The latest firmware update allows a Super 16 mode on the F5/F55 cameras, which allows the use of Super 16 glass.

Sony Firmware 3.0 Update | Film and Digital Times (http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/12/27/sony-firmware-3-0-update-16mm-mode/)

Fortunately, the center crop mode is useful for a lot more than just 16mm lenses. I don't even know anyone who owns a 16mm lens. :-)

The center crop can also be used as a 2x digital extender with any 35mm lens without any loss of light or resolution. For example my Zeiss 15.5-45mm T2.8 lens suddenly becomes the equivalent of a 31-90mm T2.8 lens with the flick of a switch. It won't have the same shallow depth-of-field and exact same perspective as an actual lens with a longer focal length, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Sony PMW-F55 - 2K Center Scan Mode Test on Vimeo

You can also use B4 ENG lenses via the MTF B4 adapter without using the lenses 2x extender. This gives the same zoom range as on a 2/3" camera and with only a half stop light loss.

Do remember though that as the sensor is only 2k bayer in crop mode that the final resolution is less than full HD, approx 1.7k. But I doubt most people will notice the slightly lower resolution.

If you are going to be using the same pl lens with either shot, is it better to use super 16 than to crop HD from a full frame 4k?

When you say "super 16" I assume you mean the function called Center Scan mode?

I have not done any testing to compare a rescaled 4K image in post to an HD image that was shot with Center Scan. However, I have no doubts, based on the other tests I have already done, that the results would look virtually identical.

But the advantage of the Center Scan mode is that you don't have to record a 4K image to get it. Compared to HD, the 4K image files are huge.
And the F5 can't do any internal 4K at all, only the F55 can do that. But both cameras can do Center Scan.

Here are several test clips I shot in both Center Scan mode and Full Scan mode using the same framing to see if there were any differences in quality between images.

Take a look: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-pmwf5-pmwf55-cinealta/520815-center-scan-vs-full-scan-test-same-framing.html

Sorry about that Doug, yes I meant center scan. The original poster called it super16 in the title. Thanks Dennis, I am following your other threads but have not registered to post in the SCF. I will check out your findings.

You can also use B4 ENG lenses via the MTF B4 adapter without using the lenses 2x extender. This gives the same zoom range as on a 2/3" camera and with only a half stop light loss.

Do remember though that as the sensor is only 2k bayer in crop mode that the final resolution is less than full HD, approx 1.7k. But I doubt most people will notice the slightly lower resolution.

Alister...does the 2/3 lens still need the internal magnification of the adapter to cover the F5's 2K center scan area? What would happen with just a straight B4 to FZ adapter with no glass in it?

Jon, I have been thinking the same thing and will do official testing soon.

I think I had it worked out that with a physical lens mount adapter without built-in optics, but with a 2x optical doubler built into the B4 lens, you would get something around 3000 x 1600 from using the full 4k sensor preserving the full FOV of the B4 2/3" lens.

Now that the Sony's offer center scan instead of shooting a full 4k and cropping in post you could shoot 2k center scan and it would be cropped for you in-camera, but you can see how much of the full iamge would be chopped off as well as some of the FOV from the B4 lens. My thought was to shoot in 4k mode then in post on a 2k timeline reduce the 3000 x 1600 image size by about 30-33% so there is no change in B4 lens FOV and less loss in sharpness which seems to happen when using the center scan mode.

Your question however was what would happen if there were no internal optics in the adapter, and no 2x doubler in the B4 2/3" lens:

The F5/F55 sensor size is 22.6 x 12.7mm and a B4 lens with 2x doubler built in will easily cover the micro 4/3rd format which is 17.3 x 13mm. A B4 lens without any doubler built in is around 8.8 x 6.6 mm so if you were to shoot this on a 4k sensor you would still end up with around 1600 x 1120 which is slightly short vertically of 1920 pixels. You could blow up the image 20% or shrink it down to 720p (1280x720).

Dennis,

Okay so it looks like the official dimension of Super-16 is 12.5 x 7.4mm, and I have found someone who calculated the F5 2k center scan at 12.3 x 7.5mm (don't know if that's correct). So if the unaltered B4 lens gives you only 8.8 x 6.6mm coverage, that means I would still need to crop and scale the image in 2K. Which means I still need the internal optics of the adapter to get full coverage. Which still means a $1700 adapter.

Here are the exact dimensions for Center Scan:

2K RAW: 12.09 x 6.38 13.67(D)
2K: 12.00 x 6.33 13.57(D)
HD: 11.25 x 6.33 12.91(D)

Jon, the $1700 MTF adapter still requires that your B4 2/3" lens has a built in 2x doubler and overall will incur 2.5 stops of light loss.

The options would be:

Option 1.) Shoot using a B4 2/3" with built-in 2x doubler and either:
- Use center scan to crop out 2k from 3000x1600 pixels. (1.5 crop factor from original B4 lens FOV, and I still think center-scan makes softer images in general.)
- Use full 4k sensor to capture 3000x1600 pixels and in post to HD/2k frame. Also approx 1.5 crop factor.
- Use full 4k sensor to capture 3000x1600 pixles and [b]scale in post to HD or 2k frame. No crop factor, slightly improved sharpness.

Using a lens with a 2x doubler means you can use a pure physical adapter without optics and so less light loss and potentially less abberations. Note the MTF adapter does require 2x extender on your B4 lens so with it you would be going through two sets of optics.


Option 2.) Use a B4 2/3" lens without 2x doubler and set the camera to 2k center-scan mode, 2k full scan mode, or 4k full scan mode and then in post either:

- Shrink the 1600x1200 image down to 720p (1280 x 720). No crop factor. Slightly improved image sharpness.
- Crop the 1600x1200 image to 720p (1280 x 720). (1.25 crop factor from original B4 lens FOV)
- Scale up 1600x1200 to 1920x1080. No lens crop factor. But 20% blow up so slight loss in sharpness.

Note that 4k full and 2k full modes will produce slightly sharper images than the 2k center-scan mode. For option 2 the only advantage of 2k center-scan is that the file sizes will be smaller by approximately 4 times.


Option 3.) Use optical adapter like MTF, or Sony's new B4 convertors. More optics = more light loss and abberations. Also as indicated the MTF adapter only works with 2x doubler built into the lens.

Hope this is somewhat clear. Tricky to explain.

Just to clarify: are you saying that "Option 2" would work with a non-optical adapter such as the Fotodiox B4 to FZ?

Yes exactly, or you can use the combination of a B4 2/3" to Canon physical mount with Canon to Sony FZ mount.

Approximately 1600 x 1120 does give you some options to work with but what I want to know and test is if that 20% blow up to HD 1920 x 1080 would introduce about the same softness as using a B4 2/3" lens with 2x doubler then scaled down to HD.

Nice...the Fotodiox is only $250. Am I also correct to assume the flange distance doesn't matter since these broadcast lenses can adjust back focus?

Well hopefully the Fotodiox is somewhere within spec, as it can not be too far out or as you know it will cause problems.

Which B4 2/3" lens will you be trying, is your plan to scale up to 1920x1080 HD or scale down to 1280x720p?

Fuji XA17x7.6 BERM (no extender)...a cheap lens I know, but I really need to try it and see the results. I'm shooting a national doc for PBS and I need some run and gun capability. We were just missing too much working with lens changes with Nikons. I will need to upres to 1080 since that is what is already shot. I also need to see if a work flow that includes scaling will be feasible for a doc.

You can search online for some footage B4 2/3" lenses on AF100 or micro 4/3rds and get an idea of what kind of quality you might get. Most of it I've seen is with 2x doubler and looks great.

For your doc I would definitely shoot in 4k so you can get 3000x1600 - but that involves 4 times more data and post work.

Best of luck on your projects, sounds interesting!

a Fuji XA17x7.6 BERM (no extender)...will be feasible for a doc.

Jon ~

Just received this from a colleague using a Fuji 18 x 7.6 with a doubler on the F5.

"Hey mate,

I had a play with the crop mode... works quite nicely, but can't run the B4 lenses more open than f4 otherwise it goes nasty soft.

With the extender in on full scan I can go more or less wide open, so all in the results are quite similar! Will keep looking into it... either way the speed you need to gain/ISO up is the same!"

He is coming over so we can do more tests / comparisons but it is not sounding too promising. It's looking like full scan with the doubler is working best when using the MTF B4. He is saying that you have to ISO up to compensate for light loss. In full scan mode with the doubler in I agree with him 100% as that has been my experience. You have to remember the associated light loss is about 2.5 stops so when he says f4 on the B4 lens that that's like working at f8~11 on your 2/3" camera.

I'm using the MTF B4 on an FS700 and finding similar results in the full scan mode. Full scan obviously as there is no crop mode. If it's full daylight it quite usable but the minute that light drops it feels like you are stuck with a lens with a maximum working aperture of f5.6. Wide open on the B4 lens at 3200 ISO being needed to match a PDW-700 XDCam on 0 dB gain is my experience.

Curious to here more shooters experiences with B4 adapters on the F5 / 55.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

That is some good to know feedback on the MTF adapter. Thanks Chris! It is meant to be a low cost alternative B4 to FZ adapter so it's still not a bad option, but the 2.5 stops will hurt in lower light.

Jon and I are looking at using a B4 lens without an adapter that has optics in it, so no light loss if you do not have a doubler engaged, or only a little light loss if it is engaged.

Personally, I intend on picking up a PMW-300 for $8000 as my run & gun camera instead of crippling my F55 with a bunch of really bad glass, adapters, and other gimmicks in post to try and make the footage look good enough. The 300 has 50Mbps XDCAM HD422 right now, a great EVF, removable lens, good ergonomics, and XAVC is just around the corner. There's nothing better than using the right tool for the right job, AND it gives me a second camera when I need it. Just my 2 cents.

Personally, I intend on picking up a PMW-300 for $8000 as my run & gun camera instead of crippling my F55 with a bunch of really bad glass, adapters, and other gimmicks in post to try and make the footage look good enough. The 300 has 50Mbps XDCAM HD422 right now, a great EVF, removable lens, good ergonomics, and XAVC is just around the corner. There's nothing better than using the right tool for the right job, AND it gives me a second camera when I need it. Just my 2 cents.

Ah! The voice of reason!

+1 for Doug's comments. Hence my using the disc based XDCam as my prime ENG type camera. With an HD wide angle it's hard to beat for many everyday type jobs. Horses for courses is so true.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Ah! The voice of reason!

Screw reason, I went with an F5. The samples I've seen of the PMW300 have the look of my old EX1r which I think looks dated and details likes leaves look smeary. Lack of high frame rates and no 4K made it a pretty easy decision. Finishing my first F5 project and am so glad I spent the extra $$$. The camera sings.

That is some good to know feedback on the MTF adapter. Thanks Chris! It is meant to be a low cost alternative B4 to FZ adapter so it's still not a bad option, but the 2.5 stops will hurt in lower light.

Jon and I are looking at using a B4 lens without an adapter that has optics in it, so no light loss if you do not have a doubler engaged, or only a little light loss if it is engaged.

In a perfect world Fujinon would make an affordable (i.e. $10K) S35 lightweight zoom whose inferior optics could be corrected with a universal in-camera CAC plugin (if such a thing would even be possible). They certainly have the technology to build such a lens (think XA17 x 7.6 with larger elements), but perhaps not a way to make it profitable.

As an F55 owner myself, I'm not suggesting the PMW-300 as an alternative for everything an F5 or F55 offers. That was not the point of my post. The PMW-300 is a great companion to the F5/F55 and those two cameras make a great pair.

As an F55 owner myself, I'm not suggesting the PMW-300 as an alternative for everything an F5 or F55 offers. That was not the point of my post. The PMW-300 is a great companion to the F5/F55 and those two cameras make a great pair.

Makes me think of that Heneiken commercial where the guy has a walk in closet full of beer. Mine would be cameras if only I could afford them all.

They're business tools, not toys, and they more than pay for themselves. In fact, each camera buys the next camera, and I sell the old camera while it still holds most of it's value. A $20,000 camera doesn't cost $20,000 if you sell it for $15,000 when you jump to the next model. Then it only cost you $5000.

You've got to spend money to make money.

True and when you factor in depreciation and tax savings they're virtually free provided you don't keep them too long. As far as being just business tools, I suppose that's true in a sense but as shooting video is only about 20% of my scope of work, and because its the part I like the most, I hope I never look at them that way. Cameras are much more an artistic instrument for what I use them for, and I've come to love them for that reason.

Hi
Anyone know off a support that holds a Broadcast B4 mount canon optic like HJ22x7,6.
Got the MTF adapter and a VOCAS support but need something that can hold the lens very secure to the 15mm rods. I once had a support that was screwed directly onto the lens.

The samples I've seen of the PMW300 have the look of my old EX1r which I think looks dated and details likes leaves look smeary

I own a PMW200 and not a 300 but I assume they look the same and what I can tell you is that with a decent setup and 50mbps 4:2:2 footage, it's a pretty darned nice picture, especially for the money. The 35mbps footage is marginally better than the EX1R in my opinion but throw the extra bits at it and the game changes significantly.

I have other issues with the camera but picture quality for price is NOT one of them.

And yes, I'm looking very seriously at an F55 purchase this year for narrative interviews but the 200 or something similar will remain my run-and-gun for the foreseeable future.

Hi Bo,

There are many out there, RB do a very good one that can screw on the lens. Have a look at the link and scroll down the page. I do not work for RB, just like their products.

Ronford-Baker Engineering Company Limited - Designers & Manufactures of Academy Award winning professional Film, Television , Video, Grip & allied equipment. (http://www.ronfordbaker.co.uk/video.html)

ARRI, Chrosziel, they all have there own version.

There are some Chinese ones that also work but tend to strap the lens to the support rather than screw in.

Regards,

James

Obviously the B4 option is worth looking into if you have some substantial investments in ENG glass. However you can pick up some very solid S16mm zooms for $8000 (a figure that covers Doug's proposed PMW-300 or a nice used B4 lens), and I think the S16mm glass would pair far more smoothly with the F5(5) than trying to shoehorn a B4 on to it or deal with the limitations of a small-chip camera.

A lot of this video was shot with 2K Center Scan and 240 fps HFR.

Sturbridge Ice Races -- SHORT VERSION on Vimeo

Looks great Doug. What codec(s) did you use?

Everything was recorded to the R5 raw recorder. So if the clip is slow-mo, it's 2K raw @ 240 fps. If the clip is not slow-mo (and has audio) it's 4K raw @ 24 fps.

Hi Doug,

The clips look great. The question I have, if my deliverable is going to be 1080HD, and I want to use the F55 center scan mode for xavc slow motion 180 fps, is it better to choose 2K and crop the edges in post, or shoot in HD? In other words, if I shoot HD center scan, will it crop the sides off, or will it rescale the 2k to HD leaving black bars at the top and bottom?

Tom,

I will choose to shoot in HD instead of 2K anytime I have the choice between those two. Personally, I have no use for 2K because it just means I'm recording extra pixels that are going to have to be chopped of at some point along the way. I see no benefit whatsoever for my needs. The only reason I record 2K to the RAW recorder when doing HFR is because HD is not an option. However, when recording HFR to the SxS cards, then HD is an option and that is my choice.

If you shoot Center Scan with the F55 it will simply take the center 1920x1080 pixels. It will not take the center 2048x1080 pixels and anamorphically squeeze the image to fit a 1920x1080 image, nor will it letter box the video. Center Scan looks great.

Thanks Doug for that thorough and complete explanation.

Tom,

I will choose to shoot in HD instead of 2K anytime I have the choice between those two. Personally, I have no use for 2K because it just means I'm recording extra pixels that are going to have to be chopped of at some point along the way. I see no benefit whatsoever for my needs. The only reason I record 2K to the RAW recorder when doing HFR is because HD is not an option. However, when recording HFR to the SxS cards, then HD is an option and that is my choice.

If you shoot Center Scan with the F55 it will simply take the center 1920x1080 pixels. It will not take the center 2048x1080 pixels and anamorphically squeeze the image to fit a 1920x1080 image, nor will it letter box the video. Center Scan looks great.

Hi Doug

Thanks for your posts.. so the 2k raw you shot for HFR is 17-9.. if thats going into a HD 16-9 program.. how do you deal with that in post.. thanks again

Dealing with the 17:9 aspect ratio is easy and takes no extra effort.

If I'm shooting 2K RAW, I will always grade the footage in Davinci Resolve first and then export a ProRes HQ file for editing in Premiere CS. If I create a 1920x1080 timeline in Davinci Resolve and choose "Image Scaling > Scale Full Frame with Crop" then the 64 unwanted pixels on each side of the 2048x1080 image are automatically cropped off and the output file is 1920x1080. It's just a preferences setting, and nothing more is needed. And since pixels are just being cropped off, there is no image rescaling being done or anything else that would harm the picture quality. Imagine taking an 8"x10" print and using a pair of scissors to trim an inch off the sides. What you have left is exactly the same as it was before.

Ok thanks Doug

Silly question perhaps, but can you assign center crop to a preset?
If so, can you switch while rolling or do you have to stop and do more of a menu "system change."
For example, going from a medium shot in an interview situation to a close up. That would be a very cool thing to do on the fly.

An assignable button has been highly requested, but as of today you can not assign it to a button. And even if you could, it is hard to know if it would be selectable whilst shooting.

But a great suggestion.

Just to add to what Dennis has already said, it does require a change on the menus --- and you cannot change that menu while you are rolling. Even if you have the menu up on the screen and it's all set to change on the fly, the settings gray out as soon as the record button is pressed. I had a shoot on Saturday where I would have loved to switch back and forth "live" but it can't be done. Maybe in the future, but not today.