SCCE (large single sensor camera shoot out) part 3 goes live on Oct 5....
- Thread starter Duke M.
- Start date
Douglas Villalba
Well-known member
Not very impress with the shootout. Other than the rolling shutter test, we all new about the F3 color and sharpness reproduction. That is why we bought it, at least I did.
Duke M.
Veteran
I was surprised with the F35's lack of rolling shutter. It seemed to me the Red MX, F3 and AF100 were about the same in that regard. The 7D and 5D were awful. But it told us what we already know with the F3, pan slowly.
I've always like the F3 colors, even in a standard color matrix. The F3 has some nice contouring of the faces. I thought it was right up there with the Alexa and F35.
Did anyone happen to notice that the Alexa was being tested in all these with LogC, and the Red MX with RAW. For those dynamic range tests, to have a level playing field, the F3 should have had S-Log. It would have been even more impressive.
I've always like the F3 colors, even in a standard color matrix. The F3 has some nice contouring of the faces. I thought it was right up there with the Alexa and F35.
Did anyone happen to notice that the Alexa was being tested in all these with LogC, and the Red MX with RAW. For those dynamic range tests, to have a level playing field, the F3 should have had S-Log. It would have been even more impressive.
Is there a new instalment? Where are you guys reading this test.
S. Matthews
Well-known member
Use Dukes link in the first post, it will take you to episode three.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The F35 is a CCD camera, so no rolling shutter should have been expected.
The one with the amazing rolling shutter is the Alexa; it's CMOS but it's nearly skew-free.
The one with the amazing rolling shutter is the Alexa; it's CMOS but it's nearly skew-free.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Just a note of technical accuracy.
While most CCD sensors are global shutter and most CMOS sensors are rolling shutter, this does not always have to be the case. For instance, the Phantom Flex uses a CMOS sensor with a global shutter. In this test you will note that it is the absolute most rock-solid performance in the stability test of the shutter.
Here's an article I wrote on the topic a few years ago for our blog:
http://blog.abelcine.com/2009/04/15/the-difference-between-a-global-shutter-and-a-rolling-shutter/
While most CCD sensors are global shutter and most CMOS sensors are rolling shutter, this does not always have to be the case. For instance, the Phantom Flex uses a CMOS sensor with a global shutter. In this test you will note that it is the absolute most rock-solid performance in the stability test of the shutter.
Here's an article I wrote on the topic a few years ago for our blog:
http://blog.abelcine.com/2009/04/15/the-difference-between-a-global-shutter-and-a-rolling-shutter/
nyvz
Veteran
I got to see the test a week or two ago in NYC, and Ive been watching these zacuto docs about it. Did anyone else notice the RED footage consistently seemed softer than most of the other cameras? Seems odd since the SCCE's graphs confirm that RED resolved twice the resolution of any other camera in their tests. Anyone notice this or have any idea why it all looks so soft? It was mentioned they did a 2k workflow even though they showed the test on a 4k projector, but it still doesnt explain why RED would be SOFT...
starcentral
Veteran
@ 22:00 "film still has its place" says the Kodak representative, unfortunately with all these cameras coming so close with one another in terms of performance and image quality not to mention that the "audience" just can't tell anymore, what do you guys think of that? Is film dead?
Douglas Villalba
Well-known member
There is a big industry behind film that would disappear if film dies. None of the heavy equipment used in film is needed so the bunch of people needed to operate them are out of work.
Unions will try to keep film going for as long as they can.
Unions will try to keep film going for as long as they can.
LeavingTheCandy
Well-known member
I am with Douglas regarding film...not going anywhere any time soon. Kodak will start giving cameras away.
The test was really good, but not quite fair since F3 was not represented with SLOG. A few things that were note-worthy to me. (obviously, this is my own subjective opinions).
1. The F3 did great on the color test on the tabletops but the Alexa was awesome. (of course)
2. The F3 didn't look great on the skin-tone tests to me. (SLOG?)
3. The D7000 did better on the skin tones than the Canon DSLR's.
4. The F35 is awesome.
All of this is of note to me since I shoot a lot of talking heads.
The test was really good, but not quite fair since F3 was not represented with SLOG. A few things that were note-worthy to me. (obviously, this is my own subjective opinions).
1. The F3 did great on the color test on the tabletops but the Alexa was awesome. (of course)
2. The F3 didn't look great on the skin-tone tests to me. (SLOG?)
3. The D7000 did better on the skin tones than the Canon DSLR's.
4. The F35 is awesome.
All of this is of note to me since I shoot a lot of talking heads.
Duke M.
Veteran
Actually I think the original guy said something like 'Film is dead for indie productions'. It was definitely qualified to the indie environment. For the small time indie producers like most of us, I have to agree. Its only the people after him that didn't qualify it, and if you don't qualify it I agree.
I used to have an Eclair 35mm film camera shooting academy with wild sound. I hated every minute of it. You didn't know what you had shot until a week later if you were lucky. It was expensive, time consuming and subject to a jillion errors. (In part because if you buy short ends, old stock, etc you're depending on a prior person to have treated the film right.)
It can be done, but I'm never going back unless someone gives me a thirty million dollar budget, and even then I might not go back. Thirty million and sci-fi FX, no way. $50,000 and sci-fi FX on a digital movie, yes probably.
I used to have an Eclair 35mm film camera shooting academy with wild sound. I hated every minute of it. You didn't know what you had shot until a week later if you were lucky. It was expensive, time consuming and subject to a jillion errors. (In part because if you buy short ends, old stock, etc you're depending on a prior person to have treated the film right.)
It can be done, but I'm never going back unless someone gives me a thirty million dollar budget, and even then I might not go back. Thirty million and sci-fi FX, no way. $50,000 and sci-fi FX on a digital movie, yes probably.
starcentral
Veteran
Its true there is a well established infrastructure and thus industry behind film so its here to stay for a bit, but like it or not its only a matter of time before it fades out or cuts to black completely.
Duke M.
Veteran
In a $70 million dollar production (Tom Cruise, George Cluney, etc) the camera and film is a minor blip on the budget. That and the entrenched people (and snob appeal) means film will be around a long time for the big productions. They don't care if it saves them $100,000 if they have the snob appeal.