F3: F3 looks more like film than F55 IMO.

S

Shoots56

Carbonite Member
Don't shoot me but I can't help but think that every time I see F5 or F55 footage, it looks more electronic to me than S-log F3 footage does. I have no idea why other than the possibly too high-res sensors of the newer cameras. Having an F55 and F3 beside each other and testing all the way through post is the only way to carry this further but in every test or piece I have seen so far, this is how I feel about it.

Does too much resolution have an opposite effect when trying to get a more film-like look? Im not saying we have to keep trying to make digital cameras look like film but IF that is what you are trying to do, I wonder if the Slog F3 is the way to go. And no, I'm not trying to feel better about owning the previous model. :beer:
 
There's one similarity between the Alexa and F3 and that is the number of pixels on the sensor. Just as I wrote in this thread the increased number of pixels put greater demand on the production to look good.
 
The 5/55 have Slog2 which is even more baffling to untie - ie will tend to look wooden if you dont do it right.

I have observed the Fs100 having a cleaner dark signal than the 5 - makes sense 1/4 of the pixels

The 5/55 raw recordings are IMO clearly superior and anyone who cant make them look cool is a user who is in error..

The value of using a 5/55 when recording non Raw and when delivering 1080 is certainly not clear, there may be none over the F3 (with a 10bit recorder).

S
 
shoots56 give it a chance, the F5/F55 has only been out since March and there is lots to figure out for some of us and how to maximize it, especially once you factor in 16-bit RAW, ACES, post workflow, sgamut, etc..

Look at how people are still trying to figure out F3/slog :thumbsup:


At the end of the day most people can make a Canon 7D look like "film" so I don't think the camera, any camera has much to do with it. ok, I retract that statement a bit, the ARRI's and even the F35 definitely look more filmic "out of the box". I attribute this to the secret sauce they are using on their cameras, which seem to be missing from all others.
 
Denis

The raw workflow is really easy to make it look nice - even AC can do it!

Anyone playing with raw I would suggest EI640 then you will know, with zebras, your true clip point..

Logs not so simple.

S
 
Yes, I shoot RAW stills for some commercial work and the difference between it and Sony's "video" cameras are night and day. 50% of it is acquisition, the other 50% is post I'm convinced but slog/slog2 does not make that easy, I am eager to keep trying and learning and won't give up just yet.
 
Shoots56 said:
Don't shoot me but I can't help but think that every time I see F5 or F55 footage, it looks more electronic to me than S-log F3 footage does. I have no idea why other than the possibly too high-res sensors of the newer cameras.

Does too much resolution have an opposite effect when trying to get a more film-like look? Im not saying we have to keep trying to make digital cameras look like film but IF that is what you are trying to do, I wonder if the Slog F3 is the way to go.
Click to expand...


The 5/55 tends to have a cleaner final image, and that is probably not helping.

Frankly, the 5/55 is not a world-class image when left alone. S-Log2/S-Gamut still has vestiges of traditional Sony colorimetry if all you do is add contrast and saturation, as many editors do. Add that to a very sharp oversampled image, and very little noise, and I could see why you might call it "electronic".

Arri, Red, and Blackmagic, in their software tools, have all made pains to replicate certain aspects of film color response. Certainly more than Sony has attempted; it's my belief that Sony do not value or understand why you would want to do such a thing.

So yes, I can see why one might like the slightly softer look of the F3 when it is left alone. The XDCAM codec certainly doesn't make things any sharper either. But it is trivial to soften a sharp image in post if you know and have identified that as being something you don't feel is serving your purposes. I'd rather start with cleaner and sharper, and selectively destroy the image with grain and diffusion than have less control. There's also the issues of codecs and ergonomics which cloud the decision (in favor of the newer cameras)

Or, more simply, I can make a 5/55 look like an F3, but I can't make a F3 look like a 55 :-)

morgan_moore said:
The 5/55 have Slog2 which is even more baffling to untie - ie will tend to look wooden if you dont do it right.
Click to expand...

starcentral said:
the other 50% is post I'm convinced but slog/slog2 does not make that easy,
Click to expand...

Sony has not done a wonderful job of guiding new owners to the best images. Arri has one LUT built for LogC (avail in different varieties to account for minor variables in post), they make it easy to get, and it they spent time on it so it's beautiful in every situation.
 
Last edited:
From what I've seen so far I like the highlight rolloff on the F5 considerably more than on the F3 and the built-in codec is way better. It's superior ergonomically, too, and a stop faster at least in SLOG-2 I believe? Skin tones appear fine, though the low end of the image is very murky, not as well-represented as with the Alexa.

So far, I prefer it to the Epic and C300 but not to the Alexa.
 
f5/f55 offers 1300% dynamic range, 14 stops. Slightly more than the F3. Every bit counts depending on the scene.

Slog1_Slog2.jpg
 
Policar said:
So far, I prefer it to the Epic and C300 but not to the Alexa.
Click to expand...

When the Epic is handled well, it sort of blows all Sonys out of the water, I HATE to say. Ok the F35 and F65 dont count. Why can't Sony just make a little F35 that has a 4K spec? Damnit Sony.

Yes I know that the F5/55 4k raw can look good, I was just watching some on a huge 4K TV last night but it still didnt have that mojo the F35 has and when compared to Epic footage that was shown just after it (both reels were done by professionals) I felt the Epic stuff was very close to film and I preferred it by far, and again, I hate to say that.

It just shouldnt have to be SO hard to get what I want out of Sony's files. I think this has to be taken into heavy consideration here. So what if a camera could do something really well? If I have to spend 10 times longer getting it to work for me, I sell it. Or in my case, wont buy it... yet. I think the F55 has been around long enough to have seen at least one clip that makes me feel something for it. So far, it's just Sony looking stuff. Epic and Alexa footage doesnt take much time at all, if any, to work well, like nate was saying I guess.

I don't like the thought of it but I may end up having to find an Epic when I upgrade from the F3.
 
Last edited:
I just don't see any image difference between the Epic and the F5 (55? whatever Ali Chap owns and I played with) both raw files are just raw files - do as you please.

The Epic in current build has a major advantage in HFR implemetation, and a major disadvantage in low, 320 ISO, (The 5 is actually 640)

The 5/55 have huge advantage for small and speedy operation in terms of mass, onboard proxies, and onboard ND and XLR

I see the F/55 as king of the hill for corporate/small, with the Epic great for 'cinema' if you have the time and the crew to lump it about.

S
 
I shot two features on the Panavision Genesis which is a close cousin to the Sony F35. I used to own a RED EPIC. I just sold it sadly at a 28% loss due to some debt and am looking around for a deal on a good used F3 - a far drop I know in camera Mojo. But I'm hoping IQ is not too far of a drop with SLOG and 4:2:2 recording on an Odyssey 7.

The color science and chip performance of these two competitors - the GENESIS (F35) and Red EPIC - are very different. The GENESIS is OLD. But in terms of visual appeal and IQ, I can't say that one is better than the other. The Genesis is only 1920x1080 but often the footage appears SHARPER than downsampled 5K RED footage, due in some part to the excellent Panavision glass. The Genesis color space seems more like film to me. Yet the EPIC's "softness" and highlight handling make it seem more like film in that respect. These are just value judgements. My guess would be that with the F5's linear raw and the EPICs raw, you're going to get more dynamic range from the F5 and better light sensitivity with it's newer chip. What it will come down to is the color science in the post workflow and of course the color grading. DRAGON of course ups the ante and will by all accounts be superior to the F5.
 
Last edited:
Speaking as someone who owns the Sony F35 as well as the Sony F3, I can say that rated dynamic range isn't everything. The Sony F35 (essentially same as the GENESIS) is rated at 11.3 stops, which is low by today's standards, but the output of the camera is incredible. Shooting it with Ultra Primes, the picture feels just as sharp as downsampled 4k. Considering the F35 has a 12MP sensor, and the EPIC is about 13.8MP, this makes sense really.

Anytime you shoot for color correction in post, there's the possibility of the footage ending up in the hands of someone who can't get the maximum image out of it. I've had that happen both with the F3 and F35, and it's terribly dissappointing when it happens.
 
Yes, totally the Genesis and F35 looks fantastic with the right glass. Something about the color and contrast it produces - just feel more "Kodak" to me. It may be it's color gamut is superior somehow. Hey, it was $200K - they could afford to put the best stuff in it. And you're right about the dynamic range - the EPIC has more at about 12.5 stops and is more light sensitive IMO. The Genesis can be very NOISY if you push it past 400asa. The one thing I hate about working the with the Genesis is the thing is a beast. Just too heavy for good handheld work, especially with Panavision glass even the primes are just monstrous. Even the EPIC is on the heavy side ergonomically with V mount batteries which is why I don't regret parting with it too much. They need to make a C300 like camera with 12 bit raw writing to an internal built in recorder ;).
 
The F35 is a beast. And it really shouldn't be pushed past 400ASA, but I will say the grain, while noisy, is actually not terribly distracting when in motion. It's the most filmic of the electronic gains that I've seen in a camera.

With modern SSD recorder units, the F35 can be built far more compact than it's original implementation with the SRW-1 HDCAM-SR tape recorder. My decision to buy the F35 was driven by the sheer low cost for quality.
 
Regarding Sony F5/F55 ISO, I recently rated the F55 to have an ISO of 640ISO in slog2 mode not 1250 as claimed. And another chap drew the same conclusion with the F5, Sony claims 2000 ISO but in tests it was actually 1000 ISO.

I speculated (along with a few others) that Sony rated the F5/F55 cameras with the shutter "OFF" which would explain the extra stop gain on the ISO, but this notion was largely poo-poo'd on because some feel that Sony would never makes such a false claim on their cameras. BTW: the same test I did on the F55 was the same test I did on the F3 two years ago when I measured 800 ISO on the F3 in slog mode. This proves there is a lack of consistency between how the two generations might have been rated.


Doctor Wu said:
What it will come down to is the color science in the post workflow and of course the color grading. DRAGON of course ups the ante and will by all accounts be superior to the F5.
Click to expand...

Exactly what RED has going for it is their own color science which gets you 99% of the way there. This is what we seem to be missing with the Sony's.


Viddovation said:
Considering the F35 has a 12MP sensor, and the EPIC is about 13.8MP, this makes sense really.
Click to expand...

The F35 appears to have a large megapixel count because it uses a RGB Strip pattern sensor but it doesn't mean it will equate the same resolution of an equal megapixel bayer pattern sensor.
 
starcentral said:
The F35 appears to have a large megapixel count because it uses a RGB Strip pattern sensor but it doesn't mean it will equate the same resolution of an equal megapixel bayer pattern sensor.
Click to expand...

The megapixel count on the F35 is fact, not "appearance". The Sony F35 uses six individual photosites to calculate every pixel position of the 1920x1080 frame size. That's two red, two green, and two blue - with one of each being high sensitivity, and one of each being low sensitivity.

Now, it's absolutely true that you can't use that configuration of the RGB strip sensor to generate the sort of bayer 4k footage the RED delivers. But it's not meant to do that either. What is is meant to do is deliver a 1080p picture. By contrast, the Sony F3 only uses a 3.3 megapixel bayer sensor to deliver it's 1080p.

The megapixel count is there - it's just not used the way it is on a bayer sensor. My point is that for 1080p delivery, the F35 delivers sharpness and clarity that is competitive with 4k acquisition cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top