The F35 at NIGHT

[SJX]

Thanks for posting the frames James. Will download the clips later when I'm at my workstation.

I have to say that I'm ok with the level of noise. Problem is that most people wouldn't be, meaning clients. People are getting used to squeaky clean images and starting to demand it. Which makes me think F35 would be fine for features for example, but maybe not the right tool for other types of production. I know it was created for cinema. But really, who buying second hand F35s for cheap works only on features? But for my personal stuff the more I see of the F35 the more I realize I love it and wouldn't have a problem with it's shortcomings. But a F35 system is a bit expensive for a personal camera. I think this is what a Digital Bolex or DSLRs are for.

 

[JMtheDP]

It really depends - I have people for whom the F35 might be too noisy, but there are probably more people who like and appreciate the grain.

NEAT will sort out most noise and truly, if you're in a situation with even a little light the camera is fairly clean. These posts are from the very, very extreme end of the scale.

I would say DSLRs at high ISOs etc... have plenty of other artifacts which are arguably more objectionable.

But you are right -the F35 is a features camera. That is what it does well. In the same way that a sports car is going to be rubbish at the Paris-Dakar, and you'll never find an SUV at Le Mans.

Half the reason I bought my F35 is that most of the bits i invest in - lenses, tripod, etc... - will last me a lifetime as the 35mm PL mount format is not going anywhere soon.

 

[keithlango]

A color graded screen grab from last weekend's shoot.

flickr link here.

Grade is the Osiris Jugo LUT applied to straight up sLog footage.
This was lit by a single 2k light about 30 feet behind the actor off-screen left, an exisiting practical mercury vapor light on the back wall and a bounce fill in front of the actor. Pouring rain is 100% natural, courtesy of shooting outdoors in the Pacific Northwest in any month not named August.



More to come in the next day or so....

 

[JMtheDP]

I'm glad England isn't unique in shitty weather.

 

[periferic]

About shooting at night,
Did anybody encounter any smearing issues with street lamps for example or car lights?
I'm wondering how the CCD sensor of the f35 performs about smear rejection. The specifications of the f23 say -135db but I found nothing about the f35.

 

[Hunterqual]

The best example of smear is to watch TRON: Legacy, especially the first 15 minutes or so before he enters the computer. The smear really just looks like vertical lens flares--I quite like the look, actually.

 

[JMtheDP]

Hi Periferic,

The only things that I think will smear the F35 are the sun or a bright source pointed directly down the lens (eg. flashlight, camera flash). Streetlights are nowhere near bright enough, even if you point right at them.

James

 

[SJX]

The best example of smear is to watch TRON: Legacy, especially the first 15 minutes or so before he enters the computer. The smear really just looks like vertical lens flares--I quite like the look, actually.
View attachment 84146

I can see that being looked at as cool or trendy and people even thinking it was added in post, after all the JJ Abrams antics. :grin:

 

[keithlango]

I have a shot of a police car's LEDs flashing as B-roll that have a sort of vertical flare streak thing going on. But I'm not sure if it's from the lens or the sensor because the streaks themselves are out of focus when the footage is out of focus and as the footage comes into focus the vertical streaks themselves get tighter and more distinct. I figure an expert could determine whether it's one or the other. When it's out of focus it adds an odd, disjointed feel to the footage and that fits how I'll use it in the film- so I'm not heartbroken by the artifact.

Here are two samples from the shot. Out of focus and in focus. (not graded)


No vertical streaking on any street lights or other practical lights in any of my other footage, though. Nothing comes close to powerful enough to worry about and only these very bright police LEDs from very close range ever gave me anything.

 

[JMtheDP]

Keith, that's definitely from the sensor.

You should see what happens if a camera flash goes off in front of it, it goes crazy.

 

[SJX]

Hmmm, I don't remember the last CCD camera I had being this bad with smearing. Is the F35 notorious for being more sensitive to it than other CCD cams? Kind of half defeats having a global shutter.

 

[periferic]

Hmmm, I don't remember the last CCD camera I had being this bad with smearing. Is the F35 notorious for being more sensitive to it than other CCD cams? Kind of half defeats having a global shutter.

I think 3CCD cameras are much less sensitive to smear than Single CCD cameras like the F35. May be a reason why Sony gave the specs about the F23 and not the F35. What camera are you referring to SJX? There are not so much single CCD cameras around: digital bolex, ikonoskop A-cam dII, Penelope Delta and F35.

 

[periferic]

I was having a closer look to every night footage I could find and in the test by Keith Lango (F35 night test w/rokinon cine lens), the street lamp at 30" actually creates a slight smear.
Keith, hope it's ok to use a crop of your test in this post.

 

[keithlango]

No worries by me, periferic.

The police car LEDs were killer bright- like hurt your eyes looking right at them bright. Out of the 70+ takes we had that evening over the course of all our set ups that's the only footage with a noticeable sensor streak. So now I know when the image breaks and will adjust accordingly. Every system has trade offs.

Here's a still showing a scenario that was asked about- ambient store lights used as key light on talent.



flickr link here

This was f2.8 on a 24mm lens- a pretty active hand held shot. Camera is in the doorway of the store looking out at the actor, who is holding the door open. The front fill for the talent is primarily the store lights coming out through the windows behind camera. Right above the entrance directly over the actor is a practical 2 bulb flo fixture that is also lighting the area. The hair rim is a cheap 1x1 chinese LED panel on a mafer grip on a support post behind and above to the screen left of the actor. That was the only extra lighting we did. We shot a number of scenes in front of this store with this set up. On some reverse set ups we added a diffused 1k Fresnel coming from the side as a reverse key to shape things. Overall we were able to get whatever we needed from this location with just one or two well placed inexpensive lights for each scene. If I didn't care about noise or contrast ratios so much I probably could have shot it with just the on site ambient/practicals and been fine.

 

[JMtheDP]

The F35 is known for being more succeptible to smear than other designs, it is part of the RGB stripe design, as much as it is being a CCD. My F900 was nowhere near as sensitive.

That said, every camera has weak spots, especially when dealing with bright sources. For example, the ALEXA can often turn very bright sources black, making flashlights etc... look like donuts.

 

[SJX]

I think 3CCD cameras are much less sensitive to smear than Single CCD cameras like the F35. May be a reason why Sony gave the specs about the F23 and not the F35. What camera are you referring to SJX? There are not so much single CCD cameras around: digital bolex, ikonoskop A-cam dII, Penelope Delta and F35.

My last CCD camera was a digibeta, so yes 3-chip. Makes sense single CCD would be more sensitive to smear.

 

[SJX]

No worries by me, periferic.

Keith, did you have a fog filter on in that shot?

Here's a still showing a scenario that was asked about- ambient store lights used as key light on talent.

View attachment 84181

flickr link here

This was f2.8 on a 24mm lens- a pretty active hand held shot. Camera is in the doorway of the store looking out at the actor, who is holding the door open. The front fill for the talent is primarily the store lights coming out through the windows behind camera. Right above the entrance directly over the actor is a practical 2 bulb flo fixture that is also lighting the area. The hair rim is a cheap 1x1 chinese LED panel on a mafer grip on a support post behind and above to the screen left of the actor.

Aha! When I started reading and you said ambient store lights used as key light on talent I somehow misunderstood it as only ambient store lights were used and I was like, that hair rim must have been a very conveniently placed store front light.

Shot looks great Keith. I really, really like how the F35 renders skin color and detail. Even in lower light. The background is totally gone though where a DSLR or even the F3 would have picked it up. But it's an ok trade off to get that skin rendition and the F35 mojo. Maybe this is the secret. Get a F35 and a F3 and use the F3 for night. I'm sure they would match pretty well as the F3 was made to be the baby brother of the F35. The F3 with S-log seems to come pretty close to the F35 in many ways.
I have the feeling night footage with the F35 would look like the night shots in Taxi Driver where everything that wasn't lit by the film crew just disappeared in the darkness. Kind of helped the story of the film in that particular case. Although is was 1976 and it wasn't by choice. Film just couldn't do any better. But Scorsese being the master he is used it to his advantage along with cinematographer Michael Chapman.

Actually your shot has a very Taxi Driver feel to it.

That was the only extra lighting we did. We shot a number of scenes in front of this store with this set up. On some reverse set ups we added a diffused 1k Fresnel coming from the side as a reverse key to shape things. Overall we were able to get whatever we needed from this location with just one or two well placed inexpensive lights for each scene.

The expensive part IMO is never the light itself. It's how to power it if you need something more than a LED battery powered light.

 

[keithlango]

Thanks for the kind word. A Taxi Driver comparison is one I'll gladly accept.

The background disappearing is actually a grade choice. I like how film stocks tend to drop off into darkness. It's something that just appeals to me. Modern digital sensors have a lot more shadow detail- which is great. It's definitely a valid style choice with lots of use. But I kinda have an affinity for black in an image- especially for dramatic pieces like this one. I just like how deep darks push mystery. I tend to not want to capture how things are so much as paint an impression of how things feel. If that makes any sense at all.

Here is a different, arguably more modern style grade. It's a bit flatter image with the mid-range exposure about a half stop higher.


flickr link

This is much closer to what my eye saw on set just looking around. Which is why I get it when Jon (BackToAwake) says "This camera captures what I see". There is detail in the background getting captured- not as much as something like an F3 would see, but there is some stuff there if I want to show it. This is slog_to_cineon10 as an input LUT and then a cineon10_to_Fuji3510 output LUT.

The F3 would see into the dark a good deal better- especially if you really wanted or needed that background. The recent film "Forbidden Ground" was heavy on the night scenes and I know the filmmakers used an F3 to great effect. Their trailer reveals a lot about that camera's low light capability as I know from reading interviews that they didn't have a big lighting budget.

As for our lights- thankfully everything was a simple 110 volt 15 amp draw taken from run of the mill wall sockets. Even the 2k. No big, loud, expensive generator needed.

 

[keithlango]

Also, I should state by way of caveat that these are all just garbage grades. Tests. I haven't settled on a final look just yet. But the 10-bit DNxHD 422 220mbit footage is rich enough to play with without much trouble. Which is a blessing and a curse because I can do whatever I want, but I also can keep tweaking and twiddling ad infinitum. heh.

 

[Freya]

Great thread! :smile:
I'm not surprised the BM4K is not good in low light with so many pixels. Probably part of the problem with the F35 too since it has a 4K sensor. The BM4K is also rated at ISO400 and it can go to ISO800, which I think the F35 can too. Obviously neither will look clean at this artificial ISO.

I think you must be mistaking the Sony F35 for the Sony F55 or something. It certainly does NOT have a 4K sensor. The Sony F35 was a state of the art camera from many years ago that would have been considered to be something like the Sony F65 is now. Maybe more so. I remember getting to play with one at a camera show many years ago and being slightly afraid to touch the thing!

The F35 has a 1080p CCD sensor. Back when it was made this was really incredible. As I remember at about that time JVC were struggling to get a 720p camera working properly that had 2 CCD's that they attempted to stitch together in the camera. Getting a CCD sensor to work at 1080p was a mind blowing idea. CMOS sensors were around at the same time as the CCD sensors but were considered only good enough to stick in cheap webcams and security cameras back then. However camera companies started to ditch CCD technology not because it was bad and outdated like people have been suggesting on camera forums lately but because it was really hard and expensive to make CCD sensors at higher resolutions and CMOS sensors were cheaper and easy to knock out.

Lately there have been a few cameras around with 1080p CCD sensors such as the digital bolex. However it's now years and years and years later. There aren't 4K CCD cameras kicking around even now. The rumour that the Blackmagic 4K is CCD based is something that got started on Phillip Blooms site. It's not the case, it's a 4K CMOS sensor with an electronic global shutter built in. In my opinion the results from the camera look nothing like those from a CCD camera.

The most beautiful and vaguely film like footage I have ever seen has come from the following cameras: The original Panasonic Varicam, The Sony F35, The Ikonoskop camera and the Arri Alexa. Only the last of those is a CMOS based camera and I don't think it quite comes close to the others in the list.

If a 4K CCD sensor could be made economically then someone would have done it and we would be all over it right now because I'm sure it would give incredible pictures but it's only just now that we are getting cheap 4K CMOS based cameras being made.

Freya