F55: Sensors and Image Quality (F5/F55 vs F23 vs Codex ActionCam vs HPX3700)

Thanks Doug! Will def check it out.

and thanks OnSet! Will def check out that adapter and also play around with the F3 once I get it. I just saw another film shot with it back in 2012 I think called "Officer Down" and visually it also held up for me as another example of how the camera can look.

Good thing about the Nikon lenses and adaper is that there are also adaptors available to use nikon lenses and glass on my 3ccd HPX3100 as well so it gives me that added benefit of using the same lens for the F3 and the HPX3100 as well to match certain looks as I will be shooting a short film with both cameras.

Thanks for the advice!
 
BatVal said:
Thank you so much for the info Broatch!

It’s amazing how many different options there are with cameras over the last 10-15 yrs. I’ll def check out those adapters. Can’t wait to test it all out and make a short film.
Click to expand...

I've got the Optitek Nikon adapter for sale if you need it. Really nifty piece of kit. I'm still mad that Sony moved away from the FZ mount. So simple, and so versatile.
 
Congratulations on F3 purchase. I'm shooting with FX6 now but my F3 is still there on the shelf next to me. The big pixels and the slog skintones still give it an edge over many newer cameras. Experiment with slog, even on internal cards, and you'll still get great pics, and it's easy to grade. Shot on it for years and mostly didn't bother with LUTS when grading in Resolve or Premiere. It's also a good low light camera. I always used Nikon and Nikon-mounted lenses with an Optitek adapter. They were mostly zooms, the last was the Nikkor 24-120 F4 EG D which has a good range, clean image and good contrast, but is frustrating re focus throw and smooth zooming.
 
David Matillo said:
Congrats on the F3!! I shot a short film on mine right before the pandemic. https://vimeo.com/356997768/edc14736dc Prepping for a feature to shoot next year for around 1.5 million. I'm considering the F3 because I love the look so much!
Click to expand...

I agree that the F3 has an awesome picture. I can't stream the video you linked to because I'm traveling and don't have the bandwidth, but I'm surprised anyone would even consider shooting a feature at any resolution less than 4K in 2021, let alone 2022. You have to rethink your plan. :)
 
Doug Jensen said:
I agree that the F3 has an awesome picture. I can't stream the video you linked to because I'm traveling and don't have the bandwidth, but I'm surprised anyone would even consider shooting a feature at any resolution less than 4K in 2021, let alone 2022. You have to rethink your plan. :)
Click to expand...

Setting aside the cases where shooting in the best quality 4K (or higher) makes the most sense—which is going to be most cases—do you not think there's room for choosing HD as part of the overall look and process? I thinking, e.g., in the way that a DP and director might decide to shoot 16mm over 35mm to achieve a certain look (which is the result of both the practicalities of working in one format and the actual photochemical characteristics of each format).

I realize all this can be done in post, but do think it's interesting to consider how choosing a specific HD camera in a 4K world can be a very specific creative decision.
 
drboffa said:
Setting aside the cases where shooting in the best quality 4K (or higher) makes the most sense—which is going to be most cases—do you not think there's room for choosing HD as part of the overall look and process? I thinking, e.g., in the way that a DP and director might decide to shoot 16mm over 35mm to achieve a certain look (which is the result of both the practicalities of working in one format and the actual photochemical characteristics of each format).

I realize all this can be done in post, but do think it's interesting to consider how choosing a specific HD camera in a 4K world can be a very specific creative decision.
Click to expand...

Very well said drboffa. It's about the aesthetic you are going for. The look, the color and texture. HD vs 4k shouldn't be at the forefront of any conversation about cinematography. But I guess this is mostly videographers on here so I kind of get the attitude.

What is the digital equivalent of 16mm. I kind of think it might be 2/3" eng like hpx3700 or F23. The form factor of the F3 is mighty fantastic
 
drboffa said:
Setting aside the cases where shooting in the best quality 4K (or higher) makes the most sense—which is going to be most cases—do you not think there's room for choosing HD as part of the overall look and process?.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. There is no creative reason whatsoever to purposely shoot at a lower resolution when all other factors are equal. And if someone thinks that a 14 year old F3 is a more suitable choice than a FX9 or F55 (or many other modern cameras) to shoot a $1.5 million feature , I would ask them to show me the camera tests they have conducted to prove the F3 is the better choice. Crazy talk. :)
 
While I wouldn't express myself quite as sharply as Doug but I gotta say I agree with him. I've noticed over the years that every time Sony comes out with a new camera with an improved sensor, at first people who get the new camera and have the old one to compare it to will sing the praises of the new camera. Its generally sharper, faster, better color, less noise.... - in general an overall improvement. Then a year or 2 later you start hearing on the web that the old one was more cinematic, it had more character ..... Well personally I think its generally BS though I have an open mind if someone could show me tests to prove it.. I had an F3 and would never choose to shoot with it over an FX9 for anything. Actually the only old gear that I think produced an image that's not easy for me to reproduce were some of the old 35mm adapters because the ground glass that made the image had a certain magic. However I would never in a million years go back to that pain willingly. I'm sure some filter could create a similar look if I took the time to experiment.
Re 4K or HD , the only reason I could imagine someone choosing HD would be if you wanted to shoot with more Depth of Field, use specific lenses ( especially B4 zooms or real long lenses), or for reasons having to do with ease in post or matching previous footage.
 
David Matillo said:
What is the digital equivalent of 16mm. I kind of think it might be 2/3" eng like hpx3700 or F23. The form factor of the F3 is mighty fantastic
Click to expand...

I'd agree—some of those old 2/3" sensor cameras have a 16mm vibe to them, for a lot of reasons. The look they provide is almost nothing like film, but that's kinda why they exist in the 16mm realm for me: they very clearly signal that they are not part of the high end, Hollywood tradition, but are instead associated with student work, amateurs, and documentaries (much like 16mm film). On some films this was a budget choice rather than an aesthetic one, but again, that was also often the case with 16mm.

Doug Jensen said:
Absolutely not. There is no creative reason whatsoever to purposely shoot at a lower resolution when all other factors are equal. And if someone thinks that a 14 year old F3 is a more suitable choice than a FX9 or F55 (or many other modern cameras) to shoot a $1.5 million feature , I would ask them to show me the camera tests they have conducted to prove the F3 is the better choice. Crazy talk. :)
Click to expand...

Broadly speaking I think your points are valid. But I do think there is room to say "We are after a certain look, and we can either do it in post or capture it in camera, and we have decided to go in camera." If you want the look of the Sony F900, e.g., because it fits the story, then there is a case to be made for getting that look in camera. (I really like the look of the F900 on its early features, although I know that by all objective measures it can't stand up against modern cameras that cost a literal fraction of its price—and to clarify "I like the look" I mean it works really well in certain contexts, not that I think it produces a better image than, say, an FX6 or F55.)

Anyway, this is a somewhat roundabout way of saying that I do think there are creative reasons someone might go with an older HD camera. It might even just boil down to working method. As a point of comparison: I am 100% not a film apologist or someone who romanticizes film, and I think most commentary about shooting on film is total bull$hit. No one can tell film vs digital anymore (and probably this has been true for nearly a decade). BUT: working with film does impose certain limitations that can be part of the creative process, such as limits on mag size (and thus take lengths). That, to me, is kind of interesting.

Shooting in HD on an older camera with a thin codec might create similar limitations: no room for extensive reframing in post, no chance at aggressively changing the look in post, and so on. The taking away of creative options is in itself a creative choice. Denis Villeneuve mentioned something like this about a scene in his 2015 film Sicario: he and Roger Deakins shot an entire conversation in an extreme wide shot, and Villeneuve purposefully did not shoot any other coverage—this way he was forced into sticking with the conversation as shot, and couldn't be wishy-washy about it in the edit (or bow to external pressure).

HAVING SAID ALL THIS, there is no denying the enormous improvements and benefits of newer cameras. And I imagine that for like 99% of productions a modern camera makes the most sense. I think where we differ is in whether we believe there's merit or creativity in choosing older cameras in those 1% of cases where it might make sense.
 
I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree with most of it. But even if you like the look of an 2/3" F900 there are still far, far, better cameras today. The Z450 and my own Z750 are light years ahead of the old F800 or F900, yet still provide the look and native lens choices of a real 2/3" or 16mm camera. I have an FX6, FS7, S1H, and F55, but my favorite camera to shoot with is my Z750 and 24x Fujinion. But I wouldn't shoot a $1.5 million feature on it unless it was a documentary.

Technology does not stand still, and having nostalgia for outdated cameras is foolish unless someone has really done their due diligence to confirm their prejudices and considered the consequences of shooting with resolutiosn that are ALREADY out of date.

Not trying to argue or say my way is better than someone elses, just having a conversation and pointing out some things that I think are worth thinking about.
 
The FX9 with the new firmware update just received a crop scan mode for super 16 and b4 glass making it a great option. Doug this also brings up a great question in comparing the fx9 with B4 glass in s16 crop mode vs the Z750 with B4 glass. If I’m not mistaken the Z750 has the same S-cine tone that the Fx9 has correct and those Venice colors of one also chooses to go with slog3 etc? But I’m pretty sure the Z750 has wide color gamut and a cine-tone. Also you mentioned that you wouldn’t use the Z750 for filmmaking unless it was for documentary work. What are the reasons for that? Is it purely because most cinema cameras are leaning towards a full frame or super 35 look these days or other reasons. I tend to look at films in the 50’s and 69’s that were all about Deep Focus mise en scene, color, high contrast, and fast pans and movement through a scene then the Z750 should still be great for filmmakers. I wasn’t interested in the Fx9 till it got the S16 crop mode and I saw it’s Cine-Tone colors. All things aside though I’m a filmmaking that works with movement, deep focus, and high color contrast images similar to Kodak stock back after the technicolor days and then especially the 60’s and 70’s. The only thing I have against the Z750 is most of the footage I’ve seen has a real world documentary color look. Very subtle textures. Is this just cause of the grade and is the Z750 capable of high contrast bold color popping cinematography? Cause if it is I’m grateful a camera like that exists and loving the 2/3” 3cmos 4K form factor in 2021.
 
I'll try to address more of your questions when I have time, but just let me point out that the FX9's S16 scan mode is only HD. That should be a deal breaker for anyone with an eye to the future. In 2021 we are already too deep into 4K to waste time and effort shooting 1080p anymore. I haven't shot HD on any production in at least five years, maybe longer.

The Z750 has S-LOG3 and dozens of paint menus that allow you to dial-in just about any look that you want, but it does not have the same S-Cinetone mode that is found on the FX9 and FX6. Even if it had it, I wouldn't use it anyway.

You are correct that the Z750 can easily provide a cinematic "look" if deep depth-of-field is desired, but if I was shooting a feature, that would not be my creative choice. To me, the Z750 is the world's best camera for documentary, sports, news. reality TV, live event, etc.. but it's not meant to function as, or replace, S35 and FF cinema cameras.

I could post some links to Z750 and Z450 footage if you want.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
I'll try to address more of your questions when I have time, but just let me point out that the FX9's S16 scan mode is only HD. That should be a deal breaker for anyone with an eye to the future. In 2021 we are already too deep into 4K to waste time and effort shooting 1080p anymore. I haven't shot HD on any production in at least five years, maybe longer.

The Z750 has S-LOG3 and dozens of paint menus that allow you to dial-in just about any look that you want, but it does not have the same S-Cinetone mode that is found on the FX9 and FX6. Even if it had it, I wouldn't use it anyway.

You are correct that the Z750 can easily provide a cinematic "look" if deep depth-of-field is desired, but if I was shooting a feature, that would not be my creative choice. To me, the Z750 is the world's best camera for documentary, sports, news. reality TV, live event, etc.. but it's not meant to function as, or replace, S35 and FF cinema cameras.

I could post some links to Z750 and Z450 footage if you want.
Click to expand...

Thank you for all the great information Doug! If I do step up in the next five years it will either be to a digital bolex, Sony f55, or sony f65 (although from what I understand I believe the f55 has a very nice 2k 16 bit raw with the latest upgrade). And I already have the b4 to pl 2k super 16 adaptor that goes with the f55.

I’ve firm come to find out that I am firmly in the 2/3” and at most Super 16mm crowd of filmmaking similar I guess to the era where verite independent filmmaking was more of a super 16 endeavor of run and gun.

I did downsize significantly from the Sony F3 and my HPX3100 as my main camera is now a minuscule Codex ActionCam (2/3” Kodak ccd sensor with c mount and 12 bit raw image). I also have a Codex Vault that I can convert the footage with etc.

I’ve also gone down the lens research rabbit hole lately.

I think the reason that I’m in the 2/3” to super 16 box is because of the lenses honestly and I want nothing to do with full frame glass for filmmaking prob cause I love a small foot print and I’m okay it that means using a lot of lights. I just don’t want to be pulling focusing as much as I’m free to move, focusing on lighting, and focusing on performance as a one man crew essentially.

My current Kit:
Codex ActionCam and Codex Vault
2 Si-2K’s
c-mount Kowa lenses (200lp/mm center resolution)
c-mount Zeiss dimensions lenses (250/lp/mm center resolution).
b4 canon digiprime
b4 Fujinon primes

my question:

I’ve been studying glass recently. 16mm, super 16, and B4 lenses and I know almost every piece of glass that’s been out there but there are some holes to my education.

im aware of the Fujinon (Star Wars B4 era ie the HaeF and HAEc etc) as well as the canon HD-ECs and the Zeiss digiprimes (man I wish I had a viper like the one used to shoot Zodiac. I also just missed out on grabbing a Sony f23 for $1,000 but I’m also considering pairing a GH5s or GH6 with my Zeiss dimension lenses.
The sensor resolution on that viper ccd was unique from what I remember due to the horizontal pixel count or in camera stretch towards anamorphic I think it was definitely different than the f23 in that regard).

im aware of the 16mm kerns, the super 16 canon zooms (the likes of hurt locker etc lenses) and the angeniuex HR zoom ie Quinn medicine women that was their answer to the canon zooms, etc. the nostalgic Kowa cp-16 super 16 primes and so on.

im aware of the elite b4 primes in the sense that there at about 200lp/mm as are the Cooke sk4’s as well and that the Zeiss ultra 16’s are the sharpest for super 16 (black swan, fruitville station, the wrestler, etc).

my blind spots are Optex. Who is Optex and what do they do? Where do they rank as I can’t find anything on them.

who are the brands in general and what do they do in terms of glass and lenses.
- Zeiss sharpness and rolls Royce of lenses as one seller tried to sell me in a pitch
- Canon - saruration? K35’s and FDs are their peak?
- Angeniuiew - ?? The boring mix between a Zeiss and canon look but a bit ore earthy tones? I could be wrong here.
- Super Ballars- godfather look..

Optex - they had their super wide 4mm,6mm, and 8mm super 16 glass they were known for but they also have B4 Optex primes (why is there no info on these?? 40mmT3, 50mmT2.8, and so on)

i know that Optex did the rehousing of Cooke super 16 zoom (my understanding is that even with the retraining that was Cooke glass on the inside still).

BUT Optex Also has a line of b4 primes so is Optex just a lens rehousing or is it their own glass. I once heard someone say Optex was just canon glass but is that true or no?

does anyone know of the Optex b4 primes and are they just essentially canon digiprime, Fujinon digiprimes, or similar to elite b4 primes?
-
 
BatVal said:
Thank you for all the great information Doug! If I do step up in the next five years it will either be to a digital bolex, Sony f55, or sony f65 (although from what I understand I believe the f55 has a very nice 2k 16 bit raw with the latest upgrade). And I already have the b4 to pl 2k super 16 adaptor that goes with the f55.

I’ve firm come to find out that I am firmly in the 2/3” and at most Super 16mm crowd of filmmaking similar I guess to the era where verite independent filmmaking was more of a super 16 endeavor of run and gun.

I did downsize significantly from the Sony F3 and my HPX3100 as my main camera is now a minuscule Codex ActionCam (2/3” Kodak ccd sensor with c mount and 12 bit raw image). I also have a Codex Vault that I can convert the footage with etc.

I’ve also gone down the lens research rabbit hole lately.

I think the reason that I’m in the 2/3” to super 16 box is because of the lenses honestly and I want nothing to do with full frame glass for filmmaking prob cause I love a small foot print and I’m okay it that means using a lot of lights. I just don’t want to be pulling focusing as much as I’m free to move, focusing on lighting, and focusing on performance as a one man crew essentially.

My current Kit:
Codex ActionCam and Codex Vault
2 Si-2K’s
c-mount Kowa lenses (200lp/mm center resolution)
c-mount Zeiss dimensions lenses (250/lp/mm center resolution).
b4 canon digiprime
b4 Fujinon primes

my question:

I’ve been studying glass recently. 16mm, super 16, and B4 lenses and I know almost every piece of glass that’s been out there but there are some holes to my education.

im aware of the Fujinon (Star Wars B4 era ie the HaeF and HAEc etc) as well as the canon HD-ECs and the Zeiss digiprimes (man I wish I had a viper like the one used to shoot Zodiac. I also just missed out on grabbing a Sony f23 for $1,000 but I’m also considering pairing a GH5s or GH6 with my Zeiss dimension lenses.
The sensor resolution on that viper ccd was unique from what I remember due to the horizontal pixel count or in camera stretch towards anamorphic I think it was definitely different than the f23 in that regard).

im aware of the 16mm kerns, the super 16 canon zooms (the likes of hurt locker etc lenses) and the angeniuex HR zoom ie Quinn medicine women that was their answer to the canon zooms, etc. the nostalgic Kowa cp-16 super 16 primes and so on.

im aware of the elite b4 primes in the sense that there at about 200lp/mm as are the Cooke sk4’s as well and that the Zeiss ultra 16’s are the sharpest for super 16 (black swan, fruitville station, the wrestler, etc).

my blind spots are Optex. Who is Optex and what do they do? Where do they rank as I can’t find anything on them.

who are the brands in general and what do they do in terms of glass and lenses.
- Zeiss sharpness and rolls Royce of lenses as one seller tried to sell me in a pitch
- Canon - saruration? K35’s and FDs are their peak?
- Angeniuiew - ?? The boring mix between a Zeiss and canon look but a bit ore earthy tones? I could be wrong here.
- Super Ballars- godfather look..

Optex - they had their super wide 4mm,6mm, and 8mm super 16 glass they were known for but they also have B4 Optex primes (why is there no info on these?? 40mmT3, 50mmT2.8, and so on)

i know that Optex did the rehousing of Cooke super 16 zoom (my understanding is that even with the retraining that was Cooke glass on the inside still).

BUT Optex Also has a line of b4 primes so is Optex just a lens rehousing or is it their own glass. I once heard someone say Optex was just canon glass but is that true or no?

does anyone know of the Optex b4 primes and are they just essentially canon digiprime, Fujinon digiprimes, or similar to elite b4 primes?
-
Click to expand...

Fot whatever it is worth, my advice is that you are putting way too much importance on various models of cameras and lenses. Does it really matter if a Canon lens has "earthy tones"? Does it matter if a certain lens is a rehoused version of another lens? Either it meets your need or it doesn't. With all due respect, you might need an intervention. :)

Just choose a camera and a lens or two and go out and shoot what you want to shoot. There is no need to understand the details of every camera and lens ever made. It's not the gear that matters. It's what you do with the gear you have selected. Just choose something that seems like it fits your needs and get shooting.
 
Understood. You’re right on the money. Time to just shoot. Thanks for the intervention and advice! :)
 
I love S16 and 16mm digital cameras and all of the unusual lens options that come with them. I would be interested to see some of your footage from the Action Cam and the SI-2Ks. Do you have anything posted online?
 
QuickHitRecord said:
I love S16 and 16mm digital cameras and all of the unusual lens options that come with them. I would be interested to see some of your footage from the Action Cam and the SI-2Ks. Do you have anything posted online?
Click to expand...

I usually shift back and forth between storage and where I’m staying (about an hour drive apart) as I can’t leave my equipment around where I am, wish I could so I can play around with it to do some tests more regularly but I’ve tested it inside before. I just don’t have footage on me. The back and forth until I get my own place is also what makes it harder to shoot as I don’t have everything with me on a day to day.

I had downgraded from the HPX3100 because of the weight and in Florida the heat and humidity would make the camera sweat when I was outside. So I figured the codex ActionCam would make it more likely that I could shoot more often but It’s also not weatherproof or weather sealed. It’s also teathered by 3G SDI to the main unit I’d have to rig out or ideally get a back pack to mount on me as a solo shooter which is what the crew on Anthony Bourdain did they essentially backpacked the main unite and held the tethered camera.

it was originally created by codex and the company that built the sensor for arri to match up with an Arri Alexa, Sony F5, F55, and can synch up with those cameras but was intended as an action b cam for hard to reach places where a small body was required.

I’m planning to shoot a couple of short films with it though so then I can share some footage but if you want to see exactly what it looks like with the exact lenses (the kowas), (haven’t used it with my Zeiss lenses yet that are higher resolving power and weather sealed unlike the kowas) so I’m interested to see if the Zeiss look is any different but all this footage is shot on that camera with those Kowa lenses:

The Weekend - False Alarm Music Video:
https://vimeo.com/397831752

Bonobos - music video:
https://vimeo.com/220609603
behind the scenes with camera:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5jtE1kZxSo4&pp=ygUaQm9ub2JvcyBiZWhpbmQgZmhlIHNjZW5lcyA=

Full episode of Anthony Bourdain Parts Unknown South Korea: 85%-90% of episode was shot on codex ActionCam cam and Kowa lenses.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Soo2jj8DC24

I was a fan of the ccd sensor of the digital bolex and also liked the signal to noise ratio of Eng b4 cameras (and deep focus black and white films from the 50’s) so I was thinking on the Muhammad Ali methodology and thought to myself if I went opposite of full frame or super 35 how could I get as much resolving power in as small a foot print as possible.

when I saw the Bourdain episode one day I got curious on what it was shot on and did some digging as the image fit all my checkboxes ironically. Managed to find the first camera head in zimbobway or some off place like that in South Africa I don’t remember the exact region (with no parts but the head or the seller having any idea if it worked or not or what it even was) I thought well here’s a risk for $1,000.. That may never be full assembled ever or just be a paperweight but I said eh what the heck then when I got it in my palm of my hand I though incredible. Years later I tracked down a second camera head and the accompanying recording unit being sold by a studio in Los Angeles, called the secretary and went back and forth with them for about a year and a half. Saved up a bit. Finally got the CEO on the phone and negotiated with him to his final price last year and bought that.

I was going to use the 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 to record to a pix240i external monitor and call it a day with a portable set up.

started going back and forth with codex customer support (who I have to say are incredible customer service even for a camera discontinued years ago that they didn’t need to be as helpful as they were and for them to essentially tell me I can’t go out 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 to an external monitor and would need to record to go the codex magazines in raw for the image quality to be what it’s supposed to be. And I was like your joking right… I know this has a 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 out. Your telling me that’s not a recording signal? The guy on customer support said no. I said are you sure..what is it then? It’s a monitoring signal he said LOL I was like a 4:4:4 monitoring signal? Ok. So I need a vault or a codex usb dock which are even rarer. Couple months ago found the only vault in London. Got it. Then I though great now how am I gonna get my hands on c mount Kowa lenses and I did and essentially that’s how it all came together..

Also Doug, I truly thank you for the advice. If a novice like me doesn’t listen to experience what chance do I got haha my life has been at the pace of a turtle but I’ve got a thick skin and love direct communication. It’s the only kind that works. It’s been slow going for sure but slowly getting there bit by bit LOL i definitely have respect for filmmakers as anything that could go wrong has gone wrong and I haven’t even stepped on a set yet so it’s been a journey but I’ve learned than more than the camera or lenses: three things are more important: lighting, actors/a crew, and the script. Also a friend I know in London that’s been a director for over 15 years also called me out as well like “guy go shoot something” and a cinematographer in New York so I’m getting there. The scripts are already written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top