Sony f35 with odyssey 7q - ongoing experiences and evolutions

[keithlango]

The F35 is not a camera for everybody and it is not equally fit for every type of use. However when the F35 fits your work and your world you tend to be a pretty big fan of the beast. The F35 at its core is a straight up Hollywood movie camera. I think the F35 is always going to work best in situations that more closely reflect its original intended use. Just common sense, really.

Of course it can be put to other uses, but there's going to be a trade offs involved. These trade offs can be mitigated via mods. yachacha, the King of Mods, has a pretty workable situation for him. Nikon mods open up possibilities to reduce weight and make it friendlier on the go. So it can be - and has been- done, and done well. But realistically speaking, humans tend to minimize trade offs when we set our hearts on something. This is not limited to the F35, or even cameras, by the way. So it's smart to press in and ask these hard questions when considering an F35. Each person has to solve this puzzle for themselves. There's certainly no sin if the final answer to that equation comes out to "do not buy an F35".

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

@SJX You have to remember, the F35 was built as a FILM REPLACEMENT CAMERA. That means, if you could do it with film, you could do it with the F35. That works for both advantages and limitations.

I personally wouldn't really want to go into any situation where I *needed* ISO 2000+ just to get exposure. As my old teacher once said "You're called a lighting cameraman for a reason"

The F35 does deliver a stunning 1080P picture, which is the sort of point that a lot of people miss. The REDs also deliver a stunning 1080P picture, as I'm sure do the Canons etc... But the F35, by doing it in camera, saves a hell of a lot of hassle. Let's not forget this was one of the major draws of the ALEXA.

Regarding the F35 sensor, we don't need clips - just look up the spec sheet. The sensor is 5760 x 2160 pixels. 20% more resolution than the original RED could use of the M-X sensor. If you want to know more about the sensor, I made a whole thread dedicated to that.

That said, no-one here has really bought the camera on the basis of numbers, we buy it for the quality of image that it produces.

Sadly no recorders other than the SRW-1 deck or the codex/S.Two work by being triggered by the camera. I am not sure if Sony's SR-R1 even does, I don't think that it does.

There is the SRW-9000PL, which is essentially an F35 and an SRW-1 joined together.

 

[JMtheDP]

True - most underrated camera of all time. Came about two years too late.

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

Yeah, the Alexa pretty much killed it as possibility for people interested in an alternative to the Red One.

 

[SJX]

Thing with the 9000PL is that although it is smaller and lighter than the full F35+SRW1 set up, when compared to the F35+external SSD recorders the 9000PL is huge. At least it looks to be. I have never seen one up close.
It also looks like a 2/3" news camera. :tongue:

But does it have a SDI out or do you need an extra deck to capture?

 

[TheWakePlace.com]

The F35, for me, is a great low light camera, as it captures the same exposure as the human eye can see pretty much. Just like film does, it captures within the realm of what the human eye can see, and therefore you don't need to rely on a piece of hardware, like a monitor, to understand what the camera see's. I have already taken my F35 out on commercial work where we would normally take the epic. For me, this is all just my opinion from using it, its just such a liberating camera that see's a real image and not a hyper low light sensitive one.

You can light a night scene with light for the F35.... the sensor in the F35 is 2 generations newer than the technology used in the Sony FW950 - that was used to shoot collateral, known as one of the best night shot films ever. Michael Mann talks about only lighting interiors, and using the street lights for everything else. Now if you want this crazy light night scene, go get a low light capable camera. If you want a image that see's a night scene like your own eyes do, then the F35 is amazing!

As a side point, they shot Blue Valentine on film, and film that was 400ASA and 450ASA (same as the native F35 chip). There were NO LIGHTS used to film Blue Valentine, and look at what they got. Same with 'A Place Beyond The Pines'.

Every camera is different for different people, it depends on what image you want. Put facts aside and fall in love with the feel of an image, thats the way to do it for me ever since i got the F35.

Here are some more grabs from a shoot yesterday. The window was several stops over the skin tones, and just look at it....... i mean look at it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love this thing!

 

[SJX]

The F35, for me, is a great low light camera, as it captures the same exposure as the human eye can see pretty much. Just like film does, it captures within the realm of what the human eye can see, and therefore you don't need to rely on a piece of hardware, like a monitor, to understand what the camera see's. I have already taken my F35 out on commercial work where we would normally take the epic. For me, this is all just my opinion from using it, its just such a liberating camera that see's a real image and not a hyper low light sensitive one.

I understand this is just your opinion but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion. What is the harm in having a camera which sees more than the human eye in the dark? You can always close the lens to make it see less and match the F35. But in those situations that you need low light it would be a life saver. What is the harm? Film was limited in low light. It wasn't an advantage. It was a limitation. Not much point in celebrating that the F35 has one of the limitations of film IMO. I don't know. I would rather celebrate that it has one of the advantages of film, which is the awesome way the F35 handles high lights.

You can light a night scene with light for the F35.... the sensor in the F35 is 2 generations newer than the technology used in the Sony FW950 - that was used to shoot collateral,

According to my ASC mag from the time, they ditched the F950 for the F900. So they basically didn't use the F950 at all. They used the Viper and the F900 for night exteriors and film for interiors and day exteriors.

...known as one of the best night shot films ever.

Collateral is one of the ugliest films ever. The noise is so bad. It was intentional but to say it is known as one of the best night shot films ever just doesn't add up. I have never heard that either. It's so noisy. I mean, they pushed the gain up to +12 in the F900 and +9 in the Viper just to be able to see in the dark. I would never use gain in anything. They were going for the ugly HD look.

Michael Mann talks about only lighting interiors, and using the street lights for everything else. Now if you want this crazy light night scene, go get a low light capable camera. If you want a image that see's a night scene like your own eyes do, then the F35 is amazing!

My eyes has no noise though.

As a side point, they shot Blue Valentine on film, and film that was 400ASA and 450ASA (same as the native F35 chip). There were NO LIGHTS used to film Blue Valentine, and look at what they got.

I have not seen this yet. But film grain is much more pleasing than digital noise.

Every camera is different for different people, it depends on what image you want. Put facts aside and fall in love with the feel of an image, thats the way to do it for me ever since i got the F35.

Makes sense. If you love the image it wont matter how imperfect it is.

 

[TheWakePlace.com]

Ok, haha, well then i cant help you, hope someone else can...

Off to shoot some awesome sunset, woohoo!!!

 

[yachacha]

by the way, is the difference between 444 12 bit and 10 bit really that obvious?

No of course not, but then again, neither is 10 bit 422 to 444, which the hyper deck has proven to be the king of 422 and I could smash through 10 of those before buying one Ki Pro Quad. But then there is a difference, it's small and hard to spot, but it's still there. When I decide to make the investment to a much more pricey recorder, I'd like to go for the most the camera can spit out.

Does anyone know the official word on 12 bit 444 with the 7Q? Has it ever been announced that it could handle recording at this rate?

 

[TheWakePlace.com]

12Bit 444 on the 7Q is coming, and on the convergent designs road map. Mike and Andy from CD have confirmed this on here and in an email to me. The C500 and a couple of other cameras can make use of the 12bit, so it will be there eventually.

Have some great sunset and night shots from this evenings shooting. Will be doing a video soon too showing how to use the Osiris LUTS on sLog footage out of the 7Q

 

[yachacha]

Thanks for the info! That to me is worth waiting for the 7Q, I saw one in film tools a week ago, it was smaller than lighter than I had anticipated. One of the bummers of the Hyperdeck is the lack of any info at all from the recorder. It is great to see the format coming in, space remaining on drive. BTW How is the audio into the 7Q, has anyone gotten a chance to test it? It would be nice to have a simple way to lock audio with the picture. I find the biggest difference you can notice with camera audio is how nice the pre amps are. Nice pre amps help a lot getting a full sounds without background hiss. Obviously going through a mixer, even something like a 302 is the best way to get your mics sounding clean. For that reason the Sound Devices is also desirable, but I think most modern sound recorders are getting really good. Even the FS700 has really impressed me with the built in audio recorder, I use them in a lot of situations where I am sending a shotgun, boom or LAV directly into the camera. I can set audio levels at 6 where I had to set at 10 on an EX3, the final result is really good for an in camera recorder. I assume the 7Q will be on par with a FS700, but it would be nice to hear some first hand experience.

Anyone come up with way to mount this without a magic arm? I feel like wooden camera, or tilta will come out with an arm similar to an EVF arm made specifically for this recorder. I know if you spent the time with a magic arm, usually the two connecting points aren't tightened enough and then the entire thing becomes useless, I find myself using a wrench to crank down the two ends of the arm and then the mechanism of hand tightening to move around works, once one end slips it's useless. But they are misleading with level too. Speaking of which, does the 7Q have an on screen level? I'm sure the steadicam community would appreciate this feature but anyone having to level the screen I'm sure would use it.

 

[TheWakePlace.com]

At the moment, from the F35, the output is .DPX files that do not support audio.... so no internal solutions for that yet. However, when the compressed codecs some out, we will see plenty of formats that allow for baked in audio.

I am currently using the Zacuto Axis system.... but looking for others at the same time. They will come soon!

 

[Mitch Gross]

The 7Q does not have a horizon level in it --- yet.

Several manufacturers will be showing mounting solutions for the Odyssey7Q at NAB next month.

 

[SJX]

Ok, haha, well then i cant help you, hope someone else can...

Off to shoot some awesome sunset, woohoo!!!

Don't get me wrong here. I love the images the F35 and specially Genesis produced in the movies shot on them. I know the Genesis is supposed to have some extra mojo and color tech but many think this is just Panasvision's marketing and it's nothing more than a Panavised F35. But with millions of dollars any camera can look good. I have not yet seen a produced video from this new low budget crowed who bought second hand F35s for cheap. The available footage is mainly tests and the like. I specially have not seen any user come forward with a night shot and say how he lit or rather how much light he needed. This is why I'm having a hard time judging if the camera is for me or not. I know if I had the Hollywood bucks the F35 would sing anytime I needed it to. But who does?

For example The Forbidden Kingdom is my favorite movie shot on the Genesis or F35. It is actually one of the best looking digital movies IMO. I have the blu-ray and it looks just astonishing. A friend of mine had to go to IMDB to check that it was really digital. He was debating it was film. But look at the making of videos and see during the night shots how much light they had. It was so bright that the making of camera couldn't handle the dynamic range and the actors are blowing in the making of video. So they basically had to light with huge lights like with film. One of the advantages of digital and a consolation to putting up with it's shortcomings compared to film besides the costs is that you can get away with less light output. This is one thing many cinematographers including Roger Deakins likes about the Alexa. If you must light with as much light as film then...

Also the cinematographer from The Forbidden Kingdom said the Genesis is ok but it eats light! He said you need to throw a lot of light at it if you want to avoid noise.

This is why I'm debating if the F35 is for me or not. I like the images. This is not the problem.

 

[JMtheDP]

SJX, I posted another thread some time ago where I put in images of the F35 with very minimal lighting. I think you may want to start another thread with specific questions, to stop diverting other posts.

I can share with you this pic, no lighting involved other than what you can see. My eyes recall it being darker than the image. T2.1, CINE-EI (so ISO 450, with 3db of gain put in by using extended mode).



Regarding lighting the point made time and again is that the main draw of the F35 is that it is a digital camera which can be made to look very much like film, however if you want something to look like film you must treat everything else LIKE FILM!

Sure you could probably shoot on film without doing much lighting, but it would look pretty crappy too!

 

[macgregor]

I can go ahead and say this camera is definitely not for you given all the comments you posted. Sorry.

 

[yachacha]

Agreed, go buy a fs700 with a speed booster and let us keep our threads on topic. I think we are all a little over trying to defend the camera to others who want a blackmagic, c300 or fs700 comparision chart.

Use the information on these pages to quietly decide. If it's not for you that's ok but let us continue to create a database of knowledge for others not a endless debate on the merit of the camera. We know this camera is different thats why we like it.

 

[mlysbakken]

I suggest you read through the main thread, SJX. No use in asking questions that have already been discussed thoroughly in a more constructive manner. Remember that we all made educated choices when we bought our F35s. We know what the camera can and can't do, and we have made no attempt at hiding that throughout this subforum.

If you're still unsure, this camera is probably not for you. Maybe an F3 would make you happier.
All the best.

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

Don't get me wrong here. I love the images the F35 and specially Genesis produced in the movies shot on them. I know the Genesis is supposed to have some extra mojo and color tech but many think this is just Panasvision's marketing and it's nothing more than a Panavised F35. But with millions of dollars any camera can look good. I have not yet seen a produced video from this new low budget crowed who bought second hand F35s for cheap. The available footage is mainly tests and the like. I specially have not seen any user come forward with a night shot and say how he lit or rather how much light he needed. This is why I'm having a hard time judging if the camera is for me or not. I know if I had the Hollywood bucks the F35 would sing anytime I needed it to. But who does?

For example The Forbidden Kingdom is my favorite movie shot on the Genesis or F35. It is actually one of the best looking digital movies IMO. I have the blu-ray and it looks just astonishing. A friend of mine had to go to IMDB to check that it was really digital. He was debating it was film. But look at the making of videos and see during the night shots how much light they had. It was so bright that the making of camera couldn't handle the dynamic range and the actors are blowing in the making of video. So they basically had to light with huge lights like with film. One of the advantages of digital and a consolation to putting up with it's shortcomings compared to film besides the costs is that you can get away with less light output. This is one thing many cinematographers including Roger Deakins likes about the Alexa. If you must light with as much light as film then...

Also the cinematographer from The Forbidden Kingdom said the Genesis is ok but it eats light! He said you need to throw a lot of light at it if you want to avoid noise.

This is why I'm debating if the F35 is for me or not. I like the images. This is not the problem.

There is no way an F35 can compare with even an $800 DSLR (Nikon D5300) in very low light. People cherish the F35 for other reasons.

 

[SJX]

Interesting reactions.

"I can tell you this camera is not for you". Really, how so? Have we spoke in detail about my needs?

"Go buy a FS700." LOL!

It's as if I was bashing the F35 and just being overly negative, even though I have said over and over again I think it makes one of the nicest if not the nicest digital image out there. Don't feel attacked. I'm not attacking your precious camera. I think we can all behave like adults here.

SJX, I posted another thread some time ago where I put in images of the F35 with very minimal lighting. I think you may want to start another thread with specific questions, to stop diverting other posts.

I can share with you this pic, no lighting involved other than what you can see. My eyes recall it being darker than the image. T2.1, CINE-EI (so ISO 450, with 3db of gain put in by using extended mode).

View attachment 83450

Thanks for the picture. This is exactly what I was looking for. Do you have video of it to see how the noise is? I'm not a big fan of using gain, even as little as +3. Do you have any shots without gain?

Was it magic hour? The sky seems too bright to be full night.

Is this the thread? http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?319231-Sony-F35-quot-Little-Light-quot-Test-Shot&highlight=

If so, I had seen the videos on vimeo. But it wasn't what I was looking for. The still you posted above is more it. A real world example. Would you have more of those?

Regarding lighting the point made time and again is that the main draw of the F35 is that it is a digital camera which can be made to look very much like film, however if you want something to look like film you must treat everything else LIKE FILM!

Well, I understand your point. But if Kodak had got around to make a ISO1600 film stock I don't think it would look any less like film because it was more sensitive.

My point is budget. I know the F35 looks awesome if you have a high budget. But take for example the still shot you posted. I don't think you would have the budget to light that whole street right? If you did you would be probably shooting with a high-end current camera such as the Alexa or F65. Even if you like the F35 and say even if you had a high budget you would still choose it, I think you know what I mean.

But if the camera can see enough to expose the background you can get away with just keying the girls and you have a shot.

Now if the above still would have been taken in full night and at zero gain, then I would say I can live with that. It's more than enough. But it looks like magic hour to me.

Do you know of any footage where somebody just took the F35 to town and shot with available light in the streets? This would give me the best idea of what I'm getting into if I buy one.

Thanks again James for taking the time to post the picture.