Yes you hit the nail on the head. The Cinealta division DEFINITELY has to get a serious divorce from the broadcast heritage of the company. We have already seen the great results of Sony doing that in the past. Let`s repeat it Sony. Do it!
F5: F5 successor revealing (really a F65 successor)
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
Yes you hit the nail on the head. The Cinealta division DEFINITELY has to get a serious divorce from the broadcast heritage of the company. We have already seen the great results of Sony doing that in the past. Let`s repeat it Sony. Do it!
starcentral
Veteran
Well Storaro got a pretty good image out it.. must because he's Italian I guess.. F35 was a CCD sensor wasnt it.. very different from CMOS/Bayer ..
starcentral
Veteran
F35 = CCD 3 stripe RGB yes.
Did you like that? I think it looked a bit soap-ish at times. If it wasn't for all the hard lighting I think it would be pretty blah. It was not the camera. It was the DP. I think the image is getting too much credit because it was Vittorio.
F35 is CCD, global shutter, full RGB. Best image from a Sony, ever.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
Personally I thought VINYL looked really good and that was shot on the F55. Still a faint touch of the Sony-look, but the DoP did a terrific job. It looked great.
Ex Machina was F65 / F55 and IMO is the best looking Sony movie I've ever seen.
Totally agree on the F35. It produced the best image of any Sony in terms of aesthetics, all of the way down to the grain. Real Steel was shot on the F35 and looked incredible. Too bad there are no more CCD cameras around.
I thought it looked pretty good.. and Ex Machina looked fantastic.. are you saying you wouldn't put that on you showreel
..really these days say shooting 16 bit Raw.. there is no such thing as the Sony look at feature film level.. or even LOG come to think of it.. you have literally many billions of shades at your disposal.. its totally down to the grade or budget there of..you can add grain take it away.. do this do that.. how you actually watch it will have a far greater effect than which camera recorded it..I thought it looked pretty good.. and Ex Machina looked fantastic.. are you saying you wouldn't put that on you showreel
+1
There is no longer a"Sony" look. That too is the heritage of broadcast days, when post production was not a part of a crew's workflow.
What most people think of as Sony is "too clean". In other words, it doesn't have the texture (or the noise) of RED, etc.
But you are free to add whatever texture you want.
By the way, if anyone handed me an F65 in a smaller form factor, I would absolutely jump at it.
It has easily the largest color palette I have ever seen. NO other camera comes even close.
I do a lot of grading and the results of that camera can be absolutely astounding.
The only thing that camera is "missing" is Emmanuel Lubezki to shoot on it.
Last edited:
I think it has a lot to do with the color. The F35 is full RGB. Not even the F65 can claim that since it's bayer.
I thought it looked pretty good.. and Ex Machina looked fantastic.. are you saying you wouldn't put that on you showreel
Ex Machina looked alright. I didn't find it anything special. I don't agree shooting RAW gets you any look if you grade. That's why movies shot with the F55 and F65 don't look like they were shot on Red or Arri.
The problem with the F65 is not the Sony look. I don't think it has the old Sony look. The point is it just doesn't look as good as the Arris. Sony look or not.
Clermond
Veteran
from a personal experience: my wife took me to the cinema for Luc Besson's Lucy. I was so impressed about the colors and crisp look that I googled what camera it was shot on. Car chase was on Red Epics and other shots Arri Alexa but most of all on a F65. If it's what you call Sony look: I like it!
(I am just watching, far from an assignment on Alexa, F65 or Weapon)
It just doesn't look as good as Arri's ? On what basis ? Dynamic range ? Color Depth ? Rolling shutter ? The look of the noise ?
There is a point where subjectivity can be construed as merely prejudice with blanket statements like this.
My experience is that most cameras can be corrected very close to each other.
However, what most people are seeing is high production values and confusing them with camera capacity.
Generally I find the level of production values on Alexa shoots is higher (due to prestige, fashion and higher budgets) and the control of the light is therefore better.
The other thing which comes into play is that the Alexa is an "almost-HDR" image.
In other words that in order to achieve a certain roll-off in the highlights they are combining a second exposure for the highlight with a base exposure.
The F65 however has enough dynamic range that it almost always can certainly achieve a similar look if desired.
Really, what most people attribute to the F65 are actually the choices of the DP's who are working with it.
Generally these are commercial applications where higher contrast is favored.
The real reason why the F65 never took off has nothing to do with image quality. It has to do with the weight and size of the camera and the cumbersome workflow at the beginning of it's release.
Last edited:
Like I said....F65 doesn't have a Sony look.
Lucy is one of my least favorite F65 movies.
I think you have just convinced yourself Sttratos.. its simply not based on any logic and with respect, technical knowledge or use.. but ofcourse everyone has a right to their opinion .. but the Alexa "look" V,s F65 forum folk, 99.99% of the time have not used either.. or have alot of understanding of their sensors.. I wouldn't claim to either but the fact that Raw 16 bit just has so many billions of possibilities to grade it sort of nuts to say it cant look like anything the grader wants it look like.... let alone the pretty easy task of looking like an Arri.. the camera itself.. yes too big and expensive in the first place.. but the image and sensor design I dont think can be criticized by being call .."too clean" but not backed up with any concrete reasons... Arri footage can look very clean.. as can 35mm film.. its not logical captain..
It´s interesting that you ask why the F65 doesn't look as good as the Arris and go on to answer your own question.
To me the Arris look way less digital. This is what I like about them. And blaming it on budget is a bit silly. I think there have been more lower budget Arri movies than F65. Pretty much all the wide release F65 movies had a decent budget. But still, Sony movies don't look like Arri or Red movies.
I think you have just convinced yourself Sttratos.. its simply not based on any logic and with respect, technical knowledge or use.. but ofcourse everyone has a right to their opinion .. but the Alexa "look" V,s F65 forum folk, 99.99% of the time have not used either.. or have alot of understanding of their sensors.. I wouldn't claim to either but the fact that Raw 16 bit just has so many billions of possibilities to grade it sort of nuts to say it cant look like anything the grader wants it look like.... let alone the pretty easy task of looking like an Arri.. the camera itself.. yes too big and expensive in the first place.. but the image and sensor design I dont think can be criticized by being call .."too clean" but not backed up with any concrete reasons... Arri footage can look very clean.. as can 35mm film.. its not logical captain..
Of course I convinced myself. Why do you think I would sell my FS7 and F3 otherwise? Because I got tired of fighting the image and I didn't want to lie to myself that it looks just as good. There were others in the same position here who done the same, like Nate.
As for my decision or opinion not being based on technical knowledge, I will ignore the burn and just ask you to show me a F55 or F65 movie that looks like it was shot on Arri. It doesn't need to be your own material. I'm sure you won't have anything that would match and you will claim lack of budget. It can be a Hollywood movie.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Yeah, okay.
Eh? Fs7 and F3.. were we not talking about the F65.. and Alexa..? you think they have the same sensor as the F65.. sorry we are going down the rabbit hole now..
I have no idea of film that has definitely decided to mimic an Arri Alexa look.. what ever that might mean.. but I gave examples of two films that look very good.. all I stated was the fact that with a 16 bit Raw recording.. esp off the F65 sensor.. its a logical fact that a competent grader at the feature film level given the billions of shades available .. could either mimic an Arri but more specifically make any image they want.. there would be no Sony look or cleanest.. but comparing Arri Alexa to a Fs7 or F3 is totally another ball game.. surely you didnt expect your images to look like a feature film shot on Arri Raw.. or even prores for that matter..
Last edited:
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
To bring it back to the new CineAlta developments, I think VV sized sensor can be a really flexible format for choosing your format size per shoot. Although I suspect the S35 crop would have to at least resolve 4K. But then is that 4K photosites, or is that 4K pixels downsampled from a larger photosite count? And if so, how many photosites would the VV sensor have to be?
I'm also curious to see if they would try to implement a dual read-out technology similarly to Arri.
I also have to say, I'm sure nobody will miss the mechanical shutter, but that is something I will really miss...under the assumption they will most likely not include it in their new camera.
I'm also curious to see if they would try to implement a dual read-out technology similarly to Arri.
I also have to say, I'm sure nobody will miss the mechanical shutter, but that is something I will really miss...under the assumption they will most likely not include it in their new camera.