F55: Dig - Behind the Scenes

On a symbolic/subconscious/whatever level, is Dig really about the distinction between film and digital being irrelevant in this age? Or rather with the introduction of the F55? Film photos buried as digital photos deleted. Or something.
 
The interracial and overall casting choices in that short was a little odd/distracting and didn't work well in my opinion. Also, it seems like a lot of material shot on F3's have bad skin tones yet my own experience is very different. Did the bts stuff get purposely washed out and white balanced poorly? I'm honestly curious and not trying to bash whomever handled the bts stuff.
 
Sweeney said:
Also, it seems like a lot of material shot on F3's have bad skin tones yet my own experience is very different. Did the bts stuff get purposely washed out and white balanced poorly? I'm honestly curious and not trying to bash whomever handled the bts stuff.
Click to expand...

Looks like normal F3 non-slog material to me. Yellow highlights, midtones skewing yellow/green. All normal :-)

The F3 didn't become truly good looking until SLog came out. Occasionally I'll see a little of what I shot before S-Log and cringe.
 
Yeah, we deliberately barely touched the F3 stuff, we wanted it to be as neutral as possible. The last thing we wanted was for this to be any kind of comparison between the F3 and F55. We shot on an F3 because there was one available and we needed something that could create an image at the light levels Steve was shooting. Even then, we struggled.

And to aly324's question, re the symbolic/subconscious/whatever level, the film is about closure which got me thinking about the way we acquire and destroy digital images and how that compares with the analogue world, which of course felt very relevant given the real purpose of the film ...
 
Sweeney said:
Also, it seems like a lot of material shot on F3's have bad skin tones yet my own experience is very different. Did the bts stuff get purposely washed out and white balanced poorly? I'm honestly curious and not trying to bash whomever handled the bts stuff.
Click to expand...

You really think it was that bad? Any particular shots you can point out? I saw blown highlights here and there, but keep in mind that they did not light for the F3. They were just pointing and shooting with it and using it as a docu camera. I'm sure if you do that with a F55 you will also get nasty stuff. The Dig footage you see intercut with the F3 stuff was meticulously lit for the F55. Of course it will look awesome. I mean, it's a sony promo for that camera.
 
Adamsenoj said:
You really think it was that bad? Any particular shots you can point out? I saw blown highlights here and there, but keep in mind that they did not light for the F3. They were just pointing and shooting with it and using it as a docu camera. I'm sure if you do that with a F55 you will also get nasty stuff. The Dig footage you see intercut with the F3 stuff was meticulously lit for the F55. Of course it will look awesome. I mean, it's a sony promo for that camera.
Click to expand...

I thought the neutral F3 looked great here.
 
And I didn't think the F3 looked bad either, considering its docu-cam intent. But I do strongly agree with Nate that S-Log is what makes the camera.

I loved Dig and think it showed off camera features amazingly.

Ned
 
Martin thanks for posting the BTS.

Are you or the Dado (colorist) available to answer any specific questions about working with camera from a post-production perspective and more specifically aspects of grading? There is some discussion now comparing the F55 to one of Sony's older legacy cinema cameras, the F35 and some of the differences in characteristics we have been noticing and discussing here in these forums.


Grug said:
The F5(5) is basically 5 years newer than the F35, and the sensors are 7 years newer. In the digital era - that's a looong time. And as a result the new cameras (well the F55 at least, if we're considering global shutter essential for the comparison) should basically trump the F35 in every objective measure - sensititivity, S/N ratio, latitude, resolution, colour depth and tonality (16-bit vs. 12-bit), size, weight, power consumption etc.

Now that in no way diminishes the excellent imagery that the F35 generates, it simply offers you more over an above it.

As to dynamic range, I don't think anyone knows how Miguel's managed to measure 14/15 stops out of the F35 - every other test has rated it at around 11-11.5 stops, and the footage I've seen seems to bare that out.

What's special about the F35, and a large part of the reason it looks so filmic, is that it's dynamic range has been handled quite differently to conventional video cameras - it allocates the majority of it's latitude to the highlights (like film), to the light above middle grey (digital cameras normally store more information in the shadows). This is why it handles highlights far better than other cameras in that roughly 11 stop range (Red One, FS100, FS700 etc.), and why its highlights still look as good as the F3 in SLOG (which has a 2-stop advantage in total dynamic range over the F35) - the F35 does it smarter.

As for which is the better buy? Well that depends entirely on your criteria. Personally I'd opt for the newer cameras, mainly for two simple reasons: firstly, because the newer cameras give you more options; and secondly, because a repair to the F35 (should something go wrong) could literally bankrupt you.

At the end of the day, I'd suggest writing up a spreadsheet, detailing your specific needs and then see which of the cameras ticks the most boxes.
Click to expand...

As my friend Nate W. tried to point out to me when I was trying to declare 12-bit as the holy grail, the D21 is a camera with "only" 10 stops of latitude to a 10 bit format, yet look at some of the footage from it. Is it on par with the F35 or "more" filmic than what we have seen with the F3/F5/F55?

More and more I believe the "film like" characteristics have much more to do with the careful and meticulous mapping of sensor dynamic range, and nothing else.
 
I think the best people to comment on this are Dado or Steve Lawes, the DP. My knowledge runs out before a fair few of you guys and those two. Steve has used the F35 quite a bit (he shot Sherlock series 1 on it) and so might have something to say comparing it to the F55. He's prepping for a show at the moment, but I'll see if I can persuade him to come on here.

I know that he was a fan of the F35, but always felt he had to work a bit harder to get it to look the way he wanted compared to shooting on film. He had to get to know the camera and light accordingly (Probably because of the 11 stop latitude and maybe because the F35 still has a bit of a Sony look). With the F55 and Alexa he just shoots the same way as he does on film. Beyond that you'd need to ask him. I'll see what I can do on that front.

Thanks for the interest.
 
starcentral said:
More and more I believe the "film like" characteristics have much more to do with the careful and meticulous mapping of sensor dynamic range, and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I'm playing with a alpha/beta S-Log2 LUT that one of the F65 Product Managers sent me, and it's way, way ahead of the in-camera LUTs or some of the other LUTs and tools out there. In particular, it rolls off the highlights in a really beautiful, Arri/Canon way.

I'm getting deep into learning about how the details of the post software Sony is providing is contributing to the "Sony Look". My research began while to figure out why Sony raw via ACES looked so much better than non-ACES.

After a good log LUT is applied, only 9 or so stops of range is making it to the screen anyway. So it's up to the LUT to map what's there into something that approaches a film-curve, and do something pretty with the toe and highlights. Some of the Sony LUTs appear to just do a hard clip of highlights, instead of taking those top 2-3 stops and making them look pretty.

I'd like to share what I'm learning, but it's kind of hard to demonstrate without spending a ton of time writing or making a screencast or something.
 
You are definitely on the right track, Nate. I have verified as well working with our pre-release footage that F55 raw + ACES yielded far more faithful results. No doubt that is because ACES color space has a far wider gamut. That wider gamut combined with the F55 sensor and its gamut is certainly the reason for the vast improvement when working in ACES space. Sony, I believe, is a part of the ACES development group.

I have not been terribly impressed with the Sony LUT's and even the Resolve Sony SLog2 LUT still doesn't provide that more gentle film curve.

Of course we shouldn't forget that choice of glass is yet another factor in determining look.

Good work.

Ned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top