Sony Digital Cinema Camera F23 : DigInfo

[vividtriiczz]

Why doesn't anyone look at the post date?! This was one of the best cameras back then :P

[dafreeesubsman]

All this for just HD resolution? It's an assload of money for a camera that can not shoot at least 2-4k!

[Micha35]

CINEMA, means FILM, SPOOLS and MECHANICAL CAMERAS and PROJECTORS!! Not that FUCKING VIDEOTRASH!!

My opinion as a Filmprojectonist

[BlackPlanetFilms]

if they camera is sooo good then why is the video quality TRASH

[neaped]

because it was uploaded in 2007 dumbass.

[TheHoustonRocket]

compact size lol

[MichaelFrymus]

what about the RED?

isn't the RED one better than this?

[1individeo]

yes it is

[dvamateur]

RED ONE has higher resolution, I believe 4K, which roughly twice of that of the F-23. The HDCAM format only captures 1440x1080 pixels. But the compression alrirightm is very low, allong from 400 and 800 Mbits/sec for HDCAM-SR. RED ONE is also five or more times cheaper. But Sony has a very good repupation for pro cameras. If I had the money, I'd go for Sony or Panasonic. Also, RED ONE has one CMOS sensor I believe. CCD sensors offer lower noise, in general. Resolution is not everything

[bumtownv2]

You wouldn't shoot with the red in low light, so I don't think noise is much of issue. Plain HDCAM is 1440x1080, HDCAM SR is 1920x1080. People who want cinema-scope, end up chopping the image to 1920x800. I would get an SRW-9000 over a RED because I like the idea of having footage on that's worked for years rather than an untrustworthy drive or bit of plastic, but I'm stuck in the HDV and XDcam price range.

[dvamateur]

If I had the money, I'd like to have the new 650F. I don't care much for 24p and cinematic look. A good broadcast quality camera would be fine for me. As a poor man's choice, I am salivating over S270, even though I know it's a toy compared with the HDCAM. But, the S270 has all the right switches in the right places, so it's a reasonable toy.  And I had a chance to shoot with Z5U, which has the same sensors as the S270. I must admit those sensors are quite decent actually.

[dvamateur]

For low light, I'd get PD170, or the ultimate DVCAM camera, the 400 or 450WSL. I don't think HiDef camera is the best choice for low light. Smaller pixels, mean higher noise and less sensitivity. On the other hand, in great light, even an amateur A1U or HD1000U do admirably. But for low light, again, an older DV camcorder with CCD sensor does better. Anyway, each camera has its own use.

[JohnMGilbert]

What are you people thinking? Nothing will ever top film. And now that we so many digital edit masters are corrupting after only 90 days, digital is NOT the way to go.

John Gilbert President C. A. D. (Citizens Against Digital)

[Chadfish]

Film is dead. It's a grainy and lame medium like analog tape. It's so 1980s to use that crap. Let's see you produce ANYTHING using film and stay in budget. Sheesh - FIlm.... Like a film of dirt over the image? Film..... Let me get my projector out and show you my new "film"! derrrrr.

[1individeo]

Digital will overcome film. Your point of view is like those who said the same about digital photography. I used to say film in photography will always be better, but now we all agree that digital photo is as good if not better that film photo. The same conservative point of view were shared in other areas like music, animation or illustration. It is all about want you want to achieve. A good director will always make a good movie, regardless if digital or film.

[MichaelFrymus]

actually in movies, film is better. you can see the difference. Film allows you to record in a wide range of lighting. It has more dark and light allowed to be in frame at once, while in digital it would be too dark or to much contrast.

Needs more control.

Digital, you also see noise in dark areas. Film you don't. There are many reasons to chose film over digital. Currently I would definitely choose film over digital, but film is a lot more expensive. That's why digital is better, its cheap.

[1individeo]

you right about everything you said but as I keep saying it all depends on the effect you want. If you want to make a movie based let say on surveillance cameras the best way to do so will be with digital.

You are right but you have to admit that film is more "beautifull" than reality, while digital is closer to reality event though the range of light is way bigger in film. What I mean is, it is not the camera that makes the movie, it is the story and/or the cast

[wado1942]

I always say, "video is fine for PBS and the evening news", but video, even the Genesis and Red just don't have the look.

[1individeo]

It all depends on the look you want to give to your movie or what you want to do. Some brilliant digital work have been made. Movies like 300 or The Blairwitch Project show that you are wrong. Even in Matrix they used Digital Cameras for some shoots. The main diference between film and a good video cam is that Digital vid is too REAL that is why it is better for the TV news, while Film gives you a beautifull but UNREAL image. This can only be achieved in Digital by some editing and/or plugins

[wado1942]

So 300 is REAL looking? BTW, film can handle more than 2x-4x the contrast even the best digital cameras. It's also logarithmic, like our eyes rather than linear like CCDs. It also saturates gradually, like our eyes, not suddenly like CCDs.

I don't want to get into a film vs digital argument but digital has a long way to go before it looks "natural".

[1individeo]

Yes u are right about contrast and light sensitivity. I recognize 300 isn't a real look. But you agree that news images are too REAL. I do not agree when you say that film look natural. It is just wrong. Film is better for movie and more beautifull but less real (to a common viewer'eye not an expert) than Digital. But I get your point

[thangcohon]

Your statement about 300 is very correct. Film alone cannot achieve the real look as in 300. Only digital can achieve this kind of real look. For example, King Kong in 1930 was shot in film entirely, and, yet , it looked so unnatural when King Kong was moving around. But today King Kong looks very real as if it would jum out of the screen to grap the audience.

[MichaelFrymus]

When was King Kong filmed? what year is it now?

technology back then was very limited.

they didn't have all these expensive software and all these studios to make models. The shot on film and digital has nothing to do with the look of movement and Kong. Digital is not nearly as good as film. there are many reasons why. Read my other posts on this page that I replied to others, you'll see why.

[rivercraig]

You are confusing digital shooting with Digital effects, the look of 300 is created with digital effects the actual shooting was done on film. King Kong looked how it did because it was done with stop motion and other in camera trickery, the modern King Kong was achieved through Computer animation.

[TVperson1]

What is the point of this camera when you can just get a RED or one of those other 4K camera?

The only advantage as far as I can see, is that you can change the tape over when your run over 40 minutes. This camera would probably only get used for TV and Ads.

[riazomonero]

When these cameras become standard, proper film cameras will be dead.

[TVperson1]

Well, you can scan 35mm film up to 30K and film still has better contrast. But if ergonomics win over picture quality like in the consumer world, what you say could be true.

[ebbixx]

Camera bodies like this are usually leased for production, unless they're owned by an active studio using them almost constantly. In part for the reason Hamaka points out, that most cameras are obsolete for high end production within a matter of months.

[hamaka]

and oh yeah all that for 17,500$

[TVperson1]

I thought it was more like $160,000.

[hamaka]

actualy this cam is allready obsolet, go check the RED camera. true 4k (above 4000 pixel resolution) and goes up to 120fps in 2k mode...

and on top of that you can use canon, nikon,... dslr lens on it

[harpiaa]

150.000 euros

[epicdeuce]

What does that cost?

[NorcrossMedia]

In the US it's 169,000 dollars for the body.

[nerakalove]

need to buy me 1 of those whoooooh

[nerakalove]

need to buy me 1 of those whoooooh

[nerakalove]

need to buy me 1 of those whoooooh

[nerakalove]

need to buy me 1 of those whoooooh