Starting out

Jim_Beam said:
444 is really useful for grading and white balance is a huge issue as you know. 444 is going to make correcting that white balance easier and better. I know for most 444 is of no real world advantage but I think in this scenario it's invaluable. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think you are overthinking things. I have not had an issue correcting white balance on any of the cameras I have used in many many years. For example, the F65 has 3 color balance pre-sets. Even shooting ProRes changing the color balance in post is a one click process most of the time. And I can tell you that when we did shoot raw with the F65, most of the time we used the more compressed raw lite format.
 
Last edited:
That's why you shoot a waterproof chart underwater. Just like shooting a chart on dry land. it gives you a baseline in post to start from. I'm kind of old fashion that way. Most of the young shooters now don't bother with a chart.

Going to be using any lighting down there or diving limited to 15 feet?

Also the addition of red filters at depth works great.
 
Last edited:
Jim_Beam said:
Yeah what is that all about? Does anyone know much about it yet?
Click to expand...

Not sure if there's the white paper released yet. It's a compressed Canon Raw - a three time reduction in file size, ~ 512 GB/hr.

BTW, I was watching an interview from IBC and a Canon paid filmmaker said he shot C200 at 21,000 ISO. For outdoor shooters, that is something to take into account.
 
Check out Disney's film "Oceans"
Shot on the Sony F900 and Zeiss Digizoom 6-24

I own the digizoom set and used extensively with the F23. Great combination. F35 has more dynamic range but F23 has a more sensitive base ASA

Look up Philippe Ros on Vimeo for his video section with the above combination.
Excellent article here ---> http://www.philipperos.com/pdf/FDTimes-OCEANS_SRez.pdf
 
The F3 seems a more appropriate camera for someone "just starting out in serious video work" than the F35. The F3 or the C200. ( Is the variable ND of the Fs5 particularly advantageous for underwater shooting? )

If you are entering into this as a business and not just an expensive hobby, who is demanding sLOG 4:4:4? Do you have clients who are demanding sLOG 4:4:4? Is there a market for sLOG 4:4:4 that you hope to enter into? A market that will only buy sLOG 4:4:4 footage and nothing less?

Do you need sLOG 4:4:4 or just want sLOG 4:4:4?

The need vs want thing is something many of us struggle with since our business is also our passion. I have far too many lenses that I bought because I wanted them ( vintage lenses, mostly ) but not because I needed them. They weren't anything my clients were demanding and they haven't brought in any additional revenue. I rarely use those lenses, to be honest. I just wanted them. But damn if they don't look cool sitting on my bookshelf.
 
Jim_Beam said:
WOW. That does have a profound impact on things ! As much as I want to stick with the dinosaurs of the past, the new tech is compelling. Which is why the old cameras have been dumped and you can get them for the prices they now command. There is a reason for that.

21,000 ISO !!! Even if the image is any good at 6400 ISO it's something MAJOR.

It will be interesting to see how this goes.
Click to expand...


High ISO doesn't really say much. Sony just released a very high end $70K cinema camera to be their new flagship. It's ISO 500. Documentary cameras need high ISO. Cinema cameras don't. Horses for courses. F35 and F23 are not docu cameras. They are cinema cameras. Alexa is also "only" ISO 800.
 
Jim_Beam said:
Why thank you for your input Dave ! appreciated.

Well its a long and winding path. A number of goals to achieve.

First and foremost my goal is to shoot underwater - I want to make a documentary on a certain type of fish. So my first goal is to get equipped to do just that. But that's not as simple as it sounds. Underwater housings for the higher end cameras have big price tags on them - approx 20K USD. Over on the Red Forums there is a thread called "The Gentleman's Underwater bubble Blowers" thread. Its currently 315 pages long - so quite the read if you are interested in that sort of thing.

Well anyway, that thread put me off Red cameras underwater. Like everyone, for no particular reason other then its the current trend, I was initially thinking that I needed 4K RAW at 16 bit. So if i dont want to go Red that leaves Sony. That lead to researching Sony Raw which led to the F65 that lead me here.

Thats when I came across the F35. I just love the aesthetic that I have seen. I need shore based stuff as well as the underwater stuff. Real panoramic stuff - landscapes, vistas etc. I need to show local villages along the edge of the Lake etc. Keeps things interesting....tell a story as it were. I figure the F35 would be nice for that.

That then got me reading a LOT of threads here and I came across the F23. Lots of research under taken. 2/3" sensor has lots of practical benefit underwater - easy to focus with loads of depth of field - and those digiprimes...yum! B4 format works underwater.

But given my experience, am I getting in over my head ? Probably. Does it make sense to sink 20+K into F23 and F35 cameras ? Probably not. But the thing is if i do go F23 for underwater to start out, I need a custom housing made for the F23. Been Quoted 22K USD ! BUT......it will also house the F65. So there is an upgrade path a few years down the road. Today the F65 is too much camera for me. After a few years, I'd be up for it. I plan to cut my teeth on the 2/3" B4 camera because its so much easier then S35. But a few years for now I am willing to bet the F65 will be as budget priced as the F35 is today.

So that brings me to making a start. I got reading about the F3. Seems its really really budget prices for S35 sensor and 10 bit 4:4:4 1080P - same as the F23. White balance underwater is a BIG issue. I dont know how practical it is to shoot slog underwater - it's a low contrast world down there with almost no red wavelengths. So the F3 seems to be a great place to start to learn the nuances of slog. The F3 is small and infinitely easier to handle and get around with. At least that's my reasoning from the comfort of my office chair! Hence asking here from those that know....does an F3 sound like a good way to start given I want to get an F23 underwater? I dont mind the 22K for a housing to house the F23 because it will also house the F65 and that eventually gets me into 16 bit 4K RAW - so it seems a good migration path built into the plan.

But back to reality - i have been buying S16 glass - PL mount, aaton mount, C mount ....you name it. Got some really lovely glass. I was planning on shooting S16 for the topside stuff. Why? Because I love the look of 16mm. And that may still happen. But right now I am smitten with the idea of the 3 CCD 2/3" B4 with Digiprimes. So that brings me back to shooting slog at 10 bit 4:4:4.

So do i bother with the F3 or just jump straight into the F23? I will get together whatever is required as far as support gear.

One other thing that pushes me towards an F3 right now. I am in the middle of planning an NGO type project - there is nothing existing right now so its a long haul to get this off the ground. We need supporters so I get the need to have a social media program. I plan to recruit a volunteer to come over here to live for 12 months to just work on social media campaigns. We need video footage for this - lots of it. We have stories to tell about the people we want to assit here. With Social media the footage has to keep coming and be posted regularly - so a smaller easier camera to operate upfront will help a lot. From what I read the F3 was a good camera in its day. Given all the social media stuff will be online there is no need for 4K - HD is fine. Sounds like the F3 fits the bill here and it allows me to get into slog at 10 bit 4:4:4 to get experience in that area.

Dont know - its a complex world out there with all the options.

Hence asking for input here from those who have been there done that.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

One thing worth considering if your main goal is shooting underwater is astetically what you want that to "feel" like. Rolling shutter cameras can do... odd things with water, where as film cameras and global shutter cameras tend to feel more natural, especially with waves. That being said, an F35 or even an F23 underwater... its a good 25lbs when built just for shoulder work. If a global sensor feeling is critical to you, you may want to look at some of the black magic camera options. The RED camera line are great for what they are (just gotta properly debayer and then color knowing there tends to be more magenta in the image than other systems), and they are small.

As to the b4 mount glass, the digiprimes may be the sharpest lenses zeiss ever made (or at least a match with the Ultra16s) despite the 3chip prisim compensation they do. BUT B4 mount cameras are 1080p at best, and digiprimes are still expensive for a dead end of a mount/system.

though if you're super committed to a huge camera system, Otto Nemenz has 2 F65s on ebay right now for like $15k each, and they are technically lighter than the F35s...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top