To be honest if I had the money it's buy this over a RED as this doesn't have CMOS chips or a Bayer pattern. I may be mad but remember it's uses HDcam SR which is much easier to deal with and more reliable. As a 3D and VFX student I can tell you that 1080 and 2K are good enough even on a 1440p monitor.
LET me get this straight...... $150,000 dollars for less than 2K resolution @ 1-30 FPS. OR...... a Red Scarlet for $5000 which does 1-150 FPS in 3K resolution.... ROFL. ohhh some of you say the scarlet isnt out yet? ok.... Red Camera for $20,000.. again 1-150 FPS at 4K resolution. gg
@Bluestarcinema but tell me, what's redcode raw? 42MBs? that's 12:1 compression. HDcam is 880MBs which is 2:1 compression. Resolution means jack shit. digi beta looks better than HDV.
@Bluestarcinema I have seen the ARRIFLEX 765 and it is a very nice camera. BUT, Film really has no resolution and no compression so it has nothing to do with digital film making of digital cameras.
FILM has an approximate when scanned in. and 65mm film scans in at 7K, it has more resolution than that, but there are no scanners than can take advantage of it.
7K = 35 Mega Pixels per frame
1080p = 2 mega pixels.
there is no comparison between film and digital.
and back to square one..
Super 16mm = 1 - 150 FPS at 3K scanned in. for about $20 grand AND you get the look of FILM.
Film is a dinosaur and It's cumbersome. The running time is crap, you have to pay for processing and scanning and that takes days, heaven forbid there is a problem with the camera and the film is exposed, you have to clean up the film grain and dirt on the film in post. I'm mean it's just a waste when a digital camera just gives you what you want, a clean picture. 99% of films at the cinema are 2K anyway. Film isn't limitless detail, the lens and quality film.
1) Which type of HDCAM are you talking about? HDCAM / HDCAM-SR? What's the record medium? Tape/Harddisk? Which type of compression? YCbCr422 / YCbCr311 / RGB444?
2) Your 880 Mb are Mbit leading to 110 MByte/s
3) RED RAW is 42 MByte / s and it saves RAW which means no debayered signal and that is 1/3 of the size of RGB itself.
red one is cmos and effectively 8 stops DR (i have one)- f 23 is 12+ stops CCD. film is 14- the f24 will be much closer to film- ccd is just better all around.
At the end of the day this camera and the images it produces still looks like video. it cannot touch a film frame at this time. Though digital is work in progress but still it is not film.
The achievement is not that it looks more like film, but it can process more colors than any other video camera out there. Even subtle differences, whereas on normal cameras two different shades of a certain color may appear the same, with this unit, they are Different - and its obvious. The second thing is that every feature can be manipulated and if you know what you're doing, you can shoot to look like or better than film. 90 pages of menu options isn't bad.
Yea, it's too bad digital can barely touch super 16mm, only in terms of resolution. Film dominates digital under mixed lighting conditions and dynamic range. and if anybody wants to talk about resolution. Let me remind you all about 35mm and 65mm film which absolutely destroy digital in every aspect.
To be honest if I had the money it's buy this over a RED as this doesn't have CMOS chips or a Bayer pattern. I may be mad but remember it's uses HDcam SR which is much easier to deal with and more reliable. As a 3D and VFX student I can tell you that 1080 and 2K are good enough even on a 1440p monitor.
TVperson1 6 months ago
I swear Sony has the most retarded videos for a company their size
Cakeman545 1 year ago
LET me get this straight...... $150,000 dollars for less than 2K resolution @ 1-30 FPS. OR...... a Red Scarlet for $5000 which does 1-150 FPS in 3K resolution.... ROFL. ohhh some of you say the scarlet isnt out yet? ok.... Red Camera for $20,000.. again 1-150 FPS at 4K resolution. gg
Bluestarcinema 2 years ago
@Bluestarcinema but tell me, what's redcode raw? 42MBs? that's 12:1 compression. HDcam is 880MBs which is 2:1 compression. Resolution means jack shit. digi beta looks better than HDV.
texabyte 2 years ago
yea well, go to the arri website and check out the ARRI 765, then come back and talk to me about compression or resolution.
Bluestarcinema 2 years ago
@Bluestarcinema I have seen the ARRIFLEX 765 and it is a very nice camera. BUT, Film really has no resolution and no compression so it has nothing to do with digital film making of digital cameras.
texabyte 2 years ago
FILM has an approximate when scanned in. and 65mm film scans in at 7K, it has more resolution than that, but there are no scanners than can take advantage of it.
7K = 35 Mega Pixels per frame
1080p = 2 mega pixels.
there is no comparison between film and digital.
and back to square one..
Super 16mm = 1 - 150 FPS at 3K scanned in. for about $20 grand AND you get the look of FILM.
F23??? 1-30 fps at 1920x1080. this is a joke.
Bluestarcinema 2 years ago
Film is a dinosaur and It's cumbersome. The running time is crap, you have to pay for processing and scanning and that takes days, heaven forbid there is a problem with the camera and the film is exposed, you have to clean up the film grain and dirt on the film in post. I'm mean it's just a waste when a digital camera just gives you what you want, a clean picture. 99% of films at the cinema are 2K anyway. Film isn't limitless detail, the lens and quality film.
TVperson1 6 months ago
@texabyte
That's technical non-sense.
1) Which type of HDCAM are you talking about? HDCAM / HDCAM-SR? What's the record medium? Tape/Harddisk? Which type of compression? YCbCr422 / YCbCr311 / RGB444?
2) Your 880 Mb are Mbit leading to 110 MByte/s
3) RED RAW is 42 MByte / s and it saves RAW which means no debayered signal and that is 1/3 of the size of RGB itself.
loomfreezer 9 months ago
@loomfreezer The RED uses a single cmos sensor and the F23 uses 3 CCDs which don't have any of the issues of the cmos sensors.
TVperson1 6 months ago
@texabyte Yeah, but it's $40,000 more than HDV.
TVperson1 6 months ago
red one is cmos and effectively 8 stops DR (i have one)- f 23 is 12+ stops CCD. film is 14- the f24 will be much closer to film- ccd is just better all around.
wastedlives 2 years ago 4
@wastedlives Red one? 8 stops? lol, what? The original sensor was rated far over 12.
Jon124 6 months ago
f23
wastedlives 2 years ago
$150,000 for this? the red cam is cheaper than that!
matamjo 2 years ago
No body buys a F23 for personal use, you actually rent it from a camera company, it has a better work flow, easy for business.
itzkrisyall 2 years ago
My company rents this out at extremely low rates, mainly geared toward indie-filmmakers. For NYC metro area.
NorcrossMedia 3 years ago
How much is this beast?
BlackNoir 3 years ago
At the end of the day this camera and the images it produces still looks like video. it cannot touch a film frame at this time. Though digital is work in progress but still it is not film.
Ben1238 3 years ago
The only people who care about that are the ones making the movie. The people who pay to see the movie could care less.
metalalien79 3 years ago 2
The achievement is not that it looks more like film, but it can process more colors than any other video camera out there. Even subtle differences, whereas on normal cameras two different shades of a certain color may appear the same, with this unit, they are Different - and its obvious. The second thing is that every feature can be manipulated and if you know what you're doing, you can shoot to look like or better than film. 90 pages of menu options isn't bad.
NorcrossMedia 3 years ago
with intense colour grading and an extremely good lighting design top digital cams with 35mm sensors can touch it... but only just!
MyWebPresenters 2 years ago
Yea, it's too bad digital can barely touch super 16mm, only in terms of resolution. Film dominates digital under mixed lighting conditions and dynamic range. and if anybody wants to talk about resolution. Let me remind you all about 35mm and 65mm film which absolutely destroy digital in every aspect.
Bluestarcinema 2 years ago
nice >>>>>>>>>>> :):) thx
hamany90 4 years ago
very impressive.. nice and sweet!
senyores2000 4 years ago 2