F55: Among all the camera spec "noise", real movies are being shot with F65's.

L1N3ARX said:
I think it mostly comes down to image, rather than spec. Alexa generally looks like cinema, or what you might expect from a feature. F3 just looks like HD video- and that may not be the kind of look that DP's or Directors are going for depending on the project.
Click to expand...

I don't how much I can say just yet, because my test material didn't originate from me but...

I JUST (as in, within the hour) put some F55 raw through Resolve 9.1 using the Sony raw ACES IDT, and I think if enough people see it, it will change how they think about Sony. It's a much different look, and at least on par with Alexa IMHO. Just my comments though, I don't know how many will agree with me.
 
Nate Weaver said:
I don't how much I can say just yet, because my test material didn't originate from me but...

I JUST (as in, within the hour) put some F55 raw through Resolve 9.1 using the Sony raw ACES IDT, and I think if enough people see it, it will change how they think about Sony. It's a much different look, and at least on par with Alexa IMHO. Just my comments though, I don't know how many will agree with me.
Click to expand...

Nate, you say 'on par' with Alexa, though from watching 'Dig' I get the feeling the actual aesthetic of the F55's image is somewhat unique and different from the gobs-of-creamy-goodness that the Alexa puts out. Having played with some footage, how would you describe its character?
 
Grug said:
Nate, you say 'on par' with Alexa, though from watching 'Dig' I get the feeling the actual aesthetic of the F55's image is somewhat unique and different from the gobs-of-creamy-goodness that the Alexa puts out. Having played with some footage, how would you describe its character?
Click to expand...

Well, first off, let me start by saying I was talking about what the F55 looks from raw, though ACES. I wasn't referring to what it looks like recorded XAVC via S-Log. Two different things.

Without ACES, it's like "Dig". It's really good, but it seems to have a look, with some similarities to what we've been looking at for the last 2 years. The default choices for decoding raw, Rec 709 color space and Rec 709 gamma look an awful lot like the S-Log we're used to with some improvements. It's at least as good as Dig and then some.

Note though If you're recording to XDCAM or XAVC internally though, it looks like Sony gives you enough scene file control to really make a decidedly very-videoey image. Even with S-Log gamma. You can turn detail up, mess with saturation, matrix, etc. More than enough rope to really hang yourself. I have no doubt there will be some very ugly 5 and 55 footage out there.

But what I was talking about in the above post, I don't know if there's any finished projects out there yet that have done this ACES thing...mainly just because I think for now it relies on a new version of Resolve.

If you run the raw through ACES, it's a different deal. To over-simplify, ACES takes each camera, (F55, Alexa, 5D) and corrects it to a known "baseline", then feeds it into another baseline called the RRT which is based on the transfer characteristics of a film print (a "look"), and THEN corrects that so it looks good on Rec709 displays, or DCI outputs, or whathaveyou. Follow that?

Anyway, if you do all that in Resolve like I just did (it's only actually just one radio button and 2 pulldown menus), you get an image that seems to be another animal altogether. Because in ACES there's a rendering step (the RRT) that has somebody else's image tastes (specific midtone gammas, highlight rolloffs, etc) in there already.

I don't mean to sound an expert on ACES. I'm not. I simply had the opportunity to try it for the first time (it's not hard to set it up in Resolve) and now am seeing a noticeable difference with the same material. I've been reading on it for last 2 hours to try to more deeply understand why it was such a difference.
 
Last edited:
jameswmulryan said:
The F3 is not a toy. With the right set ups and lenses amazing images can be had.
Click to expand...

To Hollywood it is, and this is what I meant. To people who have no problems affording Alexas, Genesis, F35s and f65s, it definitely looks like a toy from where they stand, know what I mean?
Don't take it personally. :)
 
Nate Weaver said:
Well, first off, let me start by saying I was talking about what the F55 looks from raw, though ACES. I wasn't referring to what it looks like recorded XAVC via S-Log. Two different things.

Without ACES, it's like "Dig". It's really good, but it seems to have a look, with some similarities to what we've been looking at for the last 2 years. The default choices for decoding raw, Rec 709 color space and Rec 709 gamma look an awful lot like the S-Log we're used to with some improvements. It's at least as good as Dig and then some.

Note though If you're recording to XDCAM or XAVC internally though, it looks like Sony gives you enough scene file control to really make a decidedly very-videoey image. Even with S-Log gamma. You can turn detail up, mess with saturation, matrix, etc. More than enough rope to really hang yourself. I have no doubt there will be some very ugly 5 and 55 footage out there.

But what I was talking about in the above post, I don't know if there's any finished projects out there yet that have done this ACES thing...mainly just because I think for now it relies on a new version of Resolve.

If you run the raw through ACES, it's a different deal. To over-simplify, ACES takes each camera, (F55, Alexa, 5D) and corrects it to a known "baseline", then feeds it into another baseline called the RRT which is based on the transfer characteristics of a film print (a "look"), and THEN corrects that so it looks good on Rec709 displays, or DCI outputs, or whathaveyou. Follow that?

Anyway, if you do all that in Resolve like I just did (it's only actually just one radio button and 2 pulldown menus), you get an image that seems to be another animal altogether. Because in ACES there's a rendering step (the RRT) that has somebody else's image tastes (specific midtone gammas, highlight rolloffs, etc) in there already.

I don't mean to sound an expert on ACES. I'm not. I simply had the opportunity to try it for the first time (it's not hard to set it up in Resolve) and now am seeing a noticeable difference with the same material. I've been reading on it for last 2 hours to try to more deeply understand why it was such a difference.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, I've been trying to get my head around ACES for a little while now, and I think I understand a lot more about it now, thanks Nate.
 
Sure with a budget like any film that comes out of Hollywood the production and DP will have no problem with using whatever expensive piece of kit they want, after all the cost of the camera department is a fraction of most Hollywood / Pinewood or where ever else feature budgets.
Where cameras like the F3, probably the F5 / F55 too come in is for much lower budget independent film-makers.
I remember only too well working movies and TV dramas where the DoP insisted on the latest and greatest 35mm Panavision outfits when to be honest an Arri BL4 would have done just as well. It's image sometimes, looks good in the production stills.
I personally think that the F55 will have an uphill battle to break the Alexa / Red stranglehold on the feature market no matter what the quality of image it's going to produce.....Again, it's image and to some extent the familiarity that DoP's and productions have with those cameras, especially Arri.
But the F3 does still have a place I believe despite it's build and ergonomic drawbacks. Low cost experimental films, docs, and our own experimental work. The output, well lit and well shot, is still pretty damn good.
 
Last edited:
Nate, any chance of seeing side-by-side frame grabs of what you're seeing with ACES vs XAVC? The curiosity is killing me.
 
petermullett said:
Sure with a budget like any film that comes out of Hollywood the production and DP will have no problem with using whatever expensive piece of kit they want, after all the cost of the camera department is a fraction of most Hollywood / Pinewood or where ever else feature budgets.
Where cameras like the F3, probably the F5 / F55 too come in is for much lower budget independent film-makers.
I remember only too well working movies and TV dramas where the DoP insisted on the latest and greatest 35mm Panavision outfits when to be honest an Arri BL4 would have done just as well. It's image sometimes, looks good in the production stills.
I personally think that the F55 will have an uphill battle to break the Alexa / Red stranglehold on the feature market no matter what the quality of image it's going to produce.....Again, it's image and to some extent the familiarity that DoP's and productions have with those cameras, especially Arri.
But the F3 does still have a place I believe despite it's build and ergonomic drawbacks. Low cost experimental films, docs, and our own experimental work. The output, well lit and well shot, is still pretty damn good.
Click to expand...

Sure, but in a way that's why the big studio system is withering on the vine. They are forced to do remakes and stories based on comic books because costs don't let them experiment.

However, according to Sony the F3 was designed to give the fledgling filmmaker a fighting chance, and for me it has kept doors open where I may not have had access otherwise.
 
Duke M. said:
Sure, but in a way that's why the big studio system is withering on the vine. They are forced to do remakes and stories based on comic books because costs don't let them experiment.

However, according to Sony the F3 was designed to give the fledgling filmmaker a fighting chance, and for me it has kept doors open where I may not have had access otherwise.
Click to expand...

True. But no matter what multi-million dollar features are not going anywhere. The camera department budget being next to insignificant to a larger budget movie, and the fact that there will always be larger cameras which are built to fit the professional workflow, without having to worry about saving space, being extra small and compromising features to keep costs at the rock bottom, the high end cameras will always be preferred and prosumer ones will always be looked down upon. If you can afford a Mercedes or Rolls Royce, why settle for a Ford, even if that Ford can take you the same places?

Oh, and by the way, the "studio system" is not going anywhere. If it does, it will take a huge chunk of film production right with it. The idea that the studio system is going anywhere sounds like one of those conspiracy theories, and nobody at any level of the industry can truly say they wish for that, unless they are not thinking.
 
Last edited:
Adamsenoj said:
True. But no matter what multi-million dollar features are not going anywhere. The camera department budget being next to insignificant to a larger budget movie, and the fact that there will always be larger cameras which are built to fit the professional workflow, without having to worry about saving space, being extra small and compromising features to keep costs at the rock bottom, the high end cameras will always be preferred and prosumer ones will always be looked down upon. If you can afford a Mercedes or Rolls Royce, why settle for a Ford, even if that Ford can take you the same places?

Oh, and by the way, the "studio system" is not going anywhere. If it does, it will take a huge chunk of film production right with it. The idea that the studio system is going anywhere sounds like one of those conspiracy theories, and nobody at any level of the industry can truly say they wish for that, unless they are not thinking.
Click to expand...

I don't think the studios are going anywhere either. What I meant was the studios used to be a place where people could learn and grow. Now they can't afford to do anything that they don't think has a good chance of being a block buster. They may not succeed in their attempts but they want a shot at that with each movie.

That means whenever possible a built in audience (remakes), star actors, star directors, star script writers, star cinematographers, etc. The days when someone like John Wayne is cranking out a movie a month are gone. Not all John Wayne movies were good, but some were excellent despite technical disadvantages.
 
In this example I think the look comes from the soft lighting and low overall scene contrast and not the camera. I would expect same results with 7D or F3. The entire scene doesn't look to exceed 5-7 stops in contrast ratio.

Here is Waveform monitor on log version:

f65-slog-011_zps78af55b5.png



Here's my quick grade in FCP using 8-bit screen shot. The scene once de-logged only uses 50% of the signal level:

f65-quickgrade-011_zpsbda8830d.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top