Cobra Kai: F55 & A7S II - decent skin tones, 4K

[jcs]

I watched the two free episodes, and to be honest, I wasn't too blown away by the look. Of course, that's subjective and our opinions can differ. I also saw "Amateur" on Netflix (shot on F55), and I also thought the images were underwhelming. That said, I think it's a tricky conversation to try to attribute the look of a camera to a show, or the look of a show to a camera. It's even more tricky to judge the quality of a camera based on the look of a show...or vice versa.

While I disliked these two shows, I thought the show Vinyl looked really good and it was shot on F55. I also thought certain episodes of Marco Polo also looked quite good and it too was shot on F55.

I'd be hesitant to attribute the success or failure of a show's look to a camera, but instead, the professionals, workflow and budget.

Agree re: Marco Polo. The first few episodes didn't look very good, and later episodes looked much better. Also note they use different directors (and production teams?) through out that series. I watched Cobra Kai on a 4K monitor on a computer, and it looked very good compared to prior F55 content (again, agree not all shots looked great, but a lot more than normal for the F55). It's been known for some time the F55 can match the Alexa in a studio environment:

https://vimeo.com/96696423

The reason Alexa wins for most pro shoots is the ability to produce a great look in a wide variety of lighting conditions. Thus kudos to Sony for the F55 getting more and more shots looking good over time. The VENICE is looking to have parity for Alexa (it's a different look, and still looks great).

 

[jcs]

I wouldn't attribute anything I see in that frame to the dynamic range of the camera--the ability to hold blue in the sky is surely a function of tinted windows (I'd imagine given the budget of the show that they weren't ND'd, but the glass was likely quite tinted to begin with), exposure set to that level and then the scene was lit to that. Pretty standard stuff.

Have you ever been in a car dealership that didn't have window tint? I figured folks might point out the tinted windows (you can see other windows not in the room are also tinted; they don't appear tinted for the film production) it's still back lit. In any case it's mixed lighting and since you didn't have an issue with the skin tones, that's more important as the F55 hasn't traditionally been very strong there.

 

[SJX]

Ladies and gents we have a F55 fanboy in the house. rogar-BigGrin(DBG) F55 forum is with F3 F5 FS5 FS7.

 

[jcs]

I think the top camera right now is the Alexa LF. Never really been a fan of the F55. What is impressive is the recent improvements of F55 content. I have been a big fan of the F65, and after researching the VENICE, which takes design cues from the F55 combined with the F65 color filters and new skin tone centric color science, built in extended range NDs, a 6K sensor creating True 4K, along with an all new ultra simplified menu, I think the VENICE is the first camera to have a chance to challenge the Alexa’s dominance. The way we’ll find out is by the number of productions which produce Alexa level content. In other words, the best cameras tend to also be the easiest to use, most tolerant to mistakes in exposure etc.

I currently shoot with the Canon C300 II and 1DX II, and thought the C700 FF could be a contender in the higher end, however the first Canon demo doesn’t measure up to the bars set by the Alexa LF and VENICE. That said it’s the lowest cost full frame cinema camera and perhaps Canon will make improvements before release.

ARRI is making ridiculous claims about the full frame format being magically better than Super35, and I’ve called them out on it. Canon deleted my comment asking about aliasing issues with the C700 FF. In terms of truth in marketing, Sony is currently being the most honorable.

 

[Run&Gun]

The CFA on the F55 is VERY similar to that of the 65. Sony used to play it up/imply they were the same. They're not, but it is very, very good. The longer I own my F55, the more I like it.

 

[Sttratos]

Sony considers the F55 in the same class as the VENICE and F65 https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/digital-cinema-cameras:
View attachment 131020

This is just marketing BS. If the F3 was still being made it would be in that picture too. It was in pictures with the F35. Is the F3 in the same level as the F35 or F65? Marketing BS that's all. The F65 is a totally different beast. I talked to a Sony rep about the difference and he basically told me when F55 owners say they are similar is wishful thinking at best. They are different cameras with different internals and a very different sensor. No the CFA is NOT very similar either. He specifically said so and reps have said so at the old sony forums too.

I did DEEP research when I sold my FS7 and before I bought my used Alexa. I looked very hard at F65, F55 and Varicam. What I paid for my Alexa kit could have bought me an used F65 kit with camera, EVF, card reader, cards etc. Or a brand new COMPLETE Varicam LT kit. Or a very nice used F55 kit full with extras. But after testing, looking very hard into it, talking to a lot of people and doing some very hard thinking I decided going with the Alexa. But one thing I learnt in this process is that the F55 is definitely not in the same level as the F65. It's surprising all the goodness the F65 has over it. The only thing that links them is the S35 sensor. But then even the A7 cameras have that. The F55 is a F5 on steroids. The F5 is a FS7 on steroids. The bloodline doesn't reach the F65.

 

[jcs]

This is just marketing BS. If the F3 was still being made it would be in that picture too. It was in pictures with the F35. Is the F3 in the same level as the F35 or F65? Marketing BS that's all. The F65 is a totally different beast. I talked to a Sony rep about the difference and he basically told me when F55 owners say they are similar is wishful thinking at best. They are different cameras with different internals and a very different sensor. No the CFA is NOT very similar either. He specifically said so and reps have said so at the old sony forums too.

I did DEEP research when I sold my FS7 and before I bought my used Alexa. I looked very hard at F65, F55 and Varicam. What I paid for my Alexa kit could have bought me an used F65 kit with camera, EVF, card reader, cards etc. Or a brand new COMPLETE Varicam LT kit. Or a very nice used F55 kit full with extras. But after testing, looking very hard into it, talking to a lot of people and doing some very hard thinking I decided going with the Alexa. But one thing I learnt in this process is that the F55 is definitely not in the same level as the F65. It's surprising all the goodness the F65 has over it. The only thing that links them is the S35 sensor. But then even the A7 cameras have that. The F55 is a F5 on steroids. The F5 is a FS7 on steroids. The bloodline doesn't reach the F65.

Can you see any major differences in the studio example posted earlier in this thread with the F55 matching the Alexa? If so, can you provide screen shots showing these differences? While I agree the F65 was the first camera from Sony (based on Lucy & Oblivion) that could really match the Alexa, I did see examples such as the F55/Alexa studio match that showed good progress with the F55. As noted earlier, the first episodes of Netflix Marco Polo looked weak, and later episodes looked much better. Did Sony update the firmware, provide better LUTs, or was there a change in colorists etc.? Cobra Kai looked even better for the most part (agree from first post that there are some shots which need work). As good as the Alexa? For most shots, certainly in the ballpark. Agree that last % (as in having all shots look great) is important. The Alexa is still better overall than the F55, which has its moments. Now look what Sony has done with the VENICE. F65 color filters and further improved color science. The recent VENICE demos look amazing: skin tones, (real) detail, DR, super clean. I'd expect the Alexa LF to still win the highlights with the VENICE winning in the shadows and low light. VENICE wins for real detail (6K vs. 4.4K (Alexa LF)). What is amazing is VENICE is in the same price class as the F55 (vs. F65 or Alexa LF).

Marketing BS? Sony isn't making wild claims about full frame. https://www.arri.com/largeformat/ :

Large-format aesthetic with ALEXA image quality

Large-format aesthetic = BS. Unless one hasn't learned equivalence.

This allows filmmakers to explore an immersive large-format aesthetic...

BS.

To ARRI's credit, it looks like they removed references to being more "3D" from that page, so that's a move in the right direction. Full frame cameras simply provide shallower DOF and wider FOV when using full frame glass (vs. full frame glass on a Super35 sensor). There's tons of great FF glass on the market, and that's why the Canon 5D Mark II kicked off the full frame video market in 2008. In ARRI's case going to full frame has the advantage of not having to mess with their very successful Alev III pixel size to get past Netflix's 4K requirement. 4.4K isn't enough photosites to create True 4K (need >= 5.7K), however the Alexa LF footage released so far is an impressive upgrade over the old 3.4/2.8K sensor.

While "3D" has been removed from the ARRI website, it's still mentioned here along with the absurd recommendation that larger sensors are required to get more realistic images, suggesting a 6 foot sensor would be even better! Is this the official ARRI message? So much BS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YELSxfQno3c&feature=youtu.be&t=2m43s

I suggested to ARRI that they create a SpeedBooster/focal reducer to give the Super35 Alexa's full frame coverage in order to use the new full frame glass coming out for PL mount etc. (not clear if there's any flange distance issues). While this would help sell more lenses (and focal reducers), it's not in line with marketing BS about sensor size.

Calling full frame large format is also BS. Both full frame and large format have had well-defined meanings in photography for a very, very long time. It's full frame +, not even medium format. Cinema market spin = BS.

ARRI- your cameras are amazing, however when marketing folks spin BS it hurts your credibility. Tell the truth & show amazing footage. Professionals know what's what.

Which brings us back to the slow Sony progression of improvements from the F65 (great color & detail, weak usability), to F55 (less detail, weaker color, and better usability), and now the VENICE (great detail, great color, great usability). Time will tell if the F65 color filters and improved color science have finally brought Sony into the realm of ARRI with the VENICE for wide production use (vs. the handful of films that used the F65, which definitely can hang with ARRI). From the demos so far, it looks promising.

 

[Run&Gun]

The F55 is a F5 on steroids. The F5 is a FS7 on steroids. The bloodline doesn't reach the F65.

It's kind of funny that you refer to the higher-end cameras as the lower-end cameras on steroids. Especially since the F5 was released well before the Fs7.

 

[Run&Gun]

As noted earlier, the first episodes of Netflix Marco Polo looked weak, and later episodes looked much better. Did Sony update the firmware, provide better LUTs, or was there a change in colorists etc.?

I've always thought it's weird that The Big Bang Theory, which is shot on F55(F23 early on, I believe) has gotten WORSE as the seasons have gone on and is what I would personally consider horrible(as far as "look" goes) now. To me, it looks like it's a step above Log.

 

[jcs]

I've always thought it's weird that The Big Bang Theory, which is shot on F55(F23 early on, I believe) has gotten WORSE as the seasons have gone on and is what I would personally consider horrible(as far as "look" goes) now. To me, it looks like it's a step above Log.

I think the reason ARRI does so well is the basic options, LogC and 709 just look right and don't take much effort to get looking good in post. Sony & Canon have all sorts of complex options, and it takes time to figure out what works best for what conditions, and they are less tolerant of under/overexposure and colors shift with exposure. Thus ARRI tends to be consistent in the most number of productions, and Sony, Canon, etc. are all over the place.

I was watching old episodes of Parks & Recreation and noticed that while not cinematic, the skin tones look spot on. The silly camera work and whip zooms are fun to watch at first, then the gag gets a bit old, however the colors are very consistently good (shot on the Sony F800). Then later we have the F55 which is more cinematic but is all over the place in color and quality. Perhaps it's just harder to use: in the right hands it can look great, otherwise it's a challenge for those who don't know whatever tricks to do and gotchas to avoid.

I noticed a similar pattern with Canon. The 5D3 has better color than the 1DX II (though I made custom profiles to fix the 1DX II color), and I've heard folks comment that the C100/C300 have better color out of the camera than the C200/C300II. Are manufacturers doing a "Sine Wave" on certain aspects of quality? Add new features (such as 4K) and pull back e.g. color quality? So the next iteration they can show "Improved Color" etc. While I enjoy puzzles and figuring out how things work, I really don't want to deal with figuring out color options for future cameras. So I see why people gravitate toward ARRI- a simple camera that just works so the focus is on content and not messing around with camera settings or wasting time fixing color issues in post.

I have a theory: if you imagine color as a color cube, and the interior volume is all possible colors, accurate cameras transform real world color into a color cube accurately. Sub standard cameras transmit colors into the color cube with many colors skewed (missing their true locations inside the color cube), and while the image can still look good in many cases, if WB is off or in mixed lighting, the errors are so great that effectively rotating/transforming the entire cube (linear transform) to try to fix color issues won't work in post, and thus only secondary and masking techniques will work to fix the non-linear color errors. I think this is why ARRI dominates- their color science is simply more accurate.

Since we've seen glimmers of hope/good quality from the F55 (and a few great examples with the F65), the question is how far the new VENICE will go in catching up to ARRI for generalized accurate color that will manifest in the market as a great deal of good looking content, since it won't be hard to do. Expose correctly, WB correctly, and you're good to go, just like with ARRI.

 

[Aaveum]

F35 is really nice straight from the camera. Very minor tweaking. Most other cameras I have to remap their tone curve quite a bit, which can be tricky depending on bit depth, noise floor, and which monitor LUT I used.

This is certainly one of the strengths of the F35. It needs very little in post.

If you haven't yet tried it, shoot 12-bit 444. Once you do you might find yourself shooting 10-bit only for tests. It basically takes care of any complains you may have. 10-bit 4k has nothing on it.