Some footage from my Panavision HD900F (sony f900) - football game

To be a camera that's pushing 20 yrs old, there's not a damn thing wrong with the image it can produce. Blows away a lot of modern cameras... And CCD's are part of it.
 
Run&Gun said:
To be a camera that's pushing 20 yrs old, there's not a damn thing wrong with the image it can produce. Blows away a lot of modern cameras... And CCD's are part of it.
Click to expand...

A-****ing-men my friend! I absolutely love LOVE this camera!
 
This is amazing footage Mike, I'm super happy to see some great content coming out of your camera.
It really shines in those whip pans!
Can I ask what lens you used? Is it the Optex?
Also it'd be great to see some footage on vimeo where the compression is a little better.
 
darn good footage for an "old" camera!

thanks for the effort and the sharing.

thumbs up.

rob
smalltalk productions/nyc
 
The Panavision camera def aged like a fine wine IMO. :D. I was using the gamma tables created by panavision and kodak which were a big help as well. I didnt do any correction to the image, i just matted it to 2.40 and cut it. :)
 
helweg said:
This is amazing footage Mike, I'm super happy to see some great content coming out of your camera.
It really shines in those whip pans!
Can I ask what lens you used? Is it the Optex?
Also it'd be great to see some footage on vimeo where the compression is a little better.
Click to expand...

Yes I used the Optex HJ9x5.5 lens. I would love to return to vimeo but since they changed how little you can upload as a free member, i have stayed away from them as i just do not have the money to really use their site as it should be used.
 
I'm really sorry, but if you removed the camera label from the video, we'd have comments on poor depth of field, amazingly wobbly pictures, very soft images and over contrasty look. No detail in the shadows, and unless the grass really was that weird dark green colour, some strange colorimetry. It's clearly far too big a camera to use handheld. Saying that, I'd love to have one - but sports with a lens wide open, handheld would probably have looked better shot on a current budget consumer handicam where near two far would have been in focus and the light weight making stability much easier.

We're all impressed a nearly 20 year old camera can still be used - but I have an even older broadcast Ampex (Sony) Betacam SP, that still works in good old SD. I don't think I could shoot with it shoulder mounted smoothly as it weighs a ton too - so this post is not in any way criticism of your operating skills - just that I don't see what people are getting excited about, and I could spend five minutes in the edit making the image look like that by degrading something more modern and cheaper.

I don't see the plus points everyone else does? You couldn't actually use those shots for real?
 
I was being polite be avoiding responding, but I agree with Paul. Many of us have roots in these sized cameras, so there is love there. But, one has to call it like it is. Sensors have come a long way in 20 years.
 
paulears said:
I'm really sorry, but if you removed the camera label from the video, we'd have comments on poor depth of field, amazingly wobbly pictures, very soft images and over contrasty look. No detail in the shadows, and unless the grass really was that weird dark green colour, some strange colorimetry. It's clearly far too big a camera to use handheld. Saying that, I'd love to have one - but sports with a lens wide open, handheld would probably have looked better shot on a current budget consumer handicam where near two far would have been in focus and the light weight making stability much easier.

We're all impressed a nearly 20 year old camera can still be used - but I have an even older broadcast Ampex (Sony) Betacam SP, that still works in good old SD. I don't think I could shoot with it shoulder mounted smoothly as it weighs a ton too - so this post is not in any way criticism of your operating skills - just that I don't see what people are getting excited about, and I could spend five minutes in the edit making the image look like that by degrading something more modern and cheaper.

I don't see the plus points everyone else does? You couldn't actually use those shots for real?
Click to expand...

It's all subjective. This what by no means anything professional or a "for hire" situation. I was just getting shots of my brother's game. Frankly I enjoy this camera much more than anything modern i have been able to get my hands on. I even enjoy this camera over the Red One MX which if we are talking sensors has a much larger sensor and resolution. Too each his own my friend. The one thing I will however fight on is the fact that these cameras still have a place in the market of freelancing in 2018. I believe F900s are even still being used in places of episodic television. For the amount of money I spent on this system I would say financially you can compare it to a fully rigged out GH5 and in my personal opinion, I would take the panavision 900 over a GH5 anyday. Im not posting my work with older gear to show how its "superior" to modern cameras, but that the images still hold up and that if someone with means to invest in a 900 or varicam H wanted to, they could and get very beautiful images. The F900 was ahead of its time and with the advancement of post production software and codecs today, the images really can hold up.

Im sure there are people over at the F23/35 pages saying the same thing.. that its old, too heavy, etc etc. Cameras old new, big small are just tools. I think if done right, a film shot on DV could still compete in sundance today.. its how you use it. And yes, i will be filming another game this thursday but experimenting with the Cineon LOG curves you can load into the camera.
 
Run&Gun said:
To be a camera that's pushing 20 yrs old, there's not a damn thing wrong with the image it can produce. Blows away a lot of modern cameras... And CCD's are part of it.
Click to expand...

I wanted to quote run&gun. i agree with him here. Some of you wont agree with us, again, its all subjective. Just because a camera is old, does not mean it needs to be pushed to the wayside. the operator and artist are all just as unique and different as these cameras. :)
 
Bassman2003 said:
Mike, how much have you invested in the F900 setup? I remember you using a Varicam "H" model a while back as well.
Click to expand...

I would have to look back on all of my reciepts and some pieces i transfered over from the varicam to this 900 camera like the lens and so forth, but, if i had to guess, easily would hit around 5 grand or so. If you're trying to say " well with 5 grand you can get XY and Z which are far superior and lighter than what you have ", i'll stop ya right there. :b

It doesnt matter to me that i have the latest and greatest.. i do not follow trends. i work with what i enjoy working with and for me over the last half decade have been ENG cinema cameras.
 
Also will point out that I think the Varicam H is a fantastic camera as well! The one thing i miss from that camera over the 900 is the in camera frame ramping. really enjoyed experimenting/creating with that tool.
 
Also, needed to point out that one of the best football films ever made was shot in a very chaotic, shakey method.. contrast is a bit high and last i checked, 35mm cameras are a bit heavy. now im just being an ass :b. all in good fun man!
 
im with you mike. looks good. and looovvvee John H too. wait....so this footage is not good enough for the "good enough" gh5 crowd? well isnt that nice! a little too ironic. dont you think?
 
mavs said:
im with you mike. looks good. and looovvvee John H too. wait....so this footage is not good enough for the "good enough" gh5 crowd? well isnt that nice! a little too ironic. dont you think?
Click to expand...

You are amazing my friend. Thank you for the nice words :)
 
Can see the dynamic range is limited but the footage/colours look very nice - specially for a 20 year old sensor!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top