Sony f35 upgrade!

The F65 has a lot of heat pipes inside, quite clever. With the mechanical shutter off it is fairly quiet during recording. I have never heard the fans increase in volume during a take.

I always felt that RED could have probably made the Epic 25% bigger and made a lot of gains, nobody would have complained. I think the F55 is probably what I would like to have seen RED do - it is just about as modular as I can conceive anyone would want.

If you look at the F65, it appears to be a similar size to the F35 (shutter assembly notwithstanding), but they've actually shaved a great deal out of the bottom to make room for the shoulder pad. That is a massive improvement, another thing that shows Sony do listen to their customers.
 
JM, quick question. I didn't pay attention when we had the F65 around.

Am I going to need to get a riser plate for the bottom of the F65 to mount to my 19mm dovetail baseplate set?

Thanks!

Dave
 
Viddovation said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sure. Conventional wisdom would tell us that. But in practice, Sony couldn't manage to fit as much processing power into the smaller F55 as they had in the F35, even if the F55 is at least 5 years newer.
 
I think it's probably about time for that to happen. I do believe CMOS sensors are now reaching a point where the quality is becoming comparable to CCDs.

If anything, I think the demand for high frame rates in consumer cameras alone is the cause of many camera makers abandoning CCD.

We are now seeing some genuine global shutter CMOS sensors, that was always my major gripe with CMOS cameras - they got noise and dynamic range under control years ago - although some of the early efforts were hideous.
 
I'm not sure I would say it's about time for that to happen. More options is always better and CMOS still can't reproduce some of the qualities of CCD. But it was bound to happen. It's a race to the bottom and it has been for a while. The order of the day is cut costs. But a true 4K CCD camera with real RGB resolution and global shutter would be a thing of dreams, whether technically difficult it may be.
 
You'd probably find the pixel pitch to be so small (if using the same layout as the F35) that it would be hideously insensitive. And then the data output would be shocking. And it would probably do 30fps tops - any everyone now wants high speed in their cameras.
 
Like I said, however technically difficult it may be. :smile:

And although I know the current market is obsessed with higher frame rates even if it is at cost of image quality of 24fps, which makes up probably 99% of the frame rate in 99% of productions, I do not agree.

I would take a CCD based true 4K RGB camera with an ISO of 800 or even 500 over any CMOS camera, even if it didn't do not even 30p. As long as it did 24p/23.976p I would be fine. If it could do 1-24fps it would be just the cherry on the cake. For high-speed in the in between shots I would rent or even use a cheap FS700. Sacrifice the 1% of the show for the other 99%. Not the other way around.
 
If you assumed the f35 was making reasonable use of its sensor pitch, which a CCD usually did, quadruple the pixel count and your pixels are a quarter the size. So you have a camera 100ish ISO at best....

the Dalsa sensor was reportedly amazing, by those who actually knew it, but e camera and data rates were huge limitations
 
Sure. Like I said, I know the technicalities on it. Although I would not think going by the F35 technology is the accurate way to calculate anything. Technology has moved a bit that there are other things to consider besides only pixel size when it comes to sensitivity. Even if that is still the biggest part to consider.

Or make it "full frame" or "65mm".
 
Arri have long said they felt the pixel pitch on the Alexa gave them an ideal blend of resolution and other factors. That is probably why they built the 65. That and to show off.
 
Aaveum said:
Like I said, however technically difficult it may be. :smile:

And although I know the current market is obsessed with higher frame rates even if it is at cost of image quality of 24fps, which makes up probably 99% of the frame rate in 99% of productions, I do not agree.

I would take a CCD based true 4K RGB camera with an ISO of 800 or even 500 over any CMOS camera, even if it didn't do not even 30p. As long as it did 24p/23.976p I would be fine. If it could do 1-24fps it would be just the cherry on the cake. For high-speed in the in between shots I would rent or even use a cheap FS700. Sacrifice the 1% of the show for the other 99%. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/01/sony-to-stop-producing-ccd-image-sensors-to-focus-on-cmos-growth/

Unfortunately, CCD just isn't cost effective for manufacturers anymore, and with all the lower end image sensors going to CMOS that means all the R&D goes to CMOS as well. CCD is not long for this world. It doesn't help that CCD requires specialty assembly lines not useful for any other type of chip fabrication, wheras CMOS imagers can be manufactured on far more "general purpose" semiconductor IC lines. That means factory costs are spread farther, lowering cost for individual products. We may never see a CCD imager that exceeds the one in the F35.
 
The reasons are real, just like with the demise of film. But none of them are the "right" reasons. At least in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top