5 years later and Real Steel is still best sony movie. Why?

[macgregor]

I think Oblivion is the best looking digital movie ever shot (to date). Perhaps The revenant is next to it, even though I don't love the grading in the revenant or at least the copy I watched.

Discussing which is the best looking high end camera at this point is almost like talking about which is the best car in the world. P1, la Ferrari or 918? It's so much about the taste and not about the cameras themselves. I've shot the last 3 commercials on the Alexa mini and that camera is just gorgeous, I don't think anything can beat it. And yet I think Oblivion looks magnificent.

 

[SJX]

I think Oblivion is the best looking digital movie ever shot (to date). Perhaps The revenant is next to it, even though I don't love the grading in the revenant or at least the copy I watched.

Discussing which is the best looking high end camera at this point is almost like talking about which is the best car in the world. P1, la Ferrari or 918? It's so much about the taste and not about the cameras themselves. I've shot the last 3 commercials on the Alexa mini and that camera is just gourgeos, I don't think anything can beat it. And yet I think Oblivion looks magnificent.

I also think oblivion look great. Not sure best ever but very good. Is also the only F65 movie that look great. But is alexa mini different image from normal alexa? I thought image and sensor was all same. So same look. Because if the same why did you change your mind about alexa? Before you say alexa looks plasticy and F35 is above alexa and F65. Or you mean you can't beat alexa mini because of ergonomics and so on?

Alexa looks plasticy. And while you can set mid grey where you want it easily, it is no that easy to cut the dr in the shadows to a given amount.

To me, the F35 delivers the best film look of all current cameras. Yep, above Alexa and F65. And I´m not saying it's the best. I´m just saying it produces the best looking footage. The alexa might have more DR, the F65 might produce cleaner footage but to me they don't look as good as the Genesis/F35.

 

[macgregor]

Alexa mini is the same look as alexa. Did I said in the past that I didn't like the Alexa? I think it's pretty awesome.

 

[SJX]

Alexa mini is the same look as alexa. Did I said in the past that I didn't like the Alexa? I think it's pretty awesome.

Yes in the past you said. I quoted exactly what you said. See above. You just said alexa is plasticy. But you didn't say you didn't like it. You only said F35 looks better than it and F65. I also think alexa looks awesome. But I don't say nothing can beat it. I think F35 looks more like film so for me it looks better.

 

[MikalZ]

I think Oblivion is the best looking digital movie ever shot (to date). Perhaps The revenant is next to it, even though I don't love the grading in the revenant or at least the copy I watched.

It's a sacrilegious opinion but I did not think the Revenant looked good. It felt overly sharp and digital to me, and the floating camera gave it a 'found footage' vibe I don't care for at all. But like you say, it's simply a taste thing.

 

[MeesePiece]

I don't think MacGregor is not allowed to change his mind. He can think whatever he wants.
I change my mind about 200 times a day.

And I also thought Reverent felt too sharp and like a History Channel recreation.

 

[macgregor]

Yes in the past you said. I quoted exactly what you said. See above. You just said alexa is plasticy. But you didn't say you didn't like it. You only said F35 looks better than it and F65. I also think alexa looks awesome. But I don't say nothing can beat it. I think F35 looks more like film so for me it looks better.

Sure and that still applies. Alexa looks cleaner and more plasticy. Genesis and F35 still look a bit more filmic out of the box, call it dirtier, more like film. Which I love.
F65 does not look at all like the F35.

 

[MikalZ]

And I also thought Reverent felt too sharp and like a History Channel recreation.

Amen!

 

[MikalZ]

Sure and that still applies. Alexa looks cleaner and more plasticy. Genesis and F35 still look a bit more filmic out of the box, call it dirtier, more like film. Which I love.
F65 does not look at all like the F35.

I likes it dirty. So translation here: F35 wins.

 

[DPStewart]

I likes it dirty. So translation here: F35 wins.

Well, it's a very certain KIND of dirty....now isn't it?

It's like with audio. We LOVE it dirty - but only Class A Tube Dirty - THAT's bloody gorgeous. All other kinds of dirty? ..not so much.

 

[MikalZ]

Well, it's a very certain KIND of dirty....now isn't it?

It's like with audio. We LOVE it dirty - but only Class A Tube Dirty - THAT's bloody gorgeous. All other kinds of dirty? ..not so much.

Your absolutely right of course. I'm talking about film dirty; something that looks analog.

 

[JMtheDP]

I was also not a fan of the "look" of the Revenant - to me it didn't go well with the story being told, at all. Too clean, too crisp - and I hate the whole "we're doing it FOR REAL" stuff and all this nonsense about shooting in difficult locations, with no light, etc... then having shedloads of VFX, shot-stitching and one of the most intensive grades of all time

 

[SJX]

I don't think MacGregor is not allowed to change his mind. He can think whatever he wants.
I change my mind about 200 times a day.

Yes of course he is allowed to change his mind. This is why I ask if he changed. Did you not read?

But it looks like Mac didn't change his mind after all:

Sure and that still applies. Alexa looks cleaner and more plasticy. Genesis and F35 still look a bit more filmic out of the box, call it dirtier, more like film. Which I love.
F65 does not look at all like the F35.

 

[SJX]

I likes it dirty. So translation here: F35 wins.

Yes. The dirty is MOJO! :happy:

 

[Aaveum]

I liked my F35 and I like my F65. Personally I think the look of a film often has more to do with the creative team behind it than the camera used. I think putting a 1/2 pro-mist on an F35 would make a bigger difference than moving to the F65 (for 1080P delivery).

I've shot RED and ALEXA too, I like the Alexa more but for reasons of ergonomics not picture. I have seen a few films recently where they really should have used a different camera - eg. Southpaw - so much of that film was camera flashes, ALEXA was a poor choice.

I agree with this, to a point. After all if the sensor didn't make a strong difference and it was all up to cinematography and grading alone, every movie would look like it was shot on the Alexa. I'm sure most shooting on Sony and other brands, specially those who can't afford an ARRI, would want to give that "industry standard" look to their productions. But we know this is not the case. It's quite obvious when something is shot on the ARRI, on RED or on Sony.

But I fully agree that good cinematography will have a stronger impact than changing cameras alone. All cameras these days are more than capable of results that are way past decent.

 

[Aaveum]

How far have we come to class the F35 as having a "limited" dynamic range? I never really had a problem with the DR on the several features I shot with it.

Yes indeed. Remember when 10-stops was the stuff of legends because Digibeta only had 6 or 7-stops on a good day and if you treated it like it was Marilyn Monroe? Surreal times we live in today. Soon enough 14-stops will be disregarded as limited. But people have been doing astonishing work for decades on "limited" dynamic range. It's like they say, if you can't do it with 12-stops, you probably just can't do it.

It reminds me of a Blu-ray commentary I was watching for a digitally shot TV show. The director was complaining about the driver's window being a little blown in a car dialog scene and saying how that wouldn't happen with film. And I'm like, so why didn't your DP got those few square inches NDed to solve the problem? This is not a fault with digital. It's a fault with craft. I see the problem for a little indie production. But not for a show spending at least a million per episode. How long will gelling a small car window take?

But these hard numbers can be quite subjective anyhow. Although Sony rated the F35 at 12-stops, they were being conservative. Looking from today's point of view where manufactures will exaggerate dynamic range numbers it feels almost shortsighted from Sony. But it really depends how much grain you like. It has easily 13 usable stops. If you want to de-grain in post you can stretch that even further. Considering the ARRI cameras most likely do very heavy de-noising in camera, this is not even unfair. The noise reduction feature in the F35 is actually quite good too.

The other point to consider when comparing the F35 and the F65 dynamic range is where the difference is. If it was in the highlights it would be much more significant. But the difference is in the shadows. The F65 doesn't really have more stops above than the F35. They are pretty much the same there with the difference being how they tackle clipping. I personally prefer the way the F35 rolls it off because I think it's closer to film, which is my benchmark. But the F65 has zero problems there. It's in the shadows that the F65 excels. It's capable of much higher shadow detail. But when you consider what these cameras are designed for, which is theatrical production where you have much more control, lighting up the shadows to compensate for that extra stop is not really a problem. Definitely preferable in my book than struggling with highlights, had the difference in stops been on that side. The situation is the very same between the F35 and the ARRI cameras. So the extra stop or so is more a matter of convenience than necessity here. It's like they say, if you can't do it with 12-stops, you probably just can't do it.

 

[Aaveum]

The grain in the F35 to me is distracting. I think we can all wax poetically, but without test charts, etc, it's just opinion.

I thought Zombieland was beautiful, then I rewatched it and I started to see the flaws. Same with Horrible Bosses.

Also having a clean image at 800 ASA is nothing to laugh at. So lighting can be softer. James sold me on the F65 and I took a dive on a great price and I'm learning a lot about its strength.

Sharpness in midtown detail is what I feel 35mm scanned at 2k or 4k has - that's my standard - always just trying to make it feel as good as recently shot films on 35mm. Like Joy or the Big Short.

Zombieland and Horrible Bosses are both shot on the Panavision Genesis. Although it seems common practice in the forums to just treat the Genesis and the F35 as the same camera for practical purposes, they really aren't. The only thing they share is the sensor. The Genesis output caps off at 10-bit, it's much noisier than the F35 and has less dynamic range than the F35 as well. So I would not use Genesis shot films as examples of what the F35 can or cannot do.

As for Joy and Big Short, I found Big Short quite grainy on theaters actually. Besides, there are no new stocks since Vision 3. If new 35mm originated films are looking cleaner is due to post de-graining. You can do that to any format, digital or analog. If F35 grain bothers you and you like the look of post de-grained footage, you can de-grain F35 footage as well.

 

[Aaveum]

The F35 is actually still a natively daylight sensor, Art Adams showed as such - although it does perform better under tungsten than many of its contemporaries, notably the R1.

The F35 is definitelly a tungsten balanced sensor.

 

[Aaveum]

It's a sacrilegious opinion but I did not think the Revenant looked good. It felt overly sharp and digital to me, and the floating camera gave it a 'found footage' vibe I don't care for at all. But like you say, it's simply a taste thing.

I'm with you here. Didn't much care for the look of The Revenant. I think period pieces always look better when shot on film. But if not, I would at least not go for a hyper-in-your-face type of look. You are trying to fool people that your story shot in 2015 takes place in the past. Why make it harder for yourself?

 

[Grug]

I'm with you here. Didn't much care for the look of The Revenant. I think period pieces always look better when shot on film. But if not, I would at least not go for a hyper-in-your-face type of look. You are trying to fool people that your story shot in 2015 takes place in the past. Why make it harder for yourself?

Interesting. I feel the complete opposite. I thought The Revenant's crystal clear "looking through a window" aesthetic suited it perfectly. On the big screen it felt like you were there, and I thought that sense of immersion was a real strength of the film.