F5: F5 successor revealing (really a F65 successor)

[Grug]

One observation I have made mainly when owning a 16 bit hasselblad.. is that sexy highlight roll off is more important than ultimate capture range for pleasing images.

Aka a 10stop sensor with perfect highlight rendition is more 'pleasing' than a 14 stop imager with a compressed image that jaggies hair againsta a blown background etc.

So DR is not all.

This is a vastly under-understood concept, that I think a great many people would benefit from. From a latitude perspective, Canon's DSLR sensors are rubbish, Nikon and Sony wallop the pants off them (with about 3 stops more DR). But damnit if they don't work what they got - the Canons may clip out much earlier than their competition, but they do so very gracefully.

Similarly, it's how the old Sony F35 (with only 11 stops of DR) can still keep up with all but the very best/latest cinema cameras for highlight handling - it just handles that aspect really damn well.

 

[Donny 123]

ah your saying Arri has LESS DR than Sony ..? I dont think so in LOG mode the curves are almost the same.. Slog3 anyway.. still dont see any concrete technical analysis TBH.. going way back the original discussion,it was about the F65.. I think 16 bit Sony Raw can handle high lights pretty well.. there is a ton of data up there and no compression at all.. maybe we should keep it to the F65 Raw shot in features ,.. which was the first concept being discussed .. before we go the esoteric rabbit hole ... I dont think we can compare the F65 raw on features, which is what I was originally talking about.. to watching the golf or football shot on a PDW700.. in REC709 with a knee at 85%..

 

[Sttratos]

I dont think Arri cameras have a greater DR than Sony.. . sorry don't think that holds water .. you have some documentation to back it up.. ?

Again dont get your second point .. "going live" ? .. cramming huge DR into broadcast legal.. Arri does this too right.. they have REC709 legal.. its a menu choice..

Again just sort of random comments TBH.. where is the technical info in the above comments .. I dont see it. I have to say.. DR is not the difference between Arri and Sony thats for sure.. or 444 codec,s.. next

LOL! What is the point of asking for an explanation if you are going to dismiss everything as just personal opinion and not technical enough? This is why I didn't bother to elaborate more than I already did. What are you looking for? A technical journal signed by God himself? Stop being a Sony fanboy. People are giving you grounded in experience opinions. People who have actually used all the cameras in question. People who are actually not bashing the Sony cameras and are recognizing their have their place too. Even owners such as Dennis who has a F55 of all things and others have agreed. You can't have less unbiased opinions than that.

 

[Donny 123]

LOL! What is the point of asking for an explanation if you are going to dismiss everything as just personal opinion and not technical enough? This is why I didn't bother to elaborate more than I already did. What are you looking for? A technical journal signed by God himself? Stop being a Sony fanboy. People are giving you grounded in experience opinions. People who have actually used all the cameras in question. People who are actually not bashing the Sony cameras and are recognizing their have their place too. Even owners such as Dennis who has a F55 of all things and others have agreed. You can't have less unbiased opinions than that.

Im not a Sony fan boy at all.. I agree totally the Arri has a very nice look.. again just to state my original question.. re F65 being too digital .. what does that mean.. ? yes totally aware of personal preference.. I dont know how many times Ive written that now.. I just ask if anyone has concrete tech reasons for why they think Arri has the better picture.. not in REC709 .. sports coverage.. but specially we were talking about the F65 and Alexa in Raw recording .. well originally we talked feature films shot on the F65,which I would presume recorded Raw.. thats all .. simple question..

 

[morgan_moore]

Don - I would certainly agree - I have not used one but I cannot see a problem with the F65 if you know how to expose and move around in post.

(knowing how to expose might involve exposing left to give slightly more headroom and a bit more noise, in terms of creating the arri/film look)

My personal observation is that many DPs dont fully test the ETTR, ETTL options of these cameras in a rational manner.. some do.

S

 

[digitalinnovations]

I'm FAR from an engineer and only have my experiences and theories based from those experiences to go off of BUT it seems to me in the whole "Arri vs Sony vs X" (which is talked ad nauseum all the various boards) is that it boils down to the color science and the way Arri handles roll off (i.e. the second "combing" pass).

I, too, wish another manufacturer (Sony, Canon, even BM) would provide similar results in a future sensor / camera at more attainable price-point but that remains to be seen. I'm becoming a bit of a broken record but I care far less about resolution and far more about image quality; being able to capture footage that requires less time in post / color grading to push the image where it needs to be would be an amazing thing. But alas, I am not in a position to shell out the cash for an Arri so I'm stuck with what is currently available to me.

 

[Donny 123]

Don - I would certainly agree - I have not used one but I cannot see a problem with the F65 if you know how to expose and move around in post.

(knowing how to expose might involve exposing left to give slightly more headroom and a bit more noise, in terms of creating the arri/film look)

My personal observation is that many DPs dont fully test the ETTR, ETTL options of these cameras in a rational manner.. some do.

S

In Raw its the opposite.. you can over expose 3 ways to Sunday.. tons of data up there.. its linear with Sony anyway .. in both the Alexa or the F65..

But yes that was my original point.. F65 16 bit Raw.. Arri is 12 bit I believe.. all that data and grading possibilities .. how can there be any big difference at that level.. presuming very skilled graders at that level ..

 

[abreu-canedo]

One thing I notice, in the 2 times I've ever even shot with the Alexa (but mostly from hearing other more experienced DPs) is that you can blow out your highlights with the Alexa, because it rolls into white much more like film...gracefully and with a pleasing besier curve. Everyone knows this. This can often mean more exposure flexibility and more options for dealing with production challenges on set. But know that doing so is commiting you to stay at those levels. Even with the Alexa, if you blow out, you cannot bring it down in post because it'll just turn grey and look forced. You'll then be in VFX territory if you need to change it. But this is ok, for most DPs.

With the Dragon, Helium and F65, for example, I try to retain as much of my highlights as I possibly can, because only if I retain the highlights can I gracefully roll off into white in post. The luminance and chrominance curve that Arri employs to roll off into highlights is known and easily repeatable, as long as you keep all the information to employ it in post.

The Alexa also applies some noise reduction in the shadows of its ProRes signal, which is actually what most people shoot on Alexa. Most the films in Sundance and big festivals getting shot in ProRes 4444XQ. To be honest, I've never shot RAW on the Alexa. But the noise reduction is super well implemented that makes you feel comfortable also underexposing the Alexa...which makes the Alexa super flexible and maximizes the DR of the camera. Even though F65 sensor uses copper circuitry to minimize photosite noise and let in more light then regular aluminum circuitry (as with other sensors), the Alexa sensor, even with it's aluminum circuitry, is still much cleaner in the shadows because the Alev photosites are much bigger. As such, the 14stops of the Alexa feels like 16stops on the F65...and as you know, the F65 doesn't have 16stops, so you have to light an F65 scene with 2 less stops in DR than you can with the Alexa. Or at least, allocate stops differently. But that's kinda ridiculous in a way, because even in my low-budget sets, I can easily stay well within that...granted day exteriors just require a bit more planning.

With other cameras not employing the dual signal processing of the Alexa (which gives it the extra latitude to roll into white), you just have to know that you don't have that extra latitude in camera, and that you have to preserve the information if you want to go for a filmic roll-off. Also, the RAW of the F65 doesn't add noise reduction to the shadows, so you have to also factor that into the exposure on set and/or post process...which is where the F65 was designed to shine. The signal of the F65 was design from the beginning to be finished in post, with ACES in mind. The 16bit RAW signal, as long as you capture it all on set, can be pushed into a super vast pallette. Of course, for some this just means "more cumbersome"...which is totally fair!

It's the event, doc, run&gun folks that need the crazy DR. And the Alexa and F65 are not event, doc, run&gun cameras. They are studio cameras. Sure, I still want more DR, since that just makes it all the more comfortable on set, but for me, the reason I personally still like the F65 is because I often am content with the inconvenience of being limited in DR on my set, and have more flexibility in post. Also, I would never use the Alexa image just with a rec709 LUT on it. And while it has become dogma in the film industry that the Alexa is easier to grade, ACES pipeline for F65 is a great equalizer. Just not many DPs know, and not many colorists get to work with F65 footage enough to invest in it.

As far as the digital thing, I just think that is a thing with all digital sensors. Alexa with Master Primes prime can also be very sterile. But of course, the higher the resolution, the more you are going to amplify that sterile quality...just like everything else. The fact that I have seen people do crappy things on Alexa, and the fact that I've seen great things done on F65 leads me to conclude that any bad or good looking film is not down to the camera, but to the DP. And that is not to take anything from any DP. But we are all human, after all. (well, at least most of us)...hehe.

One thing I will say, which gives the Alexa a leg up over all the cameras currently in the market, is that it was the camera that facilitated the widespread and conclusive adoption of digital production in the film industry. It was the camera that allowed film DPs to most easily get an image that was acceptable from a film perspective. Indeed, the colors and highlights and DR is a joy to work with. And as such, it is what most people used, it was what most people got good at, and it is what most post houses have learned to grade. The F65? Well, that was not an easy thing for film DPs to dive into. I mean, some of the early F65 attempts and demo footage, even by legendary DPs, were not very flattering. And that is no disrespect to them or anyone, but those early examples showed that you couldn't approach the F65 as if you would film. And you can't approach an F65 as if it were an Alexa. And as such, it will never be as thoroughly explored, implemented nor requested at rental houses. Because if this, the pool of good productions on it will always be limited compared to the Alexa. But I always go back to "no great film is great because of the camera".

I posted some screen-grabs of my work with the F65 footage. It may not be stunning top-tier work, but I doubt many can say that they are "too videoish". Most of it was shot on Cooke Speed Panchros, rehoused by TLS. Any defects or short-comings on those images is purely don to my as DP, budgetary, and/or color post workflow. Although I guess I can say the same thing for the good things about those images too

I believe the new Sony can be a welcome alternative to the Alexa, and if it is able to gain any market penetration, a more diversified market will mean more options for filmmakers...so I welcome new Reds, Canons, Panasonics, Sonys, etc.

 

[Aaveum]

This is an interesting discussion.

I have to side with the camp wishing the new sensor is more like the F35. I say that fully aware that some of the most loved characteristics of the F35, such as the motion, "analog aura" of the CCD and true 444 color will never be replicated again. Or at least not any time soon. But it would still be great to just have Sony moving in that direction again. It would at least show they get it, after so long not getting it. It would be great to have a Sony 4K theatrical camera that gives preference to what the artists working on such productions and using the cameras think is important, instead of what Sony thinks makes up a good image.

Because despite the ongoing notion that raw will allow you to completely change the look of a camera and especially match any other camera, there are characteristics which are locked in within the sensor. Every sensor has inherent characteristics. Raw doesn‘t change that. It‘s not as if using raw is the same as going back to location and reshooting. Or reshooting with a different camera. Which is why the term raw is misguiding. Raw is not truly raw. There is processing applied and there are the sensor compromises applied. This is why you won‘t replicate the Alexa's characteristics exactly, regardless of the number of dynamic range stops. And you won‘t replicate the F35 color even if you are recording to a 444 format with a bayer camera. You do not have 444 to begin with.

Sensor design is as much about features as it is about compromises. Each manufacturer chooses their own set of compromises. You can‘t go back and re-choose your own compromises just because you recorded to raw. Raw is not magic.

So if you like the way a certain camera looks, use said camera. Trying to use another camera and grading in post to match the camera you actually want is not only counter productive but also not entirely possible. It’s not about the amount of information. It’s about how that information was interpreted by the sensor, which is done differently from sensor to sensor. Otherwise there wouldn‘t be much point in designing different sensors . We could just have a “universal” sensor. Thankfully that’s not the case.

Regarding what makes the ARRI or F35 images more attractive, which I fully agree they are, we could fill a whole book about it. But since everything can be disputed, it’s not worth trying to address it. Topics like these just become a time blackhole. I’m fine with others just adding it to the personal preference pile.

But I just want to say that trying to explain it from only an engineering point of view is exactly Sony‘s problem. They have to realize that only a perfect and technically sound image is not enough. Not if we are discussing theatrical cameras. If Sony would have less engineers and more artists such as DPs, colorists and filmmakers in their designing team, they would probably be in a different place when stacked against ARRI. One could say I can’t say they do not have these people in their team because I don’t know, and they would be right. But from where I’m standing it looks like the cameras are designed by people who understand numbers better than anything else. And I'm not talking about only image now but the general design of the camera including usability on set.

The F35 is a fluke. It is the exception. As mentioned over and over on these boards, I have no doubt that it performs as it does because of Panavision’s involvement.

Now, before this gets taken out of context, I would like to reiterate I‘m talking about theatrical cameras. Not news cameras, broadcast cameras, consumer cameras and the like. I‘m talking about cameras to be used in circumstances where artistic value takes precedence over just technicality.

Sony makes great cameras and I own Sony cameras. It‘s not a problem of the cameras not being great. They are. It‘s a matter of the tool being fit for the job at hand.

The massive preference for ARRI in the theatrical and dramatic arena is proof that those doing the work think ARRI cameras are more fit for it. There is no more solid feedback or sign of approval than that. I know there are theories approaching conspiracy theories as to why ARRI dominates. As there are also positions which dismiss the preference being caused just by the name, workflow, ergonomics and other factors apart from the image itself. Yes, there are people who won't give a camera any attention if it says Sony on the side or if it doesn't say ARRI. But if you think cinematographers of multi-million dollar pictures put all that over the image itself, I think you need to think again. The image is the main attribute. You choose the tool which makes your movie and you look best. That comes first and then the rest.

If the image you need and are looking for comes even easier with the camera which is giving you that image, why would you use anything else?

 

[Aaveum]

This is a vastly under-understood concept, that I think a great many people would benefit from. From a latitude perspective, Canon's DSLR sensors are rubbish, Nikon and Sony wallop the pants off them (with about 3 stops more DR). But damnit if they don't work what they got - the Canons may clip out much earlier than their competition, but they do so very gracefully.

Similarly, it's how the old Sony F35 (with only 11 stops of DR) can still keep up with all but the very best/latest cinema cameras for highlight handling - it just handles that aspect really damn well.

This is a very conservative figure for the F35‘s dynamic range. This is the official Sony figure, which like most things with the F35 was understated, such as the resolution. Several online tests give the F35 more than just that.

It will naturally depend on which method you use to test the dynamic range. But regardless of method used, the F35 in reality has about 1.5 stops less dynamic range than the Alexa if you use the same method. And the extra range in the ARRI is all in the shadows. So if you consider the Alexa a 14.5 stop camera the F35 is a 13 stop camera under the same circumstances. You also have to keep in mind that the Alexa uses aggressive noise reduction in the lower stops which the F35 uses none.

It‘s a good toss up between the two when it comes to image. Even in sharpness you probably have noticed the Alexa is not really higher resolution than the F35. Because although it is supposedly a HD camera, if you point the F35 at a chart you will see it resolves around 2.4-2.5k with a good lens. The Alexa being bayer will resolve way bellow its 3.2k sensor. They kind of meet in the middle there.

In a sunny day you will be better off with either over most if not all digital motion picture cameras currently available. If we are talking about no-light, which is what many people really mean when they say low-light, then I would choose the ARRI. But if I‘m shooting actual low-light instead of no-light, such as dark or night shots and I have the budget to light, I choose the F35. It will look the most like 35mm under these circumstances. It‘s back to the old adage, the right tool for the right job. I would choose either, depending on the project. That is purely based on the image alone.

And I would say the F35 can indeed keep up with all current cameras, including the very best and latest, when it comes to highlight handling. It definitely can keep up with the Alexa. It has a very pleasing way to deal with highlights. Where it struggles to keep up is with the shadows. But if you are lighting as is normally the case in cinema...

 

[Donny 123]

Interesting posts from you guys..esp a F65 user.. so Aavem.. are you saying the Arri has input from film DP,s,prod design,colourists etc.. that is somehow interpreted/ used by Arri engineers in the making of their sensor.. that Sony doesn't have.. I wonder how engineers are being able to take on some likely quite esoteric .. ethereal concepts.. and putting that into electronic circuitry .. obviously in the REC709 curves.. yes their color science is very pleasing.. which other cameras aspire too.. Sony blatantly so with its LC709A .. still I wonder in Raw recording if its now chicken and egg.. Arri is used 99% of the time.. we see alot of great footage (although as noted there can be crap footage from an Arri).. seems Sony,s main mistake was making the F65 so expensive and too big in size..

 

[Sttratos]

Interesting posts from you guys..esp a F65 user.. so Aavem.. are you saying the Arri has input from film DP,s,prod design,colourists etc.. that is somehow interpreted/ used by Arri engineers in the making of their sensor.. that Sony doesn't have.. I wonder how engineers are being able to take on some likely quite esoteric .. ethereal concepts.. and putting that into electronic circuitry .. obviously in the REC709 curves.. yes their color science is very pleasing.. which other cameras aspire too.. Sony blatantly so with its LC709A .. still I wonder in Raw recording if its now chicken and egg.. Arri is used 99% of the time.. we see alot of great footage (although as noted there can be crap footage from an Arri).. seems Sony,s main mistake was making the F65 so expensive and too big in size..

The F65 was not more expensive than the Alexa. It's also not heavier.

 

[Donny 123]

The F65 was not more expensive than the Alexa. It's also not heavier.

Was it not more expensive when it first came out.. I thought it was over $100K.. actually I didnt say weight.. "big in size" Ive used the Alexa it weights a ton ! .. but for sure bulky in design.. with a much bigger EVF.. I think this is universally excepted truth..

 

[Sttratos]

Was it not more expensive when it first came out.. I thought it was over $100K.. actually I didnt say weight.. "big in size" Ive used the Alexa it weights a ton ! .. but for sure bulky in design.. with a much bigger EVF.. I think this is universally excepted truth..

I don't think the F65 was ever more expensive. If I´m not wrong it was about $60K when they hit the shelves. I think Sony slashed the original announced price once they started selling it. You can use the same EVF as the F55 with the F65. This is how I used it. You don't have to use the older big EVF.

 

[Donny 123]

Quick inter web search.. the f65 was $65,000.. $77,000 with the mechanical shutter.. basic Alexa was $45,000.. but the studio with mech shutter was about the same $65,000.. so still a bit cheaper .. but yes at those prices not a big difference..
But the F
65 came out before the F55.. so that smaller EVF wasn't available at the time.. there is a new EVF coming out which sounds good .. but no doubt will be pricey.. that wil work with the F5/55/65 and the new beast they are apparently working on for 2018 release..

Im not knocking the F65.. quite the opposite I think it produces a nice picture.. but for sure its sort of bulky .. and did never really catch on for features.. Im sure this new camera will be alot smaller..

 

[Sttratos]

Quick inter web search.. the f65 was $65,000.. $77,000 with the mechanical shutter.. basic Alexa was $45,000.. but the studio with mech shutter was about the same $65,000.. so still a bit cheaper .. but yes at those prices not a big difference..
But the F
65 came out before the F55.. so that smaller EVF wasn't available at the time.. there is a new EVF coming out which sounds good .. but no doubt will be pricey.. that wil work with the F5/55/65 and the new beast they are apparently working on for 2018 release..

Im not knocking the F65.. quite the opposite I think it produces a nice picture.. but for sure its sort of bulky .. and did never really catch on for features.. Im sure this new camera will be alot smaller..

But the price for the F65 includes the EVF right? While the Alexa doesn't. I don`t think an Alexa with EVF was only $45k. And where did you see $77K for the F65? I'm quite sure street price was around $60K. Maybe Rafael will know.

But I don't think the reason the Alexa ate the F65's lunch was because of price and size. It was because DPs looked at it and didn't see anything they wanted.

F55 is what, a year newer than the F65? After a year you could use the F55 EVF. Not a lot of time. The EVF was not an excuse.

 

[Donny 123]

But the price for the F65 includes the EVF right? While the Alexa doesn't. I don`t think an Alexa with EVF was only $45k. And where did you see $77K for the F65? I'm quite sure street price was around $60K. Maybe Rafael will know.

But I don't think the reason the Alexa ate the F65's lunch was because of price and size. It was because DPs looked at it and didn't see anything they wanted.

F55 is what, a year newer than the F65? After a year you could use the F55 EVF. Not a lot of time. The EVF was not an excuse.

It was on the web.. $77,000 was with the mechanical shutter.. $65,000 without.. 2011.. no I dont think the EVF was included.. I just did a search.. Price Arri Alexa new.. or something like that..Alexa studio with mech shutter was $65,000.. I guess the difference is there were a few different Alexa models.. but only the one F65...(one with mech shutter)..

 

[Sttratos]

It was on the web.. $77,000 was with the mechanical shutter.. $65,000 without.. 2011.. no I dont think the EVF was included in the $45,000.. I just did a search.. Price Arri Alexa new.. or something like that..Alexa studio with mech shutter was $65,000.. I guess the difference is there were a few different Alexa models.. but only the one F65...(one with mech shutter)..

So those prices are probably not the street prices. It's probably the announced prices. The one without the mechanical shutter never came out. Only the one with the shutter and I don't think it ever cost $77k.

 

[Donny 123]

So those prices are probably not the street prices. It's probably the announced prices. The one without the mechanical shutter never came out. Only the one with the shutter and I don't think it ever cost $77k.

Sure there was the mechanical shutter camera.. body was the same .. just you could have the mech shutter put in.. google it .. the price is right there $77,000 big ones.. without $65,000 .. both where sold..

 

[Donny 123]

The F65 digital motion picture camera line-up is scheduled to be available in January direct from Sony: The F65, with viewfinder for $65,000; the F65RS (Built in Rotary Shutter Model), with viewfinder for $77,000; and SR-R4 dockable recorder for $20,000. All will also be available through Sony authorized resellers.

RED
SONY
CAMERAS
4K
SONYF65
F65

Actually another $20,000 for the Raw recorder.. but your right it does include the VF.. thats pushing $100,000 for shutter and Raw recorder.. the Alexa was never this price.. looking at the pictures again the F65 is much wider than the Alexa ..and taller..