Cristian Mihai
Well-known member
Decision taken. Willing to buy a body and minimum accessories required. I alredy have a Pix240i recorder and a Zacuto Gratical HD EVF. What other accessories i need to buy to make the body up and running ? Thanks
F35: Willing to buy a Sony F35.... please help
- Thread starter Cristian Mihai
- Start date
rbirnbaum
Well-known member
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
You made a good choice. If you are looking at any of the f35s on ebay, the ones in the 3400 range I believe are VER ex-rental units. My F23 was from VER burbank and given im a past VER employee I can tell you that they take good care of their gear when its in their hands... granted, I had to reflash the firmware on my F23 to get it working but that was due to a cilent trying to flash F35 firmware on it to try and get 12 bit.. (moron) as i found from a friend of mine who looked it up... long story short your best bet is one of those VER units sitting on ebay. Good luck and congrats on the choice you made.. you made a good one. 
G
Guest
Guest
Congrats. Still my favourite out of box look.
Cristian Mihai
Well-known member
Thanks guys. Launching an prerder depozit for \atlas orions . I expect the F35 with Atlas Orions to rock my eyes.
G
Guest
Guest
Yeah! 720p is a nice look.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
720p? these are 1080 cameras... did i miss a joke? lol
Cristian Mihai
Well-known member
This...so James what's the joke ? :huh:
rbirnbaum
Well-known member
X2 anamorphic on a 16:9 HD sensor. Once you zoom and crop to 2.35, you are Not full HD. Don’t know about 720p though... Jamesssss being funny and a little jealous of the Atlas, right? Hahaha
Since we are talking HD delivery here if you shoot anamorphic for a 2.4:1 ratio the final image is 1920x800 regardless of the aspect of the sensor, shoot Alexa open gate it is still 1920x800.
If you are doing 2.66:1 like blade runner and the true dequeeze of a 4:3 2x image you end up with a 2880x1080 image. Upscale that to UHD and you have a 133% upscale rather than a 200% for 1920x1080.
The biggest downside of shooting anamorphic on a 16x9 sensor is the loss of field of view not the loss of resolution.
If you are doing 2.66:1 like blade runner and the true dequeeze of a 4:3 2x image you end up with a 2880x1080 image. Upscale that to UHD and you have a 133% upscale rather than a 200% for 1920x1080.
The biggest downside of shooting anamorphic on a 16x9 sensor is the loss of field of view not the loss of resolution.
Cristian Mihai
Well-known member
G
Guest
Guest
That’s the main thing. I don’t deny that.
rbirnbaum
Well-known member
Isn't it both?
Yes, you lose field of view. There is not doubt abou that.
Although you end up with an HD image, you still need to crop and zoom for a 2.35 image, right?
Desqueezing a 4k 16:9 sensor should preserve more details, right?
Having said that, I have done my own tests, and I find the image totally acceptable.
rbirnbaum
Well-known member
Did you see this test online?
https://vimeo.com/141803033
Kowa is not the sharpest lens... I think you will be more than satisfied with the Atlas'
To get 2.4:1 on a 16:9 sensor without crop scaling requires the 1.3x Hawk V-Lites...2.66:1 is doable with 1.5x lenses. Otherwise resolution loss happens, no?
That said the 5k oversampled image of the F35 holds up to pretty extreme scaling. I don't think it looks like 720p.
G
Guest
Guest
The F35 tends to resolve more than specs would imply, as most other cameras and systems fudge the numbers. So, it will still look great even slightly cropped. The 720p number, or joke, was more a reference to a 1080p world. There are ways to preserve more detail now that we have so many 4K tv’s and projectors. But here is the math:
F35 max resolution in 16:9 = 1920x1080
The 2X anamorpic squeeze would only need approximately a 4:3 crop of the 16:9 sensor. Since we can’t add height, we have to subtract from the width. While there are several wide formats, we can settle on 2.44, or 22x9. Since it is a 2x squeeze, half of that is 11:9. Which is very close to 4:3 or 12:9. But let’s go with 11:9.
To get the pixel count of 11:9 from an HD 16:9 sensor we can say 1920 divided by 16 times 11 equals: 1320
With a bayer sensor camera Recording raw, this would be rough math, but with the F35, and assuming the anamorphic lens is precisely 2X, then that is a pretty accurate number.
The recorded file is now 1320x1080.
When the project is exported, it will most often be letter boxed on an 1080p tv, projected letterboxed on a 2K projector, or in 1080 online. Which gives us the height that dhessel said: 1920x800. 800 pixels high.
Since the orignal recorded width was 1320pixels wide, and the displayed format is most often viewed with ~800 pixels high, depending on the exact wide format, which for 2.44 is ~1920x~786. The resolution is more realistically:
1320x786
Which is very close to 1280x720.
One could make a 4K letterboxed file that preserves the 1080 height. Or any number of solutions you may have at your disposal. (2640x1080 export anyone?)
So, yeah, i was joking, but not really about the numbers.
Anamorphic is often chosen for the look on digital, so most people might not ever notice, especially with the lenses shot wide open.
Dhessel got it right. Losing some of the height the lenses were meant to capture, is kind of like using Zeiss Super Speeds on M43 sensor. You’ll still get great results, but it isn’t the sensor size the lenses were made for. And your 32mm is now a short telephoto, forcing the use of a 25mm as the normal lens. But for anamorphic, it is an even bigger difference.
With the Atlas Anamorphics and an F35, the images will still be amazing, the main person who’ll know the difference is the operator who wanted to use a 40mm, but had to use the 32mm. But if you own both the camera and the lenses, it will be pretty quick learning curve before it all feels natural, and the images will be organic as organic can be.
So, at the end of the day, my real attempt at humour was to laugh at specs. You’ll get fantastic images from that combo, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Mike called me out pretty good. Yeah, i’m jealous as hell!
F35 max resolution in 16:9 = 1920x1080
The 2X anamorpic squeeze would only need approximately a 4:3 crop of the 16:9 sensor. Since we can’t add height, we have to subtract from the width. While there are several wide formats, we can settle on 2.44, or 22x9. Since it is a 2x squeeze, half of that is 11:9. Which is very close to 4:3 or 12:9. But let’s go with 11:9.
To get the pixel count of 11:9 from an HD 16:9 sensor we can say 1920 divided by 16 times 11 equals: 1320
With a bayer sensor camera Recording raw, this would be rough math, but with the F35, and assuming the anamorphic lens is precisely 2X, then that is a pretty accurate number.
The recorded file is now 1320x1080.
When the project is exported, it will most often be letter boxed on an 1080p tv, projected letterboxed on a 2K projector, or in 1080 online. Which gives us the height that dhessel said: 1920x800. 800 pixels high.
Since the orignal recorded width was 1320pixels wide, and the displayed format is most often viewed with ~800 pixels high, depending on the exact wide format, which for 2.44 is ~1920x~786. The resolution is more realistically:
1320x786
Which is very close to 1280x720.
One could make a 4K letterboxed file that preserves the 1080 height. Or any number of solutions you may have at your disposal. (2640x1080 export anyone?)
So, yeah, i was joking, but not really about the numbers.
Anamorphic is often chosen for the look on digital, so most people might not ever notice, especially with the lenses shot wide open.
Dhessel got it right. Losing some of the height the lenses were meant to capture, is kind of like using Zeiss Super Speeds on M43 sensor. You’ll still get great results, but it isn’t the sensor size the lenses were made for. And your 32mm is now a short telephoto, forcing the use of a 25mm as the normal lens. But for anamorphic, it is an even bigger difference.
With the Atlas Anamorphics and an F35, the images will still be amazing, the main person who’ll know the difference is the operator who wanted to use a 40mm, but had to use the 32mm. But if you own both the camera and the lenses, it will be pretty quick learning curve before it all feels natural, and the images will be organic as organic can be.
So, at the end of the day, my real attempt at humour was to laugh at specs. You’ll get fantastic images from that combo, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Mike called me out pretty good. Yeah, i’m jealous as hell!
Cristian Mihai
Well-known member
Waiting time for Orions is 10 months even. Some people hve ordered more sets and selling them with 10-15k bove their purchse price.
G
Guest
Guest
Good on ya, mate! Hope you share some footage soon!