot on film the past 25 years never exceeded ISO 500 film stock (I like lighting to that look)

6. Noise Pattern
F35 - Will exhibit a ‘better’ more random noise (based on full RGB 4:4:4 data for each pixel generated)
FS7 - Noise will have more of a repetitive/patterned feel (based on 4:2:2 data for each pixel generated)
The lack of patterned noise in the F35 is probably the filmic quality that folks talk about.

7. Artifacts
F35 - CCD smear (vertical streaking), minimal color aliasing on any color channels, minimal moire.
FS7 - Rolling Shutter, color aliasing due to interpolated data, more moire due to 4:2:2 sampling method.
F35 does not exhibit motion artifacts, but prone to streak if sensor is oversaturated with light. FS7 will still have some motion artifacts and potentially more moire.

8 - Post Image Flexibility
F35 - Good highlight latitude, similar to Alexa and Film, and great color overall. It gets skin tone right, because the chip is natively balanced for tungsten, this is still a rarity in the chip world, and the reason why the camera was probably so expensive to produce.
FS7 - CMOS chips are typically natively 5000k, which is why things may feel cold or less organic from the outset without extensive grading.
I assume this camera will have good low light sensitivity, reasonable sharpness, but weaker at capturing subtle colors and hues.

9 - Sensor Size
F35 - 23.62 x 13.28mm (diagonal 27.1mm)
Fs7 - S35mm CMOS - size ?

10 - High Speed
F35 - maxes out at 50 fps, built for high end traditional narrative workflow - well engineered 2007 Panavision/Sony tech, spared no expense in terms of technology implemented (250k original price)
FS7 - maxes out at 180fps/(240 fps w/add on), built for lower end Videographer market - 2014 technology to hit a specific marketing price point.
R&D/chip technology is now optimized and refined to hit specific price point/marketing segment.

This comparison is like a hammer and a mallet analogy.
Both device’s are good for hitting things. Each tool is better tailored for a specific use. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...

QFT!

Fantastic film scientist! This more technical way of saying F35 high end camera, FS7 cheap low budegt camera. No comparison.
 
jo kami said:
There is definitely some fanboy-ism in the F35 world, and Manuel "Film Scientist" touched on it very well with "attributing emotional feelings to ephemeral qualities"
Click to expand...

There is fanboy-ism every where.

But film scientist showed in technical way why F35 is better. Case closed!
 
Yeah - it will be a matter of preference.

I like the image, that the F35 can output very much. But this comes with the prize of portability.
A shoulder ready F35 is a beast of a camera, that doesn't suit everybodys needs.

I would really love to get the F35 for my documentaries - but it just doesn't fit.
I have to move in tight spaces very often and I need power for 2 days filming at least.

Here's where the FS7 will shine. The image will look more electronic as it is much more electronic.
But I have seen some very nice footage out of the F5 and my old FS100 can produce decent footage, too.

The FS7 will need a post workflow that wasn't possible 2-3 years ago. Today, I load mx footage in my NLE,
put some luts or quick grades (film convert for example) on it and start editing.
You can do all of this in real time (if HD or Proxy edited) without rendering.
That's why I think that the FS7 is a compromise in image quality or better speaking image characterisitcs
that can be helped to a certain point on post.
Slog is a type of workflow and not just a picture profile.

It's now, where filmmakers and cinematographers must be aware of the workflow during shooting and post.
It's not enough anymore to just put the image in your camera somehow.

Wasn't it the same way back in film times? We did extensive tests of the whole workflow with the film material
and the lenses before shooting. The camera was just the tool. The image came from film stock and the
developing method...
 
starcentral said:
Exposure is definitely key as is color transform in post and also possibly use of some type of light strength halation filter(s)... none of which you really need to do or go through the efforts with the F35 to get a "cinematic" film like image.

That there I believe is the crux of the issue and hence difference.

Many of us since the F3 days have been spending a lot of time learning how to best work with slog and get more "filmic" results. Now we find ourselves getting into very advanced color correction and grading even trying to incorporate ACES and IDTs in our workflow... and now even the possible use of film emulation LUT's for a better starting point, etc..

So even though technology get's cheaper, etc.. there's a good reason the F35 cameras was +$200k originally (and the image proves it) and from what I've concluded over 4 years of working with the CineAlta's is man they do require a ton of work to look anything close to the F35 and although it's taken several years (for me at least) to get closer and I still feel like I am very far away.

When I first splurged for the F55 hoping that it would have some of these F35 mojo characteristics I was quite wrong. Out of the box it is going to be like any other Sony camera non-F35 and require a s*%t-ton of work all around to look good. If you now expect that the FS7 is going to be close to the F35, you are wrong again, but its not to say that without effort you can't get close - which I think is Mark's point.
Click to expand...

Again I think all of that simply comes back to the initial 'Colour Transform' (I don't believe that's a formal term at present - but I think it needs to become one for everyone working in the creation of motion pictures).

The Panavision Genesis, the world's first proper S35mm digital cinema camera, and Sony's version of it, the F35, were designed as film substitutes, so they had to mimic the colour response of the S35mm film stocks they were replacing. This is why F35 footage is so easy to grade into a filmic look - the filmic colour transform is built into it, it's the camera's native output.

Red's cameras took the same approach to filmic colours, and that's why it's so easy to get filmic images from them - you just have to tweak your contrast and saturation as the filmic colour transform is built in.

Alexa? Same thing again. It was designed as a film replacement and the colours respond accordingly.

At present, these are the main cameras that have been designed that way. Almost everything else on the market (Sony F3/5/55, Canon C100/300/500 etc.) take their origins from Rec709 video cameras. That's what most of them are used for and that's where they get their inherent colour response from - and that's why they require an external colour transform (from Filmconvert or Film Emulation LUTs).

But having the colour transform be an external thing is not a big deal - the colours we need for filmic images are all still there, they're just '1's and '0's and they just need to be rearranged in a filmic response, and that's what these Colour Transform Programs/LUTs do.

This has taken me a long time to figure out for myself, but I think the sooner we can all get our heads around it, the sooner we can stop blaming our cameras and focus just on making nice pictures instead.
 
Film Scientist said:
Here’s my take on the comparative list between an F35 and an FS7.

I agree there should be objective means to measure image quality, otherwise we can quickly fall into the audiophile trap of
attributing emotional feelings to ephemeral qualities. But it’s helpful to realize that CMOS and CCD chips are still inherently analog devices.
Chip technologies have their pros and cons, some are more sensitive others more subtle.

Please take this apple-to-pear-comparison with a grain of salt.

1-Resolution
The F35 yields over sampled 1080p signal, from a striped CCD sensor.
12441600 active pixels (x6 times oversampling of HD resolution~2,073,600 pixels)
5760 Horizontal resolution: 1920 red sub pixels , 1920 green sub pixels, 1920 blue sub pixels.
2160 Vertical resolution: 2160 red sub pixels, 2160 green sub pixels, 2160 blue sub pixels.
Each pixel generated, is summed from 6 sub pixels of full RGB data at 14 bits.
(3 times horizontal resolution oversampling, 2 times vertical resolution oversampling to yield 1920 x 1080p)

FS7 is a Bayer CMOS sensor, that outputs 4K raw and 1080p
11.6 pixels quoted, but seems more like 8.8k are active.
The press release doesn’t specify number of actual photo sites (maybe a purposeful marketing omission)
~4096 horizontal resolution: 2048 Green sub pixels, 2048 Blue sub pixels (assumes Bayer Pattern)
~2160 Vertical resolution: 2160 Green sub pixels, 2160 Red sub pixels (assumes Bayer Pattern)
1 pixel of RGB data is generated from 2 Green sub pixels, 1 blue sub pixel and, 1 red sub pixel.
Utilizes traditional 4:2:2 sampling sampling scheme to capture interpolated color for ‘4K’ or 1920x1080p

Each chip is designed with a purpose built low pass filter that when combined with a lens determines the ultimate real world resolution.
In terms of luminance resolution both cameras are comparable in resolution, but color resolution is often forgotten in the world of 4K, the F35 beats it hands down (It’s sampling more real color data)

2. Sharpness
Is a combination of many factors…
Density of CMOS or CCD chip, quality of debayer or processing + low pass filter + Lens + recording encoding method log 4:4:4 vs. raw 4:2:2
FS7 claims 11.7 million (not sure how many are active)
F35 has 12.4 million
I would expect the F35, to be slightly sharper if we had access to the raw data.
But with cameras outputs we downscaled to 1080p, sharpness will be pretty close to equal

3. Dynamic range
F35 - at native ISO 450, 12 stops (11.3 per Zacuto test), good highlight sensitivity (with seemingly more stops devoted to highlights like film)
FS7 - at native ISO 2000, (14 stops according to manufacturer), stops above and below middle grey still TBD
I wonder if the high ISO of the FS7 will affect highlight sensitivity above middle grey in favor of a lower noise floor.

4 - Color
F35 - True RGB 4:4:4 @ 1920x1080. 14 bit AD to 12bit conversion. Tungsten balanced chip (3200k)
FS7- 4:2:2 @ ‘4K’. RAW. Daylight balanced chip.

Most Bayer chips still rely on the brute force method of adding more sub pixels to interpolate color.
So as cameras increase in resolution, they will be able to extract more color from larger arrays of 4:2:2.
What the F35 misses in resolution and sharpness, it more than makes up for by capturing subtle color hues and natural grain
by utilizing a very efficient RGB stripe method processed in-camera.

5. Noise
Both cameras would need to be tested at similar ISO to properly evaluate.
F35 - Will naturally be noisier due to base ISO 450, but sampled information/noise represents real, not interpolated RGB data (so noise looks better.)
FS7 - The base ISO of 2000 equals more sensitivity, and less noise.
I tend to light everything to ISO 450 anyway, high ISOs tend to lose the ‘movie look’ for some reason.
Note, most movies shot on film the past 25 years never exceeded ISO 500 film stock (I like lighting to that look)

6. Noise Pattern
F35 - Will exhibit a ‘better’ more random noise (based on full RGB 4:4:4 data for each pixel generated)
FS7 - Noise will have more of a repetitive/patterned feel (based on 4:2:2 data for each pixel generated)
The lack of patterned noise in the F35 is probably the filmic quality that folks talk about.

7. Artifacts
F35 - CCD smear (vertical streaking), minimal color aliasing on any color channels, minimal moire.
FS7 - Rolling Shutter, color aliasing due to interpolated data, more moire due to 4:2:2 sampling method.
F35 does not exhibit motion artifacts, but prone to streak if sensor is oversaturated with light. FS7 will still have some motion artifacts and potentially more moire.

8 - Post Image Flexibility
F35 - Good highlight latitude, similar to Alexa and Film, and great color overall. It gets skin tone right, because the chip is natively balanced for tungsten, this is still a rarity in the chip world, and the reason why the camera was probably so expensive to produce.
FS7 - CMOS chips are typically natively 5000k, which is why things may feel cold or less organic from the outset without extensive grading.
I assume this camera will have good low light sensitivity, reasonable sharpness, but weaker at capturing subtle colors and hues.

9 - Sensor Size
F35 - 23.62 x 13.28mm (diagonal 27.1mm)
Fs7 - S35mm CMOS - size ?

10 - High Speed
F35 - maxes out at 50 fps, built for high end traditional narrative workflow - well engineered 2007 Panavision/Sony tech, spared no expense in terms of technology implemented (250k original price)
FS7 - maxes out at 180fps/(240 fps w/add on), built for lower end Videographer market - 2014 technology to hit a specific marketing price point.
R&D/chip technology is now optimized and refined to hit specific price point/marketing segment.

This comparison is like a hammer and a mallet analogy.
Both device’s are good for hitting things. Each tool is better tailored for a specific use. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...

I just want to add that the f35 achieves waaay more than those 11stops that zacuto test says.
 
Grug said:
But having the colour transform be an external thing is not a big deal - the colours we need for filmic images are all still there, they're just '1's and '0's and they just need to be rearranged in a filmic response, and that's what these Colour Transform Programs/LUTs do.

This has taken me a long time to figure out for myself, but I think the sooner we can all get our heads around it, the sooner we can stop blaming our cameras and focus just on making nice pictures instead.
Click to expand...

This pretty much nailed it for me.

In the end the F35 will have the edge comparing cinematic colour reproduction and gamma/highlight rolloff.

But IF you need a portable system, the F35 isn't the right horse to put your ass on. It's made for controlled environment, controlled light and time to set up.

The FS7 is made to run'n gun out of the box without extra cables, batteries, recorders, rig and so on. It can produce 10bit internal, which is huge for some of us.
For me, looking for the old "cheapos" that once cost more than I can afford because of their cinematic picture capabilities, the workflow, that I sorted out with
grading and tools like film convert give me what I need even with the "Rec709 cameras". I do documentaries and again: I would love to bring the F35!
The FS7 is just in the right range for me, might it be "digital" and "flimsy" - it's 8000$ starting price! How much has the F35 been, when it hit the market?
 
Grug said:
But having the colour transform be an external thing is not a big deal - the colours we need for filmic images are all still there, they're just '1's and '0's and they just need to be rearranged in a filmic response, and that's what these Colour Transform Programs/LUTs do.

This has taken me a long time to figure out for myself, but I think the sooner we can all get our heads around it, the sooner we can stop blaming our cameras and focus just on making nice pictures instead.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's all about focusing on making pretty pictures, audiences don't care about the how.
I have to get better at telling a story, while getting better at tweaking the 0's and 1's we capture.
Hardware is no longer the limitation, it's our knowledge of how to use it that is.

We're pretty spoiled to have so many options and such amazing technology at our fingertips.
With systems like ACES it becomes even easier to eliminate the secret sauce that hides each camera's deficiencies.
Once we minimize camera variations with transforms, and plot the data in a linear fashion with a common reference,
it's much easier to match up different cameras & merge it with different CG elements.
Big budget movies have been doing this for years.
I'm happy that the software tools are getting cheap enough so we can master this process as well.
 
Grug said:
Red's cameras took the same approach to filmic colours, and that's why it's so easy to get filmic images from them - you just have to tweak your contrast and saturation as the filmic colour transform is built in.
Click to expand...

I wish. For me, this is far from the reality of RED and most cameras. A simple film LUT doesn't help it, either. It's basically always turning goop into gold by plating it, never ever feels or looks the same *even* if someone can't tell you how or why.
 
One of the frequent comments being made runs along the lines of "The F5/F55/FS7/otherCam can look good, but you have to work at it and know what you're doing in post. The F35 effortlessly looks good with very little work in post". Added to that, some operators comment that they're fine with this, as they've got a proven post workflow.

Here's my issue - I generally don't edit or color grade what I shoot. I hand it over. This is one thing I'm the most scared about with the Blackmagic URSA, which pretty much demands a post color grade - when you turn over footage you don't control that color grade, and some of these cameras it's pretty easy to butcher the color grade. If you're a single in house shop, this is easy to avoid, but if you're a freelancer who primarily shoots, it's a very real issue. Even if editors in general learn to handle color grading transforms better, you're still going to have some clients who take issue with your footage because of failures in post.
 
I'm adding this because I feel like I have to: I actually don't care anymore. It's pretty clear that each of these brands have their own thing going on, and there's nothing wrong with that. Once you identify which look you can either make money with or that you'd like to shoot with for your personal work, nothing else should really matter. There's no way you can waste money if your tool is making it, or the images you produce for your own work are satisfying to the point where you look beyond the camera and decide that you need good glass, production design, better talent or writing, etc.

This isn't me saying the camera isn't important, it *IS* for us. Guess I'm just saying it's not important to get a "Baby Alexa" or film, just something that fits you personally.
 
Reviving this as I've just found an F23 so am now trying to decide between that and the FS7! :)
I know they're very different but all I care about is something which will make excellent quality shots of wildlife and work well in the field - and both will do that. Pretty sure that like a lot of the F35 posts and threads it's very much a head and heart split!
Steve
 
F23 = images unsurpassed. "Smaller" lenses compared to S35 format due to F23 sensor size. But you know this already.
F23 = expensive to fix, where to service in middle of nowhere and/or travels abroad to possibly remote locations? What's your backup plan gonna be?

FS7 = Great 2000 ISO. 4K sensor, big super35mm lenses weigh more and are larger. Shoot in crop mode however and get FREE 2x focal length. Or use different format lenses possibly and use high quality 2/3" adapter or shoot centre crop.

FS7 = easily replace for $8000 shipped overnight by anyone almost anywhere. Disposable camera. High image quality in CineEI mode. 10-bit XAVC internal - no B.S. external decks and cables with worries, stress or failures in the field.

My vote FS7 all the way, but already suggested to you the F5 even better. Better mount. Full sensor 4K 120FPS coming with AXS-R7, and 16-bit RAW recording properly which the FS7 does not do. SR Codec which is leagues better than XAVC but not quite the file size of RAW. Maybe an extra $2-3k USD for used F5 over new FS7???

My F35 brothers here will flame me, but sorry FS7/F5 all the way.
 
Right now today: 60p in 4K full sensor mode internally to 10-bit XAVC (providing you buy the 4K unlock for F5) & 180fps in full sensor mode but HD internally to 10-bit XAVC. Also right now today with AXS-R5 RAW module record 4K 1-60p RAW and up to 240fps in 2K RAW (but for 2K you might want the swappable 2K OLPF for $800 USD.)

This summer via AXS-R7 ( and maybe some other paid update but not sure) full sensor 4K at 120fps - but I do not know 100% if it will be on both F5 and F55. Sorry,.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top