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

SJX

SJX

Veteran
Hi F35 friends. Hope you still enjoying F35 like I am.

I watched Ex machina and after I had to watch my Real steel bluray again.

When watching all I think is why after 5 years and many many new sony cameras Real steel is still the best looking movie made with sony cameras? F55, F65 have all higher specification and are now out for very long. In beginning many said the cameras was too new and with time we will see better looking movies. But now is 5 years after and where is it? F55 have nothing! Many F65 movies like Ex machina and Oblivion look very good. Ex machina has bit of sony look but Oblivion is solid. But Real steel is still king of sony camera movies. Every frame is impressive. It looks so much like film. Oblivion and Ex machina don’t. Real steel looks very sharp and creamy same time. Image is just great. Real steel look better than any F35 movie too. They got something very right with Real steel. Wonder what they did?

Also watched Reign over me made with panavision genesis. Was surprised with night shots because many cry we need high ISO. But night city shots with him riding his scooter looked great and not dark. Looked like I see with my eyes when I walk in the night. But I doubt they used lights to light the whole city. It looked like normal city lights. So how they got this with genesis? Shutter looked 180. ISO is always the same. Didn’t look raised in post and was less grainy than film. How they did? Who need Alexa ISO800 or A7S? Funny to see.
 
I personally hate Ex-Machina's look - using old anamorphic lenses on the F65 does not make sense to me, at all.

There is a hell of a lot of stuff shot on F55, quite a few TV shows etc... however these shows often didn't look great when they were being shot on 35mm either.
 
SJX said:
Real steel bluray again. .
Click to expand...

So you were watching at 1080? The 35 is a 1080 chip designed to deliver 1080, the 55/65 are aimed at 4k, with resultant smaller pixels that are less able to catch photons.

It would be logical would it not that once you disregard (lack of) resolution of the 35 would be superior in terms of other image attributes?

As for ISO - again one would expect a higher level of performance

(my minimal testing of the F5 suggested an actual ISO of 800 - how different is that from the F35?)

It seems that high budget 'big night city exts' do often have rejigged ligting (like addition fixtures on the street lights) so dont be fooled there?

4k annoys me really when only a very small number of cameras (F35? ALexa) are actually producing true HD?

As for decent films.. well Id guess the arri infrastructure is very strong and just not much sony stuff is shot - not because the cameras are bad.. just because they were late to the party - just like the C500 which I think is probably an excellent camera.. which no one bought.
 
Sam

You forget that the F35 actually has a higher sensor photosite count than the F5/55 - only the F65 has a higher count.
 
Im sure you are right - AFAIK the arrays are of a different nature so Im not sure it is apples and apples, what the ideal way of creating HD is etc.

Overall Im just not seeing 'higher res' cameras looking much better!

I think the lack of 'good films' is entirely cultural though.

S
 
With my initial tests of the F35 vs F65, I have found the skintone much more pleasing on the F65 vs F35. I have also found that the F65 resolves more detail than the F35, even in 1080p downconvert. There is I am finding more and more, advantages to shooting with a higher megapixel camera. And of recent, all the trailers I thought looked as good or close to 35mm film were shot on the Red cameras. The Alexa I found to be lacking in resolution - overall it lacks that "pop" of faces that I like.

Can I quantify this? Not yet. But to me, the F65 is a 4k alexa.

I like the look of Real Steel - however I have only seen it on a 720p rip off a torrent. I still think Oblivion and Evil Dead have an incredible look.

Also if you watch Reel Steel more, you will notice the 12 stops of dynamic range. The F35 can't quite hold details in the highlights, especially with skies, and also the native white balance of what I rate as closer to 6000k, makes it harder to pull accurate skintones out of its s-gamut setting. Not to mention not being able to get to sgamut3.cine, which replicated in my eyes the closest skintone to the Alexa from a sony camera. In the end, I mostly shoot pci-p3 color gamut on the f35 to great skin tone results, even if it has less data to work with. (As MacGregor found shooting f900.) I also like f900r. But f900 and f900r are pretty similar.

And finally, while the motion out of the f35 is beautiful - it feels good and thick like film, the compromise is the noise appearent in the sensor and the limited dynamic range.

With that said, the f35 is the most amazing $8 grand you can spend. With the odyssey 7q, it's power draw is around 70w and it weighs about 13 pounds. The F65 needs the SRR4 recorder, I guess unless I experiment with the hd-sdi output and the odyssey 7q to get a clean signal and cut down on weight - wait, I may do that. Also the power draw is 100w with the recorder, but then again if i can run it without it, it maybe better

First gotta upgrade to version 4 of the firmware to get slog3 and sgamut.cine enabled.

Okay things to do.
 
morgan_moore said:
So you were watching at 1080?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, yes. Is 4K bluray out now? Is Real steel selling in 4K??? How else can I watch it? And it make no difference for image quality or beauty. Only resolution.
morgan_moore said:
The 35 is a 1080 chip designed to deliver 1080, the 55/65 are aimed at 4k, with resultant smaller pixels that are less able to catch photons.
Click to expand...
What this have to do with anything? I’m not talking Real steel looks better because is sharper. Don’t care about resolution. But F35 sensor has more pixels than F55, F5, FS7 or alexa if you have to mention and all cameras. Only F65 has more. Like JMP say. But I don’t talk of sharpness. But F5 and F55 is more sensitive because F35 sensor has more pixels.

morgan_moore said:
It would be logical would it not that once you disregard (lack of) resolution of the 35 would be superior in terms of other image attributes?
Click to expand...
What lack of resolution? F55 barely look much sharper. Alexa doesn’t. But I think resolution is not the secret why Real steel looks best of all.

morgan_moore said:
As for ISO - again one would expect a higher level of performance (my minimal testing of the F5 suggested an actual ISO of 800 - how different is that from the F35?)
Click to expand...
F35 is ISO450 so I think genesis too. Reign over me is genesis movie. Not F35.

morgan_moore said:
It seems that high budget 'big night city exts' do often have rejigged ligting (like addition fixtures on the street lights) so dont be fooled there?
Click to expand...
On location in NY city??? I doubt. Is not a big movie. Is not Avengers.

morgan_moore said:
4k annoys me really when only a very small number of cameras (F35? ALexa) are actually producing true HD?
Click to expand...

You can take your ? off your HD question for F35. F35 is sharper than HD actually. I really don’t like people who come to F35 board without do homework.

morgan_moore said:
As for decent films.. well Id guess the arri infrastructure is very strong and just not much sony stuff is shot - not because the cameras are bad.. just because they were late to the party - just like the C500 which I think is probably an excellent camera.. which no one bought.
Click to expand...
I don’t care about arri. I was talking about best movie made with sony cameras. Arri don’t belong in this discussion. But I think Real steel look better than alexa movies. Skin looks more film and less digital. Color is MUCH better than any alexa movie too.

morgan_moore said:
I think the lack of 'good films' is entirely cultural though.
Click to expand...
I don’t talk of decent movie in story. I talk in quality of image.
 
MeesePiece said:
With my initial tests of the F35 vs F65, I have found the skintone much more pleasing on the F65 vs F35.
Click to expand...
So why this not shown in the movies made with F65 vs F35? F35 always look better and more like film.
MeesePiece said:
I have also found that the F65 resolves more detail than the F35, even in 1080p downconvert.
Click to expand...
No brainer. F65 8K sensor F35 6K sensor. But F35 better color and better skin.


MeesePiece said:
Can I quantify this? Not yet. But to me, the F65 is a 4k alexa.
Click to expand...
Ok. You clearly F65 owner or F65 fan. To me alexa looks more like film and is better with high lights. F65 is sharper but look more like video. Each his own.

MeesePiece said:
I like the look of Real Steel - however I have only seen it on a 720p rip off a torrent. I still think Oblivion and Evil Dead have an incredible look.
Click to expand...
Torrent? 720p? All your critics of Real steel is from torrent 720p? So you can’t talk about it. This is why you think F65 skin look better.
Evil dead looks like video. Oblivion is nice.
MeesePiece said:
Also if you watch Reel Steel more, you will notice the 12 stops of dynamic range. The F35 can't quite hold details in the highlights, especially with skies, and also the native white balance of what I rate as closer to 6000k, makes it harder to pull accurate skintones out of its s-gamut setting.
Click to expand...
OK! This is what I talk about. People come to F35 board and talk about F35 and know nothing about F35. Annoying! F35 is native 3200K white balance. Plus you judging all this with Real steel from stolen torrent file in 720p? Watch the bluray. F35 has best high lights of any camera. Do your homework before criticizing please. Most LOL part of your post is about bad skin tones in Real steel. Again watch the real thing not torrent 720p please.
MeesePiece said:
Not to mention not being able to get to sgamut3.cine, which replicated in my eyes the closest skintone to the Alexa from a sony camera.
Click to expand...
This is it. F35 don’t need imitate alexa like newer sony cameras. F35 has its own look and it looks great out of box. ;)

MeesePiece said:
And finally, while the motion out of the f35 is beautiful - it feels good and thick like film, the compromise is the noise appearent in the sensor and the limited dynamic range.
Click to expand...
But film has more noise. So what is your point?

What I was hoping for this thread is other F35 users giving opinion why they think Real steel look so good and is unbeaten in movies made with sony cameras and why it is also best looking F35 movie. Not people defending F55 and F65.
 
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.
 
F35 has striped RGB sensor, which can be though of as 5k. But this is very different from CMOS sensors.
F65 has CMOS sensor rotated at 45 degree angle, so at its longest width has an 8k sensor. But this is tricky because at has 17 megapixels active and around 3 megapixels inactive (having to do with color filter array). So it is complicated to just say one thing or another about either cameras.

The F35 has lovely skintones and its native white balance makes it better for tungsten than daylight sources. The F65 on the other hand, based only on my limited testing, is native white balance at 5500k, which is why I think it was a bit noisey on Ex-Machina (lit all tungsten). Ex-Machina would have been better off with the F35, in my opinion.

I have only watched Real Steel through Netflix, and is not a movie about I'm compelled to spend money on BluRay copy...so I cannot make definitive judgements about it. But in my opinion, F35 has the best HD image hands down. That sensor is incredible! The limited dynamic range can be worked around, in most cases.

The F65 however, does not have the magic of the RGB striped sensor, but it has worlds of colors (16bit) you can only appreciate in P3 or higher color spaces. And resolution gives you so much room for going sharp if you want, or softening up. Belle went the softer route. When I stay in 5500k at 800ISO, ACES puts my colors in such an organic space it is really a pleasure. Oblivion and Tomorrowland used the F65 in a much better way than Ex-Machina, in my opinion. Also, I would be curious of what you think of Belle, Tomorrowland and Lucy (strictly from an imag standpoint).

I own a F65, but I would also like to own a F35 for HD delivery. Both cameras have their ups and downs. For me, the F65 with mechanical shutter and 16bit color is much more robust of a camera and can give really organic looking skintones and dynamic range. Now, in terms of how it compares to the F35 from a final image standpoint, that is purely subjective. Sure, you can get upset at F55 or F65 owners seemingly defending their cameras, but throw the first stone only if you have not sinned (no, I am not religious, just seems like the OP too is defending F35). I don't mind that you are bringing this topic up. Fun debate!

No one is suggesting the F35 is a bad camera. But different strokes for different folks. Also, I will gladly shoot with F35 any day of the week. Except from noon to 3pm ;) <<<indicates sarcasm
 
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.
 
JMtheDP said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ha! True. 12 stops is nothing to sneeze at. But I do think we also have come a long way. And will continue to go. It's limited DR was not at the crux of what I was trying to say, but point taken
 
I own the F35 and F65 - and I plan to keep both.

How often do I shoot with Tungsten lighting? Probably 5% of the time.
This is the era of the Alexa, Red. Of clean image sensors.

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.
 
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.
 
MeesePiece said:
I own the F35 and F65 - and I plan to keep both.

How often do I shoot with Tungsten lighting? Probably 5% of the time.
This is the era of the Alexa, Red. Of clean image sensors.

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.
Click to expand...

You complain about F35 grain but talk of film? F35 is less grain than film. LOL. I think you just in mission against F35 here.

F65 has strong video look. Not so bad like F55 but also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top