F35: Sony Venice VS Sony F35

Ah yes I see now that ARRI is simultaneous read while dual ISO is not, and that dual ISO is used for achieving higher ISO's with slightly increased dynamic range as compared to the old single gain system without any major penalty in noise. Brilliant!

Well if this is the case for Venice and it can do 2500 ISO native without any extra noise over 500 base then this is quite fantastic. 15 stops at 2500 ISO is quite insane for a high end cinema camera! But while dual ISO remains a decent method for preserving sensor DR with good performance at a higher ISO it doesn't necessarily correlate to highlights wrangling like ARRI or F35 either :/

This is the test I will do once I can get some time with Venice here in Toronto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSbsI7Tn9Cg
 
Tom Roper said:
The terminology might sound the same, but only Arri is claiming to be combining the two 14 bit gains into a single 16 bit word. The Panasonic is switching between low and high. The difference as I would interpret that, is the Arri is stacking low and high to increase DR, the Panasonic is choosing whichever results in the lower noise.
Click to expand...

Except they are actually different designs theoretically it would be possible to do both since they occur at different stages in the process. And both could be theoretically obsoleted by better sensor and ADC design.
 
starcentral said:
Ah yes I see now that ARRI is simultaneous read while dual ISO is not, and that dual ISO is used for achieving higher ISO's with slightly increased dynamic range as compared to the old single gain system without any major penalty in noise. Brilliant!

Well if this is the case for Venice and it can do 2500 ISO native without any extra noise over 500 base then this is quite fantastic. 15 stops at 2500 ISO is quite insane for a high end cinema camera! But while dual ISO remains a decent method for preserving sensor DR with good performance at a higher ISO it doesn't necessarily correlate to highlights wrangling like ARRI or F35 either :/

This is the test I will do once I can get some time with Venice here in Toronto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSbsI7Tn9Cg
Click to expand...

Seems clear arri is doing so much better with highlights because it specifies so much more highlight range at base ISO. That video compares epic-x (5.5stops of highlights), Sony fit (6stops of highlights) and Alexa (7.5 stops of highlights). An interesting comparison would be to shoot several cameras normalized for highlight range. That would likely mean rating Venice (6stops of highlights) at ISO1600 with its 800base to increase the highlight range to 7.5 stops. Or ISO8000 at 2500base. Or compare its +4 exposure to Alexa's +5.5 exposure for example.
 
That test seems clear as mud. I dont know why people dont know how to do simple tests. That should be learned in college.

Expose to clip. Examine shadow detail. Simples.

--

As for the f35 and venice, Im going to waffle about my numerous stills cameras over the years. 6mp seems 'right' at S35 and 12mp seems right at Fullframe, it just does. and that correlates with arri and sony.. thier great cameras were about 6mp on an S35 bed and to go to 12mp they have both felt the need to increase sensor size while keeping the pixels at about the same size.

Again simple and obvious.

From that Id guess the venice will have a similar look to the F35 but more resolution.

Just a guess.
 
Starcentral, I have actually thought about that comparison myself. So I get it. I think the people who are not getting the reason to compare the F35 to the Venice are looking at it from a numbers perspective, which is not at all surprising for Dvxuser. If you look at numbers only it would make no sense that the F35 makes nicer images than the F55, F65, Varicam and the Red cameras which all have higher specs. But yet, the F35 makes nicer images than these cameras.

The proof as they say is in the pudding. So many post things from the F65, F55, Varicam etc here and none of it gets the compliments stuff from the F35 gets. For me the image is more important and so the comparison is very valid. For others all they see is numbers to justify why a camera has to be better. So I agree with you. The Venice better put out F35 color and highlights.
 
Grug said:
"Dual gain" and "Dual ISO" are different things. And Arri are pretty open about it (or at least they have been for the last couple of years), in their own words:
Click to expand...

Arri said:
"The Dual Gain Architecture simultaneously provides two separate read-out paths from each pixel with different amplification. The first path contains the regular, highly amplified signal. The second path contains a signal with lower amplification, to capture the information that is clipped in the first path. Both paths feed into the camera's A/D converters, delivering a 14 bit image for each path. These images are then combined into a single 16 bit high dynamic range image. This method enhances low light performance and prevents the highlights from being clipped, thereby significantly extending the dynamic range of the image. "=
Click to expand...

Reminds me a lot of what Zaxcom does with Neverclip (and Sonosax too, but they can't sell their SX-R4+ in the USA because of Zaxcom's lawyers). They don't use analogue limiters at all with their audio recorders, instead using dual A/D converters.

https://zaxcom.com/what-is-neverclip/

http://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/topic/14177-zaxcoms-neverclip-explained/


 
Grug said:
That said, simply returning the F35's colour science would have been fine by me. We've just finished the grade on the Bollywood feature I shot over in India on the F35 a while back - and it sure does pretty things!
Click to expand...

Looking forward to seeing the trailer for that!

The "bollywood" feature film I recorded sound for over in Sydney last year (under just absolutely HORRIBLE conditions! Arrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhh) had its trailer released earlier this year (shot on a mix of RED ONE M / Nikon D500 / BMPCC / GH5 / DJI P4P):


Will be screening in theaters later this month.

https://fan-force.com/screenings/pareshaan-parinda-event-cinemas-parramatta-nsw/
 
I came up with a crazy conspiracy theory that the Sony Venice and A7III use the same sensor... 6K Full Frame, 4K S35 sensor with 15stops of DR.
 
Sttratos said:
Starcentral, I have actually thought about that comparison myself. So I get it. I think the people who are not getting the reason to compare the F35 to the Venice are looking at it from a numbers perspective, which is not at all surprising for Dvxuser. If you look at numbers only it would make no sense that the F35 makes nicer images than the F55, F65, Varicam and the Red cameras which all have higher specs. But yet, the F35 makes nicer images than these cameras.

The proof as they say is in the pudding. So many post things from the F65, F55, Varicam etc here and none of it gets the compliments stuff from the F35 gets. For me the image is more important and so the comparison is very valid. For others all they see is numbers to justify why a camera has to be better. So I agree with you. The Venice better put out F35 color and highlights.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you don't think the f35 would look good from a numbers perspective?

The f35 and Alexa have had bigger pixels than any s35 4K cameras for years - and big pixels is a number.

As I said above - it is clear that both Arri and Sony have found the only way to better those cameras is by making the chip bigger.
 
morgan_moore said:
I don't know why you don't think the f35 would look good from a numbers perspective?

The f35 and Alexa have had bigger pixels than any s35 4K cameras for years - and big pixels is a number.

As I said above - it is clear that both Arri and Sony have found the only way to better those cameras is by making the chip bigger.
Click to expand...

Actually the F35 has a 5.7k sensor. So that's actually smaller photosites than most of Sony's, Canon's and Panasonic's newer offerings, Red's earlier offerings, and indeed the Venice.

I think where the magic in it lies, is with the sacrosanct treatment of colour. It has a full 1920x1080 worth of Red, Green and Blue on it's striped CCD sensor - which yields a perfect 1080p 4:4:4 signal. There's no interpolation or guessing at colour, it's all there, in a purer form than a bayer pattern can capture.
 
Grug said:
Actually the F35 has a 5.7k sensor. So that's actually smaller photosites than most of Sony's, Canon's and Panasonic's newer offerings, Red's earlier offerings, and indeed the Venice.

I think where the magic in it lies, is with the sacrosanct treatment of colour. It has a full 1920x1080 worth of Red, Green and Blue on it's striped CCD sensor - which yields a perfect 1080p 4:4:4 signal. There's no interpolation or guessing at colour, it's all there, in a purer form than a bayer pattern can capture.
Click to expand...

Indeed - im not enough of a nerd to understand the sensor details - but the bottom line is they are taking photons hitting the S35 area and using it to creat 1920*1080 of 'good stuff' rather than 4k of 'bad stuff'.

It seems that if you need 4k of 'good stuff' then FF/Vista is the capture area you require with current tech.

S
 
morgan_moore said:
I don't know why you don't think the f35 would look good from a numbers perspective?

The f35 and Alexa have had bigger pixels than any s35 4K cameras for years - and big pixels is a number.

As I said above - it is clear that both Arri and Sony have found the only way to better those cameras is by making the chip bigger.
Click to expand...

Apart from what Grug already said, people look at the F35 and see a HD camera and no RAW. Then they see a Blackmagic with 4K and RAW or a GH5, FS7, C200, LT, or any low end camera like that and jump on that. Because they are 4K. Very few look at the F35 for what it really is and see past the HD thing. The thing is there is nothing out there outside a F35 that can give as pleasing images besides the Arris. And I have an Alexa and still lust after the F35. Because it looks a different type of nice than the Arris.
 
Grug said:
Actually the F35 has a 5.7k sensor. So that's actually smaller photosites than most of Sony's, Canon's and Panasonic's newer offerings, Red's earlier offerings, and indeed the Venice.

I think where the magic in it lies, is with the sacrosanct treatment of colour. It has a full 1920x1080 worth of Red, Green and Blue on it's striped CCD sensor - which yields a perfect 1080p 4:4:4 signal. There's no interpolation or guessing at colour, it's all there, in a purer form than a bayer pattern can capture.
Click to expand...

Yes the 444 is for sure where the magic lies for the color. But there is more than that. The image flow is also great. Dare I say better than the Alexa. That's got to be that global shutter. Then the high lights. Best in business along with Arri. The image looks so nice because these 3 things are more important than resolution.
 
Sttratos said:
Apart from what Grug already said, people look at the F35 and see a HD camera and no RAW. Then they see a Blackmagic with 4K and RAW or a GH5, FS7, C200, LT, or any low end camera like that and jump on that. Because they are 4K. Very few look at the F35 for what it really is and see past the HD thing. The thing is there is nothing out there outside a F35 that can give as pleasing images besides the Arris. And I have an Alexa and still lust after the F35. Because it looks a different type of nice than the Arris.
Click to expand...

'People' clearly don't know much.

Totally true - my colleague in my office is trying to kit up (for some casual broll) and keeps mentioning 4k (at 60mbs) as if it is an important or useful spec
 
Last edited:
Grug said:
Actually the F35 has a 5.7k sensor. So that's actually smaller photosites than most of Sony's, Canon's and Panasonic's newer offerings, Red's earlier offerings, and indeed the Venice.
Click to expand...

Actually we can not directly correlate the photosite size itself based in pixel density. The photosite size (obviously limited to some extent of the pixel space size itself) can be very very small or maximized in the space available below the pixel and its "lens". A good example is the F5 and F55 sensor: same pixel density but we know the photosites on the F55 are smaller because of the extra space required for the switch gates due to the electronic global shutter. As a result the native ISO's are different as well.

At super35mm size the F35 appears to have slightly more pixels than Venice (s35 crop) but because one is strip and the other bayer it might be hard to compare numbers and we will never really know how big the photosites are themselves. Could one clue be the native ISO of the camera? The F35 is around 500 ISO, same as the Venice low base ISO?

But no matter how we try to compare cameras by numbers it is a difficult task to do; with mirrorless cameras for example we have a lot more pixels so for certain we have smaller photosites but some camera models pixel bin for increased light gathering and cleaner images at higher ISO's.. then there are cameras like the A6300 20MP 6k sensor which does not pixel bin and has 2.4x oversampling for a superbly produced 4k image. Probably looks better than the 4k from the FS7/F5/F55. :/

I put the pixel density at around 170 pixels per millimetre on both the Venice and previous F models so pixel for pixel it's the same but let's just hope the photosites themselves are larger.
 
Like I said earlier, I don't know the specifics of how the photosites compare between the F35 and the Venice.

I love the look of the F35, but ultimately, the comparison is not based on numbers. Instead, based on business and market. Venice is a camera that aims to currently compete for market share in union shows and rental market...with owner ops as a lower priority. Currently, the F35 is not really a contender in the arena. The look of the camera is not really the only factor.

As per my previous post, if you are an owner-op working on indies or mid-tier stuff, the F35 at $10k is a viable option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top