Sony f35 upgrade!

E

Edrafennas

Active member
people! Hi! I just recently talked with the Russian company producing matrices and cameras KINOR. I ask them whether it is possible on the basis of SONY F35 ( replacing only the necessary parts) to make 65mm sensor camera with 4K technology and RGB strips. They said that perhaps only here for $ 246,000 = ( (
 
nothing - i like it just the way it is. I just wish the O7Q could do pro res 4444 which they are working on then I have the best camera I need for most of what I do.
 
No offense, i think it's a novel idea. But why wouldn't building the whole system from the ground up be more economical and efficient using modern circuit design. I don't think trying to retrofit the old circuitry make sense. Computers have come leaps and bounds since the F35 was made. That sensor you describe sounds awesome but I would build an entire new system behind it that utilizes the more power efficient, and smaller electronics of our modern day.
 
I would rather see someone take the F35 insides and put it in a smaller body with ND filters built in. Make like a smaller Amira and you'd have the best camera on earth and I would end looking for something new ever again.
 
Vince, I have considered the idea of rehousing the F35, loosing the docks and extra ports we don't use, going straight to a dual link SDI output. however the problem is the one side of the camera literally holds the main board of the camera and it sticks out as far as it needs to stick out. You could save a lot of space shrinking the top and bottom of the camera, there is a lot of wasted space behind the docks, and also the side with the control panel could be remade to be much thinner, remove the back dock and put a gold mount plate. It's all possible, I have the guy to do it. But the problem always becomes the one side of the camera is going to always be as big as it is now so there is just no way to make the camera into a "thinner" Amira-like body.



If I had a 2nd F35 I'd probably be more willing to do it.
 
This seems like an exercise in futility in my eyes. If they are replacing the sensor, which is half of what gives the F35 the image we all love, what is the point?

I have made a list of features I would want in a camera to replace the F35 and not a single camera currently produced checked all the boxes. The F35 is a hard act to follow and in this current market mindset of racing to the bottom, chances are we will never see another camera on the level of the F35.

But then again the camera will be capable of producing great content at any level for years to come. So I'm not really worried about replacing it. For jobs where the F35 is overkill or it's special abilities are unappreciated I have other cameras for these lesser jobs.
 
yachacha said:
Vince, I have considered the idea of rehousing the F35, loosing the docks and extra ports we don't use, going straight to a dual link SDI output. however the problem is the one side of the camera literally holds the main board of the camera and it sticks out as far as it needs to stick out. You could save a lot of space shrinking the top and bottom of the camera, there is a lot of wasted space behind the docks, and also the side with the control panel could be remade to be much thinner, remove the back dock and put a gold mount plate. It's all possible, I have the guy to do it. But the problem always becomes the one side of the camera is going to always be as big as it is now so there is just no way to make the camera into a "thinner" Amira-like body.



If I had a 2nd F35 I'd probably be more willing to do it.
Click to expand...

What you are calling wasted space is there for a reason. ;) Heat issues and air circulation. If Sony could have made the F35 smaller I'm sure they would have. I don't think they made it that size only to look like a Panavision film camera.

This forum is full with praise for the images the F35 puts out. Call it mojo or what have you, but I'm also a big fan of it and honestly don't see any camera currently that can totally outdo it. But there is no voodoo or secret sauce in that "mojo". It's a combination of the sensor with the immense amount of image processing power the F35 has. What we call the "mojo" is basically image depth. The reason cameras like the FS7, F5, F55 or any Canon, Panasonic, Blackmagic and even RED and the F65 in a smaller way are not capable of the same depth is because of the lack of this processing power. Not in the case of the F65, which the cause is the CMOS sensor.

The notion that a camera as powerful as the F35 or F65 could be made in the size of a FS7 or even a F55 is misguided. Technology advances but we are not there just yet. All that space in the F35 and F65 is used for processing boards. You can't fit as much processing power in a F55.

Furthermore I do not find the F35 too large for what it is, a production cinema camera. With a digital recorder it is smaller and lighter than any 35mm film camera, which are still widely used in production. It is also not heavier than the Alexa, which is the other standard. The problem is when somebody is trying to use the F35 for corporate, weddings and so called run and gun. In this case it's not a case of the camera being too big, but a case of the person choosing the wrong tool for the job.
 
Aaveum said:
What you are calling wasted space is there for a reason. ;) Heat issues and air circulation. If Sony could have made the F35 smaller I'm sure they would have. I don't think they made it that size only to look like a Panavision film camera.

This forum is full with praise for the images the F35 puts out. Call it mojo or what have you, but I'm also a big fan of it and honestly don't see any camera currently that can totally outdo it. But there is no voodoo or secret sauce in that "mojo". It's a combination of the sensor with the immense amount of image processing power the F35 has. What we call the "mojo" is basically image depth. The reason cameras like the FS7, F5, F55 or any Canon, Panasonic, Blackmagic and even RED and the F65 in a smaller way are not capable of the same depth is because of the lack of this processing power. Not in the case of the F65, which the cause is the CMOS sensor.

The notion that a camera as powerful as the F35 or F65 could be made in the size of a FS7 or even a F55 is misguided. Technology advances but we are not there just yet. All that space in the F35 and F65 is used for processing boards. You can't fit as much processing power in a F55.

Furthermore I do not find the F35 too large for what it is, a production cinema camera. With a digital recorder it is smaller and lighter than any 35mm film camera, which are still widely used in production. It is also not heavier than the Alexa, which is the other standard. The problem is when somebody is trying to use the F35 for corporate, weddings and so called run and gun. In this case it's not a case of the camera being too big, but a case of the person choosing the wrong tool for the job.
Click to expand...

Oh that's cool, you are an electronics engineer so now we know what's possible and what isn't. Thanks.

You also know how I, for example, need to use a camera... that's amazing too. Sorry but if it was smaller and lighter, it could be used in a different way when needed, or would at least save fatigue and time in many siutations. I really doubt anyone is using the "F35 for weddings...". Also it's subjective when it comes to what run-and-gun means. If I want to use it on a high-end doc feature that has mostly controlled set-ups, then it would be extremely helpful and MUCH less taxing to have a smaller camera when you have to hike a 1/2 mile to get some great scenic shot, for example. I also may have to get in and out of a car often. With a tripod heavy enough to handle the F35, plus the camera, a day of that will tire out any DP and guess what happens then? The quality of the work suffers after a while and/or your AC dies early.

Also I'd argue that an Aaton III or Penelope is about the same or easier to move around than the F35... just saying.

Do I think this will ever really happen? No. It would take endless $1000's and months of professional engineering time to do a meaningful shrink-down and even then, I bet you would run into reliability issues. All you can hope for are small mods, like Yacha's work, and lighter batteries, recorders and tripod heads to come to market.

And I'd be curious how the Amira doesn't out-do just about any camera out there, for you. Sure it's $40K+ but come on man... you can get F35-like images out of it and more, plus it's 10 times easier to deal with, plus real audio capabilities, built in ND's, and the list goes on for a mile... just saying!
 
For all that I loved the F35's image (and I really did), I never enjoyed keeping it away from direct light for fear of vertical streaks. That is probably the sole biggest down point for the camera's visuals.

I found a document somewhere, but can't remember where, that said the F65 dropped the composite out because those boards alone cost a bomb and took up a large part of the camera.

Also, I think you'll find the Genesis at least probably was styled to look like a Panavision film camera.
 
JMtheDP said:
For all that I loved the F35's image (and I really did), I never enjoyed keeping it away from direct light for fear of vertical streaks. That is probably the sole biggest down point for the camera's visuals.

I found a document somewhere, but can't remember where, that said the F65 dropped the composite out because those boards alone cost a bomb and took up a large part of the camera.

Also, I think you'll find the Genesis at least probably was styled to look like a Panavision film camera.
Click to expand...

Back in the days where things like lens flares and camera shake were seen as mistakes CCD smear was more worrisome. But these days I don't really worry much about it. I actually had somebody asking me what filter I used when he saw the streak in a shot once and kind of liked it. I kid you not. With the ascension of the plug-in and people dirtying, scratching and doing all sorts of funky effects to make their footage look distinct, the streak is not that bothersome to me. I actually prefer it over rolling shutter effects, moire, line stepping, insufficient color depth, undead skin tones and a few other things that have become acceptable in today's camera landscape.

It also doesn't happen every single time.

But I agree with you. It's probably the only single fault with the F35, as the IR pollution is common with many other cameras and not even only from Sony.

The Genesis was styled to resemble a Panavision camera, which Pananvision will do with any camera really, even if it makes them worse than the original. Remember the F900F?

But it was more about keeping the same workflow around the camera and being able to use the same accessories so film crews, which were the sole professional group at the time could easily adapt.

But I doubt they would have made it larger on propose, leaving empty space inside when they could make it smaller, just so it looks like a big film camera. This is what I meant.
 
I know - the F35 is also excellently packaged, I think. It is certainly quieter than any of its contemporaries, barring maybe the D-21 - but that had more than its fair share of quirks too.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear - semiconductor parts and integrated circuits get smaller year by year, and become more efficient, producing less heat. If, today, someone wanted to rebuild the F35 from the newest parts available, component by component, it could be smaller, pull less power, and generate less heat. That's using the same sensor, but putting newer parts behind it running the same calculations.

So yes, an F35 with all new circuit boards could be smaller, but it would be such an extraordinary undertaking that it simply isn't practical.
 
I think also, correct me if I am wrong, but a chip like the F35's is always going to chuck out a lot of heat isn't it? I know heat seems to have been a massive sticking point in CPU development for the last decade
 
JMtheDP said:
I think also, correct me if I am wrong, but a chip like the F35's is always going to chuck out a lot of heat isn't it? I know heat seems to have been a massive sticking point in CPU development for the last decade
Click to expand...

Well, are we talking about the imager chip alone? Because the CCD imager chip is, as far as I know, one of the most advanced CCD imagers ever made. The energy in the years since has gone to CMOS, so I'm not sure you could have better properties from a replacement CCD imager today, heat included.

But, then you have everything behind it. The A/D converter(s), the DSP units, etc. All of those components could theoretically be upgraded to newer, smaller, lower energy usage, lower heat generating ones.

Heat is always an issue. No denial. It's a limiting factor on how small you can package electronics and what sort of heatsinking or circulation they require. For the components they used, I would expect the F35 body is what the engineers felt was required. To pack the same exact components in a smaller space would mean a necessity for greater heatsinking or airflow. Heatsinking would be impractical and heavy. Greater airflow would mean a louder more active fan. You could, in theory, reduce some circuit boards for ancillary outputs - that would be a way of reducing space without generating extra heat.

If you took the F35 imager chip, and wrapped around it the very latest A/D and DSP units, etc, you could have a lighter, smaller, lower energy, less heat camera... but that is a monumental task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top