24Nov/0925
Sony Digital Cinema Camera F23 : DigInfo
DigInfo - movie.diginfo.tv The F23 is the highest-end digital cinema camera in the CineAlta family. This model has high-quality design and operability that enable a film camera type shooting style, provides color reproduction and speed effects required in movies and commercials and ensures efficient production workflow. The compact size and high level mobility of this camera are achieved by directly docking the HDCAM-SR portable recorder SRW-1, which is regarded as the top-end HD format, to ...
November 24th, 2009 - 07:59
compact size lol
November 24th, 2009 - 08:49
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.
November 24th, 2009 - 09:44
RED ONE has higher resolution, I believe 4K, which roughly twice of that of the F-23. The HDCAM format only captures 1440×1080 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
November 24th, 2009 - 09:50
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
November 24th, 2009 - 10:00
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.
November 24th, 2009 - 10:31
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.
November 24th, 2009 - 10:43
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.
November 24th, 2009 - 11:12
yes it is
November 24th, 2009 - 11:25
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.
November 24th, 2009 - 12:25
what about the RED?
isn’t the RED one better than this?
November 24th, 2009 - 12:36
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.
November 24th, 2009 - 13:29
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)
November 24th, 2009 - 13:35
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
November 24th, 2009 - 14:05
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”.
November 24th, 2009 - 14:36
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
November 24th, 2009 - 14:41
Exactly, that’s a good way to look at it.
November 24th, 2009 - 14:55
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.
November 24th, 2009 - 15:08
I’m not a big fan of digital cinema cameras for movies and commercials. 35mm is definitely better for both. Digital should really only be used for small budget television shows, live television shows, and low budget filming. The F23 body runs for about $150,000 in the US right now.
November 24th, 2009 - 15:39
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.
November 24th, 2009 - 15:56
I thought it was more like $160,000.
November 24th, 2009 - 16:54
Well, you can scan 35mm film up to 30K and film still has better contrast. But if ergonomics win over picture quality like in the consumer world, what you say could be true.
November 24th, 2009 - 17:38
When these cameras become standard, proper film cameras will be dead.
November 24th, 2009 - 17:51
Camera bodies like this are usually leased for production, unless they’re owned by an active studio using them almost constantly. In part for the reason Hamaka points out, that most cameras are obsolete for high end production within a matter of months.
November 24th, 2009 - 18:20
and oh yeah all that for 17,500$
November 24th, 2009 - 18:42
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