F65: F65 - Ask me anything

JMtheDP said:
No problem. The camera is full of both big and little things which underline the difference between it and the F55. Why a Hollywood production would ever choose the F55 as an A-Cam, I do not know.
Click to expand...

Can you please elaborate? Do you mean that as a general statement or if there is a choice between the F65 and F55 as the a-cam?

The F55 is no F65, but it's a pretty impressive camera on it's own and has some advantages over the F65 (size, weight, data footprint etc)

thanks
 
Last edited:
I just mean that I cannot understand why a Hollywood production would opt to use the F55 as their main camera. The cost of an F65 vs an F55 is really nothing if your production package already includes a pack of primos, a chapman and a technocrane. Also, you're going to have a DIT on one of these sets and the cost of F65RAW vs F55 is not massive - hard drives are cheap.

I can totally "get" the use of the F55 as a semi-matching B-Cam for tricky shots, Steadicam or what-not. It wasn't unheard of for 35mm productions to shoot a bit of 16mm here and there back in the day.

In general I find the F65 was clearly built as a high-end camera, but the F55 was designed to appeal to a much wider range of audiences. It is an excellent camera, have no doubt.

That being said, I have seen plenty of films shot digitally where some truly bizarre decisions have been made by the camera dept. I am thinking particularly of Million Ways to Die in the West - they're shooting outdoors, in the desert, in the middle of the daylight, with a camera with a native ISO of 1250... and the shutter is off!?
 
abreu-canedo said:
This may seem to defeat the purpose of the F65, but I'm wondering if you can bake-in LUTs into SR lite 220Mbps 10bit footage. I know the F65 is meant to really shine at 16bit raw, but I'm wondering if in a pinch you might be able to bake in a LUT.

I ask because when you bring your 10bit footage into Resolve, you wouldn't have to push the image too much, since the LUT already puts the compressed footage in the ballpark. Therefore you wouldn't have to push this limited codec beyond its limits.

Anyone have experience with this? I believe it's possible but I also understand that if you're working with the F65, chances are you aren't recording SR lite.
Click to expand...

You have to choose a gamma to bake in to SR Codec footage. Either S-Log2/S-Gamut2, or S-Log3/S-Gamut3 or S-Gamut3.Cine.

I believe even SR-lite footage is plenty good enough that you should have no problem grading at all. I think baking in a LUT at that stage would do more harm than good.

The F35 had the feature of user gamma curves, Sony actively decided to discontinue this because "Nobody that did it, did it right"
 
JMtheDP said:
I just mean that I cannot understand why a Hollywood production would opt to use the F55 as their main camera. The cost of an F65 vs an F55 is really nothing if your production package already includes a pack of primos, a chapman and a technocrane. Also, you're going to have a DIT on one of these sets and the cost of F65RAW vs F55 is not massive - hard drives are cheap. I can totally "get" the use of the F55 as a semi-matching B-Cam for tricky shots, Steadicam or what-not. It wasn't unheard of for 35mm productions to shoot a bit of 16mm here and there back in the day. In general I find the F65 was clearly built as a high-end camera, but the F55 was designed to appeal to a much wider range of audiences. It is an excellent camera, have no doubt.
Click to expand...

If you have the money, why not go all the way? The mechanical shutter alone would make me choose the F65.

That being said, I have seen plenty of films shot digitally where some truly bizarre decisions have been made by the camera dept. I am thinking particularly of Million Ways to Die in the West - they're shooting outdoors, in the desert, in the middle of the daylight, with a camera with a native ISO of 1250... and the shutter is off!?
Click to expand...

I saw the trailer for that and the moment it came up I had a real WFT? moment. It just screamed Sony on default setting. Very bizarre, especially since we are talking about a major studio release.
 
The global shutter in the F55 works really well, I certainly haven't managed to "break" it in my limited testing. I have an F55 and the F65 sat here right now. The 55 is a nice camera, really nice. It only takes about three minutes with someone who knows what they're doing for it to look pretty acceptable. I sometimes wonder how big films manage to get it so wrong. There are definitely a lot of experienced filmmakers (both directors and DoPs alike) who perhaps should have stuck with film. Others have made the transition brilliantly.

Maybe I just get extremely cranky when I hear anyone moaning about their pitiful budget when it is only single-digit millions.
 
JMtheDP said:
The global shutter in the F55 works really well, I certainly haven't managed to "break" it in my limited testing.
Click to expand...

Oh, it works, it's just that it's an electronic shutter that caps the entire sensor area at once, whereas the mechanical one 'wipes' the sensor and looks more like film. Nothing wrong with that, it just feels a little different than what we may be used to from the film days. But regardless I think the global shutter in the F55 is a huge step up from rolling shutters. In addition to my F3 I have a CCD based Bolex D16 and the motion cadence of the global shutter has spoiled me. Only problem is that the F55 costs $40k.

I have an F55 and the F65 sat here right now. The 55 is a nice camera, really nice. It only takes about three minutes with someone who knows what they're doing for it to look pretty acceptable. I sometimes wonder how big films manage to get it so wrong. There are definitely a lot of experienced filmmakers (both directors and DoPs alike) who perhaps should have stuck with film. Others have made the transition brilliantly. Maybe I just get extremely cranky when I hear anyone moaning about their pitiful budget when it is only single-digit millions.
Click to expand...

I think that some of the problem with the 4k Sony cameras is that the image is almost too good. Very sharp, noise free and with extremely accurate colors. I even have this issue with my F3. You really need to step on it in post to remove the digital curse and I'm not sure if everyone is willing to do that or sees the need for it. Ex Machina was shot on the F65 with old Cooke anamorphic glass and had a very nice filmic grade applied to it. The film really changed my perception of the F65/F55 (as did Oblivion).
 
You have to handle it in post right, but I think this applies to nearly any camera with raw shooting capability.

I never had any issue with my Sony cameras being "too sharp", I only think a camera is too sharp if the sharpness is artificial. If the project calls for it, I am a big fan of diffusion filters.

Oblivion was shot with the F65s and Master Primes, and Fujinon Premier lenses. You will not find a sharper combo!
 
JMtheDP said:
The global shutter in the F55 works really well, I certainly haven't managed to "break" it in my limited testing. I have an F55 and the F65 sat here right now. The 55 is a nice camera, really nice. It only takes about three minutes with someone who knows what they're doing for it to look pretty acceptable. I sometimes wonder how big films manage to get it so wrong. There are definitely a lot of experienced filmmakers (both directors and DoPs alike) who perhaps should have stuck with film. Others have made the transition brilliantly.

Maybe I just get extremely cranky when I hear anyone moaning about their pitiful budget when it is only single-digit millions.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that the majority of the camera companies, and trade magazines informing the great DP's moving from film, are misleading them on what is important. I think they are all a little guilty of number blasting over image analysis. Remember when Vision 3 came out, they toted the science a lot, but more importantly they showed off the image. Everyone wanted to see it projected in a theater to really judge the nuance of the improved film. Some people argued that Vision 2 had better qualities than Vision 3 in certain areas, it was a discussion about image not numbers. Today we judge new cameras based off a list of numbers. As a camera operator who loves the look of cinematic film, I found I really had to push off the beaten path to find out what was important in a digital camera to get film-like images.

A million ways to die in the west is a great example of F55 gone wrong. I'm sure if that team had the F65, they would of managed to make it look as bad. It does not look like a western, it looks like a cheap made for TV movie. If they shot film it might of turned out better not because of the team doing anything different but maybe because the lab and photo chemical process was so perfectly refined and performed by skilled technicians. The F55 post process can easily be messed up even though it is clearly defined because anyone can open final cut and be a "colorist" so perhaps the knowledge and skill of the back end of film is somehow still missing in digital production today. It's easy to see how a producer might color a shot in iMovie on his macbook air and think the high cost of going through a high end post house is not as necessary as it once was.
 
I have an F55 and really like the camera, but I agree that A Million Ways To Die in The West looked horrible. I saw it in the theater(my theater uses Sony 4K projectors) and I don't know how they screwed it up SO badly, because I have seen stuff shot on the 55 and 5 that was beautiful. But I have also been wondering lately how much of the "look" of movies at the theater now is affected by digital projection. I find myself being drawn out of the moment a lot even on big budget flicks because I all of a sudden fell like I'm watching TV(video) at moments.
 
yachacha said:
I think the problem is that the majority of the camera companies, and trade magazines informing the great DP's moving from film, are misleading them on what is important. I think they are all a little guilty of number blasting over image analysis. Remember when Vision 3 came out, they toted the science a lot, but more importantly they showed off the image. Everyone wanted to see it projected in a theater to really judge the nuance of the improved film. Some people argued that Vision 2 had better qualities than Vision 3 in certain areas, it was a discussion about image not numbers. Today we judge new cameras based off a list of numbers.
Click to expand...

Very well said. Unfortunately this is the current reality. But I find higher end professionals stick more to the tested and proven and are less sensitive to internet hype though.

But today it seems like it's basically look at the spec sheet and proclaim if a camera "rocks" or "stinks". Even before the camera is out.

Look at how well praised the Ursa Mini already is and all the people already saying it will beat such and such camera while it is not even out yet. People have taken the 15-stops of dynamic range and other published specs at face value without a single test. We have a single clip out, which honestly doesn't prove to me the camera is an Alexa or F35 killer. But it is already being empowered as such. In reality what it is is a very promising camera at this point.

It's a numbers game out there and image analysis is overrated in the eyes of most, it seems.

As to the F55 and A Million Ways To Die In The West, that movie looked awful. But I also have not been impressed by anything shot on the F55 yet. Marco Polo comes close but it still has that TV movie look of sorts. I think what the F55 lacks is the image depth of the F35, F65 and ARRIs. Which is unfortunate since it is a camera with a lot of potential for narrative and theatrical work, and for the price and class it occupies you would expect it to be better in that regard. But it sticks with the lower end cameras like the F5, FS7, F3, Canons and others when it comes to image depth. Sony would do well to release a F55 with ergonomic improvements and employing the F65 sensor. The question is if they would be able to fit the same or better processing power as in the F65 in such a smaller body.
 
Last edited:
Aaveum said:
... Sony would do well to release a F55 with ergonomic improvements and employing the F65 sensor. The question is if they would be able to fit the same or better processing power as in the F65 in such a smaller body.
Click to expand...
The F65 sensor migration down the F-series has been an idea - me so original - I have proposed for a while but I am beginning to think they'll move past it with the next iteration of their pro cameras. I suspect that the next top of the line model with have a 65mm/Medium Format 8K sensor based on what Sony is manufacturing for Pentax 645Z and Hasselblad (MF 50MPX, which would have to be modded for the 8K data transfer).

The processing power is unlikely to present problem and neither should the heat management in a pro size body and price point.
 
Personally I don't see the S35 frame disappearing any time soon. There are an awful lot of reasons to stay with it, if only for the vast selection of glass that is available.

I saw inside the F65, there is not a lot of room in there. I was working with it today and that thing gets pretty hot - I really don't know if they could keep everything sufficiently cooled without it turning into a leaf blower like the RED is known to from time to time.
 
JMtheDP said:
Personally I don't see the S35 frame disappearing any time soon. There are an awful lot of reasons to stay with it, if only for the vast selection of glass that is available...
Click to expand...
IMO, they have two reasons to move toward the MF technology.

1) To respond to the 65mm Alexa;

2) To move toward the 8K, as is the goal in Japan for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

And Sony is almost there with A7R MKII anyway, which gives (pixel binning but simultaneously read) 8K in full frame and 4K in an oversampled s35 (~ 14 MPX). A7R MK II output may be crippled to only 100 Mbps and 8-bit 4:2:2 HDMI out but, on paper, this could have been the second best camera in the entire Sony lineup for $3,200, only steps behind the $60,0000+ F65.

As to the legacy glass, IMO, Sony will still support it by offering the same options as in A7r MK II - FF or s35 - except that on the high tier/pro models, there won't be any pixel binning in the FF format either.

Just an opinion looking forward. I've been wrong plenty of times before but that's what makes sense to me in terms of corporate management angle.
 
It only serves to benefit the F35/65 community more that so many people are now using Sony DSLR and consider it to be contender with top cinema camera. Once the market is flooded with this footage, the F65 especially will stand out as a camera that looks different, people will wonder how this big old camera looks more cinematic.

The race to get the top 8k camera in a 100mb stream will desert other aspects of motion picture cameras, most likely the motion.
 
I shudder at the idea of squeezing HD under 100mbps, let alone 4k or 8k! I know codecs do improve but there are dangers to making them too complex in-camera. I was always confused when Panasonic and Sony introduced P2, then SxS. P2 in particular... it was hailed as this great improvement thanks to card tech.... but was 100mbps versus 144 of old HDCAM tape!
 
Imagine the file sizes in 8K 60p Raw! (and one has to assume that a top camera/F65 equivalent will be obviously getting that).

But this does set up neatly - F67 will have 8K Raw in 65mm or an oversampled 6K in FF to ease the workload for the TV crews. F57 - and I am assigning names here - will be 6K native in a slightly cropped FF or oversampled 4K (coming off the same 15 MPX as A7R MKII). Each will record compressed Raw and/or a proxy internally, as the new SSD's are quite capable of that. F7 will have oversampled 4K (the same 15 MPX in the s35 mode) at 220 Mbps XAVC.

F67 will have a 65mm (medium format) sensor. F57/7 will share the modded one from A7R MK II, switchable from FF/Vista Vision to s35.

Done and dusted!

PS. I neglected to mention Red Weapon, which will also be 8K in FF/Vista Vision mode. For the "leader of the pack" sake, Sony has to do 8K too.
 
I personally hope the 65mm/FF format cinema cameras stay as a niche product. The image quality from something like an F35/F65 with good lenses is more than enough, and pulling focus is tricky enough as it is.

I remember seeing The Dark Knight in IMAX - even on a wide the depth of field from an IMAX camera in a narrative setting is so paper-thin, the resolution is practically wasted.

The Alexa65 fills a 500GBish card in 11 minutes, by the way.
 
The funny thing about the Medium Format/65mm sensors is that the related infrastructure is normally reserved for the major feature films and, at that budget range, most directors will want to shoot on film (35mm/Vista/65mm Panavision) anyway. Tarantino has even purchased the equipment so a handful of theaters could show his latest feature on a 70mm film projector. The guy can afford a few quirks!

As to focusing, there are sort of the high end pro system - and you are probably far more familiar with them than I - that use everything from sonar to laser to the on-body magnets in order to have a nearly perfect focus at all times. At some point, IMO, it will be pretty similar to what you see from C300 MK II and A7R MK II - whether it's Dual Pixels or just phase-detect and contrast combos - auto will work better and faster than most top pullers.

PS. The medium format lenses have not had a top T-stop - say that twice - rating but the new sensors are capable of such high ISO imagery, then you can use a higher stop and both nail the focus and max out the resolution at the same time.
 
Auto Focus is the work of Satan. Also it's more a DoF issue than a focusing one. There have been lots of people wanting to shoot 65mm in the last decade or two (even Superman Returns wanted to), every time they did they came up against the same problem - it only looks best if projected 65mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top